Guidelines talk:Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity

Hyrule Warriors: Argument of Canonicity

Yes, I'm really going here. This page's reasoning that Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity's current non-canon status is founded on is flawed and false, something that has bothered me since the very day I joined this wiki, and it's time I provide a solid refutation. There are two main reasons.

1. Discrepancies

Point 1) The game does not actually contradict BotW, and the apparent discrepancies were explained in the DLC, something that did not exist for clarity at the time of the original decision about how to cover it.

This Guidelines page's rationale says:

[T]he order of events irreconcilably occur in a different order from what Nintendo has previously established as canon... In Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity, the Diminutive Guardian travels to a point in time around when Zelda is preparing to approach the prospective Champions to ask them to pilot the Divine Beasts.

But this is not true. "EX To Zelda's Side" depicts the Diminuitive Guardian (Terrako) appearing much earlier than this. As it arrives through the portal, the clumps of Malice immediately head to Hyrule Castle where they possess past-Terrako's body and become Harbinger Ganon. Terrako immediately attempts to find Zelda, but is ambushed by Harbinger Ganon. They battle in the Coliseum, and Terrako is crushed by rubble, causing it to go dormant. It then cuts to the dormant Terrako being covered in dirt and moss, indicating a significant amount of time has passed, before it is found by some Bokoblins. The Bokoblins carry it but then see Link in the middle of Castle Town, fleeing and leaving Terrako, still dormant, where it will be found during The Battle of Hyrule Field.

In an interview with Nintendo DREAM, director Ryota Matsushita also says this (translated from here):

However, the timing of right after the mysterious Guardian came from the future to the past is still before the story of "Age of Calamity" began. So at that point, the daily life of the Bokoblins before the big war must also be taking place. They were living peacefully in their own way, and were carrying their prey when Link came along and, in a sense, destroyed their daily life. ......" That scene is the turning point where the story of the battle in "Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity" begins.

It is correct that BotW depicts Link possessing the Master Sword before the Champions were chosen. In Mipha's Diary, she describes meeting Link with the sword before Zelda asked her to pilot Vah Ruta, and in the earliest memory, Champion Revali's Song, Revali acknowledges "that little knight with the darkness-sealing sword." Creating a Champion also says he likely acquired it around the age of twelve or thirteen, but it is the opposite of explicit:

The details of how Link obtained the sword a hundred years ago have been lost to the mists ot time, but since he was in possession of it for a number of years prior to becoming a Champion, he was likely around twelve or thirteen years old when it happened. (p. 376)

However, AoC explains why this is different too. As explained, Harbinger Ganon was operating for an unknown but not insignificant amount of time before Terrako was found during the Battle of Hyrule Field. Harbinger Ganon intentionally sent monsters to surround the Lost Woods to prevent the chosen knight from being found. The narration at the end of "Road to the Ancient Lab" says the sword was not found yet because there were monsters:

To stop Calamity Ganon, it was crucial that they possess the sword that seals the darkness, the latent power dwelling within the princess of Hyrule, and the might of the four Divine Beasts unearthed from across the land.

However, the path to victory was strewn with obstacles. Korok Forest, where the legendary sword slept, had been overrun by monsters, and the princess of Hyrule's power showed no signs of awakening.

The beginning of "EX Guardian of Remembrance" then depicts the Harbinger recruiting Astor, with the following narration explaining the monsters' presence:

The Guardian housing Ganon's Malice took a certain seer as its pawn in order to bring about the Calamity's revival, and through him joined forces with the Yiga Clan, continuing to increase the scope of its power.

With monsters at its command, it repeatedly attempted to delay the awakening of the swordsman who seals the darkness, and to destroy Zelda and the Champions, ultimately hastening the revival of the Calamity.

Note that this level itself is set much later, after the future warriors arrive, Zelda awakens to her power, and most relevantly after Link already has the Master Sword. Astor appears in battle and Zelda recognizes him from Korok Forest. The beginning bit was very clearly provided as a bit of backstory/context.

2. Continuity

Point 2) The game is explicit about it being a branching timeline from BotW, and Nintendo themselves did indeed intend it to be in continuity as such.

In an interview with Famitsu, Matsushita was asked (translated from here; note Fujibayashi and Aonuma were present too.):

--Did you receive any detailed supervision from the Zelda team?

Matsushita: The story and characters were heavily supervised to ensure that the world of "BotW" was inherited, while the action was left to us to a certain extent. However, some of the actions are related to the setting. For example, Mipha uses a dolphin kick swimming technique to fly while creating water currents in the air, and we received many rounds of feedback on the elegance of her swimming and her Zora princess-like appearance, such as, "The bank on the curve should be at a more angular angle. On the other hand, we did not receive any specific comments on the flying itself. In this game, all characters perform challenging "actions that can only be done in a Musou", and in each case, the supervisors said, "It would be more interesting if you did it this way, and it would bring out the charm of the character!" We were able to extend the pure fun of the game.

Not only does Matsushita affirm that the world was "heavily supervised" to make sure it was the same, but if the Zelda team was giving feedback on things as detailed as the angle of Mipha's swimming animations to make the worldbuilding accurate, they would certainly care about the consistency of the order of events, which as I already said was explained. Additionally, if Nintendo was this involved in the game's creation, why is it ignored while the books such as Encyclopedia (which they were perhaps less involved in) are treated as canonical despite being riddled with errors? Even Tears of the Kingdom contradicts BotW/CaC more than AoC does, yet it obviously is covered. The view on AoC's canonicity should not be affected merely because it is not part of the "main" series.

Furthermore, the game itself is clear that it is a branching timeline from BotW. This is on a loading screen tip that only appears after completing the game.

