Right at the start of the videogame history, games were pretty simple, the goals were pretty much getting the high score, moving your avatar to the finish line and many other linear missions without any significant meaning.

But as time pass, the avatars were getting shape and with that they were having a name, a function and a world to survive and accomplish their ambitious objectives. 

Some of these characters finished their history with just one game, but others have a long adventure that continues for generations (Hardware and lore-wise).

We all know that no matter the media, the author will definetily miss some marks of continuity, but in videogames its like part of the identity of some franchises to have no sense of linearity of their story. Some people find funny, some get furious, some get confused and some just go with the flow and enjoy the game despite the flaws in the script.

This thread is to list, discuss and maybe help to understand some of the most remarkbles story disconection and inconsistencies in videogames franchises.

The entire Zelda time line makes me laugh because it makes no sense. It magically splits into 3 paths from Ocarina. I still maintain there isn't a continuous story across all games but Nintendo just tried to force it.

I completely agree. I think Nintendo retconned a chronology as a fun gift for the fans, but doesn't actually adhere to it.

Well, when it envolves time travelling, theres no way to not get messy. I am always open to the theory that you cant erase a catastrophic present by going back in time an fixing what got wrong before, youll just branch out in alternative timelines.

However I agree that it was just an afterthought to them after making so many Zelda games, despite blending so well, specially the part of the many process of specification among Ritos and Zoras and many others cameos or references 

Nintendo in general isn't a big fan of timelines, it doesn't really matter too much though. The games on their own are pretty darn good. The only time a timeline in Zelda kind of mattered was in windwaker.

Usually big overarching timelines tend to get convoluted, especially when it inevitably turns into a Multivetrse. Being free of them, tends to be just fine for a lot of games and movies. Not everything is a MCU and after endgame the MCU timeline also got way too complex for it's own good.

If you wanna do timelines make it chronological with maybe a few prequels in the distant past. However preferably don't use it to fill gaps, it usually tends to get messy when you do. For example Metroid.

It's an interesting Japanese concept that you have games and anime series/seasons after another that aren't sequels but almost a remake or rather just new version using same elements.

I'm fascinated by long movie/game/other series, patterns and turns of where story goes when you have 5-6-7-more parts. And as such this kind Final Fantasy style franchises are kind of frustrating for me. But it's also good that you can enjoy one piece alone, without having gone through all of series (I'm looking at you, MCU).

Either way, I do like in games the kind of continuity that for example old King's Quest 1-7 had, and Sierra adventures in general.
In story oriented games it's more significant, but I also like character lore development in fighting games.

I actually think the Child and Adult timelines make sense as a split from the time-travelling events of Ocarina. Both the OoT>MM>TP and OoT>WW>PH>ST timelines make sense and feel like they were thought out to some degree. Skyward Sword also seems like a well thought out prequel to the events of all Zelda games.

The Downfall timeline though, that's just kinda stupid. It's like, "we didn't know where to fit these games so look, it's the ones where Link lost!" and I guess it makes some sense because A Link to the Past implies that some hero lost against Ganon in the past, but eh, it feels really contrived.

The worst thing for me is how Breath of the Wild ended up breaking the timeline, where it took them years to decide on where to put it and even when they did it makes no sense at all, so it was essentially a complete reboot - only to fuck up the rebooted continuity at the first time of asking, with Tears of the Kingdom acting basically as a complete retcon of Breath of the Wild's story.

I think both things can be awesome, but lately I have a preference for the latter. It's one thing I like about Digimon (especially compared to Pokémon), that because everything is so standalone, you can just go into anything without needing to know or remember other stuff from the franchise, and the strengths or weaknesses of one project don't affect the other one at all.

Like say, if something comes out and it's absolute garbage? That's fine, it won't affect the next thing. Whereas franchises with huge continuity (like the MCU) can lose their whole meaning really fast if they put out a couple shit entries.