Where The Heck Does MC Go...

[Zemen]

it seems that the placement of MC on the timline varies a lot from person to person. there seems to be a huge 50/50 agreement on where it goes. many people say its the first game in the series and many people say that it is not the first game in the series, so my question that i want to be discussed in this thread is just where would you place MC on the timeline and what reasons do you have for placing it there?

i will answer my question and rather than having people debate what someone else says, i just want everyone to state what they think without bashing someone elses ideas. if you dont like what someone has to say, then dont argue with them, just state what you think.

so here is what i think:

i believe that MC is the first in the series for multiple reasons.

first of these reasons is the back story told at the beginning of the game. there is not a single mention of any great evil prior to this time period, only mention of a war that caused many monsters to fight for a great power and they were captured because of their wickedness. also, there is no mention of Link in the back story, but instead the hero of men known as gustav. there is no higher power evil, there is no Link, there is no legend told in the game that seems to be explaining any events in any of the other games.

reason number two why i think its first:

the clothing. in the back story when they talk about Gustav, he is not wearing a green hat but he is wearing a green tunic. also, he is no wielding the master sword but is instead wielding a sword created by a race that doesnt exist in any of the other games. during the game you eventually come upon a wizard who was transformed into a hat/duck mix (haha). after you save him he gives you a green hat saying that it suits you. in every other game you wear a green hat, start out with a green hat, or eventually get a green hat saying that an ancient hero once wore a hat like it, but in this game you get a green hat only because a wizard thinks it looks good on you. he never says an ancient hero wore a hat like it once, and since the game takes place in hyrule, i would think that if it was not the first game in the series than someone would have mentioned an ancient hero who used to wear the same hat.

reason number 3:

the enemy. the main bad guy in the game is Vaati. in the game he has his own back story and everything, just like Ganondorf in OoT. ganondorf is not at all mentioned anywhere or even hinted to in this game. this is the only game that takes place in hyrule that has nothing to do with ganondorf. this would lead me to believe that no one knows who ganondorf is and he has not come into the series yet. if ganondorf is not in the series yet, then this game would HAVE to come before OoT because that is the game in which ganondorf is introduced, and if MC comes before OoT then it is the first game in the timeline.

4th reason why it is the first game:

the different races in the game. there are only like one or two gorons, there are no zoras, and the piccori only appear in this game. now many people put this game after WW and PH, but this would make no sense, because the rito tribe is not around. the rito tribe was a tribe of flying creatures. in order for MC to come after WW then the rito tribe would to have died out sometime, but i would think that seeing as how MC has a bunch of land it would be easier for a flying tribe to exist. also with the piccori, i think at some point the deku tree is created or grown or whatever after MC takes place and turns the piccori who are forest protecting creatures into kokiri who are the forest protectors in OoT.

now it is time to discuss. as i said before, i dont want someone to just come in and start telling me whats wrong with my explanation. thats not what this thread is for. i just want you to state your ideas and after we have plenty of ideas presented then we can start arguing. thank you.

[loki212]

well I for one agree with you. I think Mc comes first. I think there is a quote even with Miyamoto saying its first,if i can find it ill edit this post. But it always hit me as before Ganon even though there are Moblins who are supposed to be his minons, where that came form is beyond me. But overall i agree with you.

[MrMosley]

well I for one agree with you. I think Mc comes first. I think there is a quote even with Miyamoto saying its first,if i can find it ill edit this post. But it always hit me as before Ganon even though there are Moblins who are supposed to be his minons, where that came form is beyond me. But overall i agree with you.


I would like to see that quote. Not because I don't believe you, but just because I think I have seen it myself before, but just don't remember well enough to agree. I for one do not think it comes first. Mainly because, although Zemen125 has some very good reasons, I just don't think theres enough there to support where it goes exactly.

My initial thought on the game was simple: Its look and design made me feel that it came after WW. I thought, whenever I had only played it for the first few portions, that the Hyrule in the game was the New Hyrule which Tetra and Link went looking for after WW. There was a quote in the game about Link and Zelda being "childhood friends", which made me think that they were the same Link and Zelda from WW, and that Tetra in finding this New Hyrule took on her true role as Princess.

I also do not believe that the "hat" think is very supportive. Just because the Link in this game recieves the hat at the end and every other Link carries the same trait dosen't lead me to believe that this game had to come before. It could have came after, and Ezlo could have said "It suits you" because of the previous hero's looks. Even though Ezlo didn't know of the previous heroes, he could have said that as sort of, one of those things that just seems right.