Splintered Worlds
When Terrako—pursued by Ganon's Malice—arrived from the future, a new world was born.

In Japanese:

2つの世界
テラコそしてガノンの怨念が未来からやって来たことで元の歴史とは異なるもう1つの世界が生まれた

Two Worlds
Terrako as well as Ganon's Malice arrived from the future, thus creating another world differing from the first/original history.

Personally, I think this is clear enough that the game is establishing its own timeline placement. But if it's not enough, and it has to appear on an independent timeline graph to be solidly part of the "canon", then this certainly must at least qualify it as "ambiguously canon". Unlike the original Hyrule Warriors, there is no explicit declaration that it is not part of the main canon, and it is not the wiki's place to determine that for readers. (Keep in mind if you look up "is AoC canon" on Google, it highlights the Fandom wiki's leftover guideline page saying it isn't. This is partially Google's fault, but I think it still shows the wiki being far too authoritative.) If you don't believe there's enough to consider it canonical, then there isn't to consider it non-canonical either. (I also think that Nintendo would put it on their online timeline if not for spoiler reasons, but that's a guess.)

All that said, I know this is a somewhat contentious topic, but it's something I believe really needs to be rectified, or at the very least discussed anew. Thanks for reading, and whether or not you agree I hope to see replies. Chubby Bub (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

There are several issues with your criticism, most of which stem from a confident misunderstanding of the timeline. I'm going to collapse the plot details because they ultimately have nothing to do with its canonicity and they're a distraction from the matter. Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity does contradict the timeline, as has been repeatedly demonstrated even before the release of Tears of the Kingdom, and delving any further into the matter is mostly a needless expenditure of time insofar as our scope.

Plot issues

indicating a significant amount of time has passed

This isn't true. There is a layer of dirt that has covered Terrako, but as you can see this is gone when the Bokoblins move him, so it hasn't settled. There outright isn't any moss to speak of. There's no concrete indication for how much time has passed, and it could be a matter of days or even a day. The Matsushita quote also doesn't contribute to the point because it only establishes that there were some monsters that were not part of the assault on Hyrule Field. To the contrary, I would actually take this as evidentiary to the point that it hasn't been very long that Calamity Ganon has been operating, for there to be monsters that are still unaffiliated with Ganon at that point in time. In addition, it's known that the Coliseum was in use before the Calamity, and you can see this in the game itself. What kind of window would exist for this point of attraction to be left in its state?

Creating a Champion also says he likely acquired it around the age of twelve or thirteen, but it is the opposite of explicit:

You're honing in on one detail but in doing so missing another. It is explicitly stated that he has had it for years at this point. What isn't explicit is the exact year.

However, AoC explains why this is different too.

I do not understand how I'm supposed to behave as though you are arguing in good faith that this game does not contradict the timeline with an admission that it is doing just that. I don't believe this is worth going into any further other than for the intellectual exercise of the "what if" that the game is built upon, but there are other places to do that for those who want to do that.

Point 2) The game is explicit about it being a branching timeline from BotW, and Nintendo themselves did indeed intend it to be in continuity as such.

Along the subject of unjustified authoritativeness, this is what you are doing here and you're including a number of presumptions to drive it home.

Firstly, while the quote you use is focused on the aesthetic accuracy rather than the narrative, Nintendo has produced a number of Zelda games in-house that are non-canon (the CEO of Nintendo himself was the executive producer for Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland). On the other hand, Nintendo has allowed third-party companies to produce games that are canon. This is not a factor and the basis of your argument here is more reliant on a personal sense of purity. These games are products, we don't need to forget this.

despite being riddled with errors?

This remains a baseless argument.

Furthermore, the game itself is clear that it is a branching timeline from BotW. This is on a loading screen tip that only appears after completing the game.

So here we are at the primary issue. You don't recognize that this is not how the timeline works. While there are still several elements that have yet to be explained, timeline branches are not simply separate continuities. They are the foundations of what are officially held as true events.

there is no explicit declaration that it is not part of the main canon, and it is not the wiki's place to determine that for readers.

There is. That's the timeline. We are not determining this, we're only documenting it. Rationalizing it as part of the timeline because events have reasons for why they differ is doing this however.

Things which are not on the timeline do not apply to the official record of what is true. Our use of ambiguity is an admission that we do not know what the future intent is for a game's placement on the timeline.

However, in addition to the fact that it is literally not ambiguous that it outright goes against what is stated to be true, you know that Age of Calamity isn't part of it.

Please stop insisting that a separate continuity means a branch of the timeline. This is a poorly-constructed fanon interpretation. Continuity in this aspect is a matter of setting and nothing more. A game creating its own continuity is not a statement on the timeline and we're not going to pretend it is.

The view on AoC's canonicity should not be affected merely because it is not part of the "main" series.

This is quite an ill-spirited reading of the situation. This would never be a factor unless it is explicitly said as much, nor is it stated anywhere as our stance to my knowledge. TriforceTony (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, look. I respectfully disagree with your definition of canonicity on a personal level, but that's fine. Perhaps I overstepped the scope of this conversation there. But let's set that aside, because to be clear, I am not insisting that we necessarily consider Age of Calamity canon nor part of the timeline. This is exactly why I said it should be ambiguously canon if it isn't on the official timeline. I explained that it does not "go against what is stated to be true". You provided reasons why it might, but I provide reasons why it might not, which is why it's still ambiguous, the reason I suggest that classification. When I say "AoC explains how this is different", I don't mean that it contradicts the timeline, I mean that it explains why it differs from the official timeline without contradicting it— because of the "splintered world" created by time travel. To me, the game is very clearly attempting to remain in continuity, but I do not believe there is solid proof that it does not. Chubby Bub (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)