Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Tri Force Heroes

Canonicity
There's really no reason to doubt the canonicity of this game, unless the site policy is to add the ambiguously canon template to all as of yet unreleased video games, in which case, I'll add the ambig template to Zelda Wii U. I would think the unreleased template would be enough for that, tho. --Zero-ELEC (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Zelda U is unmistakably a main series game. It's pointless to consider it as ambiguous, whereas this is up in the air. The ambig template isn't quite here because it's unreleased (although that's a major factor as natural consequence), we just can't discern where it stands yet. 22:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We cannot discern where Zelda U stands, either, since we have practically no story information for it. There's no reason not to believe that both games are canon, what with them having the full title (Note that modern day spin-offs that are ambiguous or non-canon do not have "The Legend of Zelda" in their title). --Zero-ELEC (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree either that TFH needed the ambiguous marker, but was asked to add it. I guess it's because it's a really different Zelda game that people are uncertain of it? Still, FS and FSA are both canon. 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, this is definitely a main series game, even if it's for a portable console and has multiplayer as it's main focus, just as Four Swords and FSA are. We have it listed as the eighteenth official entry, and I really see nothing to dissuade that notion. It's developed internally by Nintendo, has the title of "The Legend of Zelda" (which again, modern spin-offs don't), and there's precedence for multiplayer focused Zelda games. As far as I can see, the question isn't whether it's canonical or not, but more where does it take place in canon. (Which some interviewer should totally ask, while everyone's at E3!) --Zero-ELEC (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur. Linebeck II (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey. Have any of you guys heard of this? This is a direct quote: “Sometimes you have Zelda sequels and what we have today with Zelda: Triforce [sic] Heroes is completely different and not in the timeline of Zelda.” That's from an official at Nintendo of Canada. Does this mean TFH isn't canon? I've been discussing it with my friends. If it's truly not in the Timeline at all, it's pretty much non-canon by definition. And the game does seem VERY silly and cartoonish, even by Zelda standards. It's just not as story-driven as the other games in the series. It all seems to make TFH a spin-off. —ℕʘℬʘⅅㄚℕʘ1 (ㄒaʟҡ) 02:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We've known that quote for awhile now. It is however conflicting. You have a producer who worked on the actual game saying they're not sure about the placement, and a representative who mainly speaks from one side of the entire company and who had no role in the game saying otherwise. It might be worth a mention on the article, but I still find this all very debatable.


 * And honestly, I'm getting really tired of the whole timeline = canonity thing. I'd rather that people ask Nintendo if the game is a main series game, not whether it is on the timeline or not. If the game is a main series game, then I consider it canon. 03:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I dislike the Zelda Timeline. But, if it's not in the Timeline, then it must be in a separate universe altogether, which DEFINITELY makes it non-canon, I, guess… But what do I know… We should probably just wait till the game comes out and see what it's like, but I'm kind of convinced it's a spin-off, judging by its cartoonish and ridiculous nature. —ℕʘℬʘⅅㄚℕʘ1 (ㄒaʟҡ) 04:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nintendo is always readjusting the timeline to suit their ideas. There was a point long ago where LA was the undisputed sequel to ALttP, but with the at the time release of the Oracle games, there was debate over that. No one ever expected that Oracles would be retconned as the sequel to ALttP. What I mean is that Nintendo is always changing things and that nothing they say is definite. I'd also still would rather take word from actual developers than a Canadian rep. Also FS and FSA are still canon, so just because TFH may not look or play like the other Zelda games, that does not discount it. What we need is more information from Nintendo as everything is still conflicted. 02:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, as Zero-ELEC said Nintendo has gone on record stating that "Spin off" titles do not receive "The Legend of Zelda" as part of the title. Which is why games like Link's Crossbow Training and Hyrule Warriors don't have the LoZ part in their titles. I think that until aonuma him self states its not part of the series canon, we should treat it as if it is. its like the whole "Innocent utill proven Guilty" statement, only "Canon until proven uncanon". Ixbran (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said in the edit summary for my recent action on the Links page, we are contacting a Nintendo representative to confirm whether what Gagnon's claim is true. Whether spin-off titles have historically been prefaced with "The Legend of Zelda" in the past is irrelevant (as it doesn't magically prevent them from changing norms). It is currently ambiguous, and that's a relatively kind gesture following Gagnon's claim that this game isn't part of the timeline. 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

More Artwork
Via Zelda Insider. Lots of new character and costume artwork, as well as the silhouette of the games main villain. Ixbran (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Response. 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)