That has got to be one of the most miserable jobs you can do with a white collar. Imagine trying to asspull Watsonian explanations for questions that only have Doylist answers to people who will mail you anthrax if you just tell them the truth, which is that Nintendo doesn't give a shit about lore.
Yup. I'm a fan of lore in a lot of series, but that's not why I play Zelda.
I play Zelda because it's fun. I like the creative puzzles that aren't super hard, but hard enough to require a little bit of thinking. I like that there's progression, but no leveling system, so a lot of the progression is learning to use new tools. I like the silly side quests.
I've never really been interested in Zelda lore, so I'm honestly okay with things not quite lining up. I guess I see each entry as a separate universe where Link saves Zelda in a different way each time. Zelda games rarely have direct sequels, and I think that was the real mistake this time around. Just let me fight Ganon or whatever in a new cycle every time, I don't need any kind of story coherency.
Planescape: Zelda where all Zelda universe coalesce into the city of doors. Wait, wrong franchise.
You're thinking of Planescape: Spider-Man
Lore has always been on the back burner when it comes to the Zelda franchise, and I imagine is a major part of why Nintendo so rarely makes any direct sequels to Zelda games in the first place, because they really don't seem to like continuity when it comes to Zelda. The only reason Nintendo even wrote Hyrule Historia and established an "official" timeline for the series (which didn't even make sense at the time, and makes even less sense with the games released after) is because fans wouldn't shut up about it.
TL;DR - "Magic."
Laziness
Something not turning out how you wanted doesn't make anyone lazy you sack of potatoes.
People have simply assumed the reason behind the disappearance to likely be related to ancient Sheikah technology and it seems there is no one who has tried to explore the matter further
Oh yeah, it's not like in-universe a bunch of nerds was absolutely obsessed with the stuff and all associated mysteries.
Look, I don't even mind if the explanation is just "we got rid of them because they're not necessary for the new story we're telling", that works for me. But if you try explaining it anyway, and that's your answer, boooo.
Agreed. They could just say that Link isn't as interested in Sheikah technology because it's no longer needed, so the game doesn't render it. It could still exist in-universe without having set pieces in the game.
Honestly, I would have been okay with this explanation if at least a couple of NPCs mentioned it in-game.
That has got to be one of the most miserable jobs you can do with a white collar. Imagine trying to asspull Watsonian explanations for questions that only have Doylist answers to people who will mail you anthrax if you just tell them the truth, which is that Nintendo doesn't give a shit about lore.
Yup. I'm a fan of lore in a lot of series, but that's not why I play Zelda.
I play Zelda because it's fun. I like the creative puzzles that aren't super hard, but hard enough to require a little bit of thinking. I like that there's progression, but no leveling system, so a lot of the progression is learning to use new tools. I like the silly side quests.
I've never really been interested in Zelda lore, so I'm honestly okay with things not quite lining up. I guess I see each entry as a separate universe where Link saves Zelda in a different way each time. Zelda games rarely have direct sequels, and I think that was the real mistake this time around. Just let me fight Ganon or whatever in a new cycle every time, I don't need any kind of story coherency.
Planescape: Zelda where all Zelda universe coalesce into the city of doors. Wait, wrong franchise.
You're thinking of Planescape: Spider-Man
Lore has always been on the back burner when it comes to the Zelda franchise, and I imagine is a major part of why Nintendo so rarely makes any direct sequels to Zelda games in the first place, because they really don't seem to like continuity when it comes to Zelda. The only reason Nintendo even wrote Hyrule Historia and established an "official" timeline for the series (which didn't even make sense at the time, and makes even less sense with the games released after) is because fans wouldn't shut up about it.
TL;DR - "Magic."
Laziness
Something not turning out how you wanted doesn't make anyone lazy you sack of potatoes.
Oh yeah, it's not like in-universe a bunch of nerds was absolutely obsessed with the stuff and all associated mysteries.
Look, I don't even mind if the explanation is just "we got rid of them because they're not necessary for the new story we're telling", that works for me. But if you try explaining it anyway, and that's your answer, boooo.
Agreed. They could just say that Link isn't as interested in Sheikah technology because it's no longer needed, so the game doesn't render it. It could still exist in-universe without having set pieces in the game.
Honestly, I would have been okay with this explanation if at least a couple of NPCs mentioned it in-game.