Talk: Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity

Spin-Off Canon

How come its still considered a spin-off since they made it clear that this game is basically their canon way of telling the story of the events that took place 100 years before Breath of the Wild events? -- Wolfgerlion64 (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Hyrule Warriors series is a spin-off series, and this new game has "Hyrule Warriors:" in the title, which makes it part of that series. But remember, being a spin-off doesn't automatically make it non-canon. There are other game series that have had canon spin-offs before, it's nothing new. — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)} 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I can understand some people wondering why this is still considered a spin-off even though they confirmed it being a prequel. It's just kinda weird seeing this being treated as spin-off while The Adventure of Link (which has a completely different gameplay system (and minor different name pattern) than any other games in the series) being treated as main game. Even more since this is completely seperated to the original Hyrule Warriors title. I'd still put it as spin-off on this website, but might need to be discussed in the future depending on how Nintendo themself treat this game in the future like are they gonna list it amongst main games on official sources or do they list it seperate etc. --Raygius (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

First Canon Game with Multiple Playable Characters?

Would Age of Calamity qualify as this? Or would Spirit Tracks be considered this? Though I guess if we wanna stretch it, Four Swords would be the first one. Scorching Emblem (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Since Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity is non-canon, it wouldn't matter. — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)} 13:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Canonicity, Again