If it came after WW, then references to Ganon may be ignored by the fact that he was known to be destroyed and left in the previous Hyrule, and that he had never yet been a problem in the New Hyrule.

The intro of MC was very short, and didn't really say anything about a war, just that the world was on the verge of being swallowed by shadow. Which is when the Picori gave Gustav a sword to vanquish this evil. So it does make reference to a previous evil, and the picture shown when the story speaks of the world about to be "swallowed by shadow" depicts a creature which looks like a Moblin, or perhaps even Ganon himself (its a big pig-like-thing).

To me, the intro to MC dosen't give a lot of information as to what exactly it is referring to. It dosen't actually say the guys name was Gustav, but that was apparently revealed later on. It would be a huge stretch to say that the story was actually referring to the original game, LoZ. The reason I say this is because the one thing that I catch more than anything else that the story says is "With Wisdom and Courage, the hero....". The original Zelda saw Link gathering the Triforce of Wisdom, and you could assume that he already had the Triforce of Courage since its not really mentioned, but has to be there somewhere. So if Link, by the time he reached Ganon, had gathered the Triforce of Wisdom pieces, he would be in possesion of both Wisdom and Courage, and upon defeating Ganon would have saved Hyrule and its people.

[Skull_Kid]

Myamoto never said that MC was the first in the timeline... what he said was that Four Swords(for the GBA) was the first game in the timeline(and that was before MC came out, so, you see Loki's point, cuz MC has to come before FS)

[Zemen]

if myamoto says that FS comes first (before MC came out) then MC would have to be the first game. also, the back story of MC was about Gustav. you dont find that out til later on in the game. this is a HUGE hint that it does not come after any game that we know of.

if we have a back story about Gustav, and not Link, then there should be no argument that MC is first in the timeline. every game has had Link being the hero and has told a story about a past hero (that we know is Link) saving the world but this is a back story about Gustav. just beacuse there is a picture of a creature that looks like ganon does not mean it is ganon. if there was one specific evil trying to take over the world it would have been mentioned in the back story. also, moblins look very similar to Ganon only smaller so it could very well have just been a moblin.

i feel that the fact that he recieves his hat is a big hint too. like i said before, in every other game you start out with the hat, or someone gives you that hat saying that a hero once wore a hat like that, but this is just someone giving him a hat as a gift. the hat had to have come from somewhere and this is a perfect set up as to why there is a hat.

also the monsters were released by the chest. in the back story it says that the evil was sealed away in the chest with the piccori sword but when vaati destroys the sword and releases the monsters in the chest, there is no ganon. only a bunch of other monsters.

also there was mention that Zelda and Link are childhood friends in MC. this is not a very solid theory as to why its not the first game. Link is supposedly a descendant of a royal hylian knight so it would make sense that his family is close with the royal family. also, in many other games in the series, Link knows Zelda in one way or another prior to his adventures.

[Skull_Kid]

you are repeating yourself... But I have to agree with you in that... Also, the picture of the Ganon-like thing is in fact, a Spear Moblin, if you look to it and look to the Moblin's Sprite, you'll see that Moblin's are more Ganon-ish in this game, wich doesn't mean that Ganon already existed.
I think that MC is set before Ganondorf was even born

[Zemen]

i wasnt repeating myself on purpose. i was repeating other ideas i stated in order to introduce new ideas that tied in with the old ones, but yes, that creature looks more like a moblin than it does ganon, also, ganon does look like all of them anyway so who knows if it is him or not, but i believe it is not him because there is no mention of him, and like i said, there is no mention of ONE evil creature in the back story but instead a group of evil creatures.

[MrMosley]

Ok, so I will change my initial argument, and say that MC comes first. Not because of the hat, but because now that I am trying to make my own timeline, thats basically the only place I can put it. Four Swords Adventures gives more insight into Ganon and his power. Since he does not have the Triforce in this game and we see him get the Trident for the first (historical) time, it must come before ALttP. Four Swords is somewhat of a sequel to Minish Cap in the way that Wind Waker was to Ocarina, so taking all of that into consideration, MC can be placed first, followed by FS, and FSA coming sometime later.

[Midna666]

I think that the Minish Cap and the rest of the Four Swords take place in there own timeline,which I call the bad Zelda games timeline.

