I was going to bring up how Assassin’s Creed 4 is a prequel to 3 and is considered the best in the franchise, but then I remembered that every moment outside the Animus takes place after the other entries. So in terms of overall narrative, it’s a sequel.

Admittedly, this change took place before Skyward Sword, but its location as furthest back, chronologically, in the Zelda series is no more apparent in that game than any of the other games’ chronological locations are. There is a sense of some very vague relativity, but to *what* Zelda game each is referring itself relatively is, on the basis of the evidence in the games alone, pure speculation. Only that ridiculous handbook can offer conclusive evidence–evidence not present in the games themselves.

The links between Zelda games are, for me, like the links between Final Fantasy games. Sometimes, they appear to take place in the same world, and there are ‘echoes’ of this or that, but any truly ‘solid’ connexion which matters in terms of its effect on the world and the story and so on? Almost entirely absent. The Wind Waker has the most of that, and even then it is largely irrelevant in practical terms except as an explanation of how things came to be as they are–and even then, any Zelda game would suffice to fit the bill.

So, I don’t know that we can praise Skyward Sword too much for being a ‘great prequel’. Its chronological connexion to the ‘sequel’ games may be something avowed by the creators, but its actual significance and presence in the games is so small that few people would even notice unless they were first made aware of the fact.