Although a longtime reader, I'm new to editing this wiki so I apologize if I'm missing anything. (I've read the Canon Policy.) However I must ask: why is this game, and things from it, labeled as non-canon? There is no indication it is non-canon, it just (mostly) doesn't take place in the same timeline as Breath of the Wild. In the beginning we see Terrako travel from BotW's timeline, which is canon, to this new one. Also Riju, Sidon, Teba and Yunobo appear from that timeline. Just because it is a new timeline does not make it non-canon... does it? Plus, how could a character like Terrako, who is the exact same individual in both timelines, be canon in one and not the other? (Not to mention some articles are inconsistent on this and this would make articles like Terrako's a mess.) Chubby Potato (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, if it wasn't clear enough from the actual events of the game, a loading text screen says the following: "Splintered Worlds: When Terrako—pursued by Ganon's Malice—arrived from the future, a new world was born." So it's yet another timeline split, not a separate canon. Chubby Potato (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Many people have gotten confused about this and we were pretty confused ourselves at first. We looked over the events of the game and compared them to the events of Breath of the Wild and realized that even without time travel from Breath of the Wild, events don't line up. In Breath of the Wild, Daruk's Journal states that Link got the Master Sword around when he was 12 or 13, however, in Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, Link is already past that age and has not yet obtained the Master Sword. Even without time travel, this shouldn't be this way because Terrako traveled to after these events. Daruk's Journal also implies that Link was made Zelda's knight after he became a champion, which also contradicts what happens in Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity (although this is after Terrako travels back in time). Also what many people become confused about is Nintendo's word choice when they announced the game. Nintendo never directly confirmed AoC to be canon. What they said was "This game takes place 100 years before the events of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild." If Nintendo ever releases any media that confirms AoC to be a new timeline (even with contradictions) then we can switch everything over. Hopefully, if anyone else is confused they will see this message! I've also gone and updated the Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity Guidelines, so any other questions you have should be able to be answered there. Thank you! — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)} 13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. By the way, while Daruk's Journal talks about Link being appointed as Zelda's knight, it's Mipha's Diary that says he acquired the sword before she became the pilot or a Champion; Revali's implies this too. It's Creating a Champion that specifies the age. Personally, I think it would make more sense to have AoC to be "Ambiguously Canon", although I understand that isn't exactly how it's defined in the Canon Policy. Chubby Potato (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, I think "Ambiguously Canon" would be more fitting. Regarding Nintendo's statements, you are right, they do not directly confirm that it's canon, but they also don't deny it either. In fact, I'm more inclined to think that these statements imply its canon, but this is speculation on my part.
And about Daruk's Training Journal, I've read through it and there is absolutely no mention of the Master Sword or Link's age. All it mentions is that one day Daruk saw "a little tiny guy" who "was handy with a sword" (page 3). Daruk even goes to call Link "little guy" again at the beginning of page 4, the end of page 6, page 7, and page 8, so this is defintely not a comment in Link's age but rather his stature. He even calls Princess Zelda little and tiny at pages 5 and 8 respectively, so this seems more a comment of the Hylian's size compared to that of a Goron's. There is no contradictions with the established canon to be found here or in any other of the Champion's journals.
Also if what Chubby Potato is saying is true, then I don't think any info that came from Creating a Champion can even remotely classify as canon. This is a book that features information regarding the making of the game, and thus does not fully represent the final state of the game, so any info in it is by no means 100% valid. Alt (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking into the journal thing a bit more. I didn't get that information myself and I just pulled it from another person on our Discord. I'll go look around and update that. Also, I would have thought it to be ambiguous, but everyone else was thinking non-canon. I'm fine with either, so I didn't argue. — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)} 01:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a question if it could fit (in Creating a champion book they sad Link got the Mastersword as a child and in Miphas Diary Link visited her with other knights a while before Zelda asked her to become a champion and he already has the Master Sword), that is not what makes something canon, the simple question is, did Nintendo stated that this game is canon,that it is part of the zelda universe? Even if it contridicts some of the lore, it is nothing new that Nintendo retcon something, so it fits to a new story
Nintendo didn't say it is canon so the default situation as a spin off game is, it is not canon --Soran (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, what Nintendo says is the top canon, but when Nintendo doesn't say anything about it we use what we've got, which would be the time contradictions. There isn't really a point to debating here though because we both agree for it to be non-canon. — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)} 23:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Alt, Creating a Champion is partially about the development of Breath of the Wild but it also contains a lot of in-universe information like an encyclopedia. In fact quite a few articles could use some of the information from it.
Anyway, the reason why I think "Ambiguously Canon" is a lot better is exactly what was said— Nintendo hasn't made an official statement. Think of a reader visiting the wiki. If they read that Age of Calamity is Non-Canon, they will likely assume Nintendo made a statement saying so (like the first Hyrule Warriors), whereas an Ambiguous tag explains that it is not certain. Indeed, that was my reaction and the reason I made this post.
I think these inconsistencies are likely oversights/retcons, and if they weren't there, I would think that loading screen would all but confirm a Canon timeline split. But because of them we aren't sure, which is exactly what "ambiguous" conveys. I don't think being a spin-off necessitates a Non-Canon status, particularly when Nintendo's trailers and the in-game text itself imply it isn't. For what it's worth, there was a panel at TGS 2020 with information about the game preceding the gameplay, which may possibly give us information on the developers' stances, but it's in Japanese so I don't know what they are saying. Maybe it's worth a look. Chubby Potato (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: I found a translated, mostly complete transcript of the show. Part of it in the beginning was missing that seemed like it could be useful, but there were two things that stuck out to me: one, the devs don't consider AoC to be a spin-off in the same way Hyrule Warriors was, they really consider it to be part of the same world. Two, they were extremely proud of working closely with the Zelda team to make it accurate to the world of BotW. That makes it kind of odd they missed the chronology of Link obtaining the Master Sword and becoming Zelda's knight, but it says to me that these were mistakes and the intention was to have a Canon split timeline. Not that it’s an official statement, but it does show authorial intent. (I still think Ambiguously Canon is the way to go, it's more accurate and less confusing.) Chubby Potato (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you on making it Ambig, but I can't really change anything without a vote (which we already had and ended with non-canon). There's a lot of people involved in this discussion, so why don't all you guys join our Discord server? It's easier to use than these talk pages. And you can join any votes we make in the future as well. — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)} 13:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It probably doesn't matter since the vote decided non-canon, but to be fair, Ocarina of Time had noticeable breaches with the backstory provided in the manual for A Link to the Past, and that never caused OoT or ALttP to become non-canon. Heck, if anything, they made a third timeline split precisely to AVOID designating ALttP and other pre-OoT games (as well as the Oracle games) non-canon. Besides, by that logic, Breath of the Wild cannot be canon to Zelda since we don't even know WHEN that game is set, and the fact that it has items from all three timelines muddles the issue further. Otness e (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past are both canon because Encyclopedia says that they are. The manual for A Link to the Past is superseded by Encyclopedia because it's more recent. In this case, however, what we have in-game is the most recent media, so it's what we use. When something contradicts another thing in two different media, we will use what the more recent one says. — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)} 17:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Should everything about Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity be changed to ambiguously canon? Nintendo didn't outright say this entry isn't canon unlike how they did with the first. They actually seem to be marketing Age of Calamity as canon. Not to mention how Cadence of Hyrule is only given ambiguously canon status. The Zelda series has had time travel and timeline splits before, namely with Ocarina of Time RavioLorule (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If you read the above messages, and on these Guidelines, it gives our reason for saying this is non-canon. It's the best source we have until we can get a direct confirmation. — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)}

Vandalism

For some reason I can't find the edit history of when exactly it happened to just revert the change right away, but some jokester changed every mention of Terrako to the name "Gerald the Egg". I don't have the time right now, but leaving this note in the hope someone with more Wiki know-how will remove that. Gamtos (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this message in particular was missed, but it seems the vandalism has been cleared. Thanks for messaging! — 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 ^{(𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤)} 02:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)