[Axle the Beast]

I always kind of thought that MC and the other Capcom games (Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures, Oracle series) didn't follow the normal timeline.

After all, not only were they made by a different creator, but a different company.

[cpunerd96]

I haven't played MC but I know for a fact that Shigeru Miyamoto said OoT came first.

[Midna666]

I haven't played MC but I know for a fact that Shigeru Miyamoto said OoT came first.

Miyamoto said that back in 1998.

[Zemen]

yeah, miyamoto said that before MC even came out.

[Ando]

Can I just add real quick here that (even though this might just be developer oversight) The Minish Cap characters speak in The Wind Waker Hylian? If you were to take that as law, it would be clear that The Minish Cap comes AFTER The Wind Waker (or at least after Ocarina of Time, on the adult timeline, depending on when [in-game] the language was developed).

[mewtwolord]

well maybe it's another part o ww like ph

[Zemen]

Can I just add real quick here that (even though this might just be developer oversight) The Minish Cap characters speak in The Wind Waker Hylian? If you were to take that as law, it would be clear that The Minish Cap comes AFTER The Wind Waker (or at least after Ocarina of Time, on the adult timeline, depending on when [in-game] the language was developed).

i dont think that is a solid reason for anything. you are obviously the toon link and the characters in the game are obviously closely resembling the characters from WW and PH, but thats just because thats how they felt like making the game. the language could have been overlooked, or over time, the creators just changed up the language for originality sake. none of the characters in TP look anything like those of the characters in OoT or MM, but we know (most of us do anyway) that it takes place after those games.

and just because they speak the same hylian as WW does not AT ALL mean that it comes after it, that could also mean it comes before it, which if MC is the first game in the timeline, would be before WW.

i believe MC to be the first in the timeline, which means it comes before OoT, then WW after that in the adult timeline. i cant recall anyone speaking hylian in OoT to compare to MC, so if they dont speak any hylian to compare, then it is plausible that WW got their Hylian from MC, because it was passed down and just never used in OoT.

[Ando]

i dont think that is a solid reason for anything. you are obviously the toon link and the characters in the game are obviously closely resembling the characters from WW and PH, but thats just because thats how they felt like making the game. the language could have been overlooked, or over time, the creators just changed up the language for originality sake. none of the characters in TP look anything like those of the characters in OoT or MM, but we know (most of us do anyway) that it takes place after those games.

and just because they speak the same hylian as WW does not AT ALL mean that it comes after it, that could also mean it comes before it, which if MC is the first game in the timeline, would be before WW.

i believe MC to be the first in the timeline, which means it comes before OoT, then WW after that in the adult timeline. i cant recall anyone speaking hylian in OoT to compare to MC, so if they dont speak any hylian to compare, then it is plausible that WW got their Hylian from MC, because it was passed down and just never used in OoT.

Not to be totally rude here, but did you read my post at all? :/ I did say "this could just be developer oversight", and that, even if someone DOES assume that it means something, it might not mean that TMC comes AFTER TWW, just that somewhere in-between OoT and TWW that language was developed.

And... as for the last part, all of the writing in OoT and MM is a separate Hylian text from what is seen in TWW and TMC (and TP for that matter). So it's very possible that they started off with one writing system (OoT and MM), then after hundreds of years, the writing evolved to a new form (TWW and TMC). After all, the people of OoT -> TP managed to completely OVERHAUL their writing system in the matter of a century, so. :P

[Zemen]

Not to be totally rude here, but did you read my post at all? :/ I did say "this could just be developer oversight", and that, even if someone DOES assume that it means something, it might not mean that TMC comes AFTER TWW, just that somewhere in-between OoT and TWW that language was developed.

And... as for the last part, all of the writing in OoT and MM is a separate Hylian text from what is seen in TWW and TMC (and TP for that matter). So it's very possible that they started off with one writing system (OoT and MM), then after hundreds of years, the writing evolved to a new form (TWW and TMC). After all, the people of OoT -> TP managed to completely OVERHAUL their writing system in the matter of a century, so. :P

for starters, i did read your post. i wasnt shooting you down at all if thats what you think. i just gave my ideas for those changes.

and as far as the language itself goes, WW and MC were developed roughly around the same times with TP following them, so that could be why the language in those games are the same or similar. rather than creating two different languages for the games, they just decided to use the same symbols.

[Ando]

for starters, i did read your post. i wasnt shooting you down at all if thats what you think. i just gave my ideas for those changes.

Oh, I'm terribly sorry then; I must have mis-interpreted your meaning. I'm a little tired right now. :P

Yeah, my best guess is that it's just a development choice that they decided to make when making the game, as opposed to a real story-related design choice. I'm just surprised that up to this point no "TMC can't be first!" supporters have never brought it up.

[Zemen]

Oh, I'm terribly sorry then; I must have mis-interpreted your meaning. I'm a little tired right now. :P

Yeah, my best guess is that it's just a development choice that they decided to make when making the game, as opposed to a real story-related design choice. I'm just surprised that up to this point no "TMC can't be first!" supporters have never brought it up.

its cool, and yeah i think that people dead set on it not being first would bring up the tiniest things. im sure it was just "laziness" on the developers. they probably didnt think anyone would go as far as to compare languages.

also, thats like saying that the pot designs in WW and MC are the same so they must be connected in the adult timeline haha.

[Chris]

the enemy. the main bad guy in the game is Vaati. in the game he has his own back story and everything, just like Ganondorf in OoT. ganondorf is not at all mentioned anywhere or even hinted to in this game. this is the only game that takes place in hyrule that has nothing to do with ganondorf. this would lead me to believe that no one knows who ganondorf is and he has not come into the series yet. if ganondorf is not in the series yet, then this game would HAVE to come before OoT because that is the game in which ganondorf is introduced, and if MC comes before OoT then it is the first game in the timeline.

I think this is the best one. It says that a Gerudo Male is born every 100 years. So, if there is no Ganondorf, then it must mean 100 years have not past. I guess I agree that it is the first in the series.

[cpunerd96]

I haven't played MC but I know for a fact that Shigeru Miyamoto said OoT came first.
This does make sense. But I still think that it makes sense for OoT to come first.
I'll have a talk with Shigeru Miyamoto.
(If I can find his email and he actually replys to emails.)

[Skull_Kid]

This does make sense. But I still think that it makes sense for OoT to come first.
I'll have a talk with Shigeru Miyamoto.
(If I can find his email and he actually replys to emails.)

For God's sake, after that, Myiamoto said that FS came before OoT, and MC is a sure sequel to it... For how long will I have to keep repeating this?

[Zemen]

For God's sake, after that, Myiamoto said that FS came before OoT, and MC is a sure sequel to it... For how long will I have to keep repeating this?

you mean MC is a prequel?

[Skull_Kid]

you mean MC is a prequel?

Exactly, it was a typo, i just woke up, so it's still hard to get words together

[Mike Pothier]

All the Capcom Zeldas (MC, FS, Oracle games) I tend to not care where they go, and I even half suspect they don't belong anywhere in the timeline.

[Zemen]

All the Capcom Zeldas (MC, FS, Oracle games) I tend to not care where they go, and I even half suspect they don't belong anywhere in the timeline.

well FSA has ganon in it and has the trifork of power or the trident of power in it or whatever you want to call it and seeing as how ganon appears in other zelda games and has the trident in another zelda game, we have to include them in the timeline. just because they were made by capcom does not mean that they are not canon. miyamoto is still involved in the creation of the games hes just doing it while someone else is paying the bills.

[cpunerd96]

For God's sake, after that, Myiamoto said that FS came before OoT, and MC is a sure sequel to it... For how long will I have to keep repeating this?
Oh! I didn't take the time to read the entire topic!
I don't really know anything (other than the fact that there is four links) about Four Swords anyway.

[Zemen]

Oh! I didn't take the time to read the entire topic!
I don't really know anything (other than the fact that there is four links) about Four Swords anyway.

heres the quick version.

MC: Vaati releases evil onto the world that was once sealed away in a chest and held shut by the power of the picori blade. Vaati destroys the picori blade making it the white sword. Vaati is after the light force and Zelda gets in his way so he turns her to stone. Link is off to try and return power to the white sword to make it the picori blade so he can turn Zelda back to normal and defeat Vaati who is after the light force which ends up being inside of Zelda herself. Vaati is trapped in the very chest that he had opened in the beginning of the game and thats where the picori sword remains. the picori sword is also known as the four sword but thats not mentioned in this game. the back story of MC is not related to any previous zelda games.

FS: sequel (but made before MC). Vaati tricks link into setting him free. Vaati kidnaps 7 or 8 girls who are protectors of something or other and link must rescue them by using the picori sword (or four sword as it is known in this game) and splitting into 4 different links (hence the multiplayer).

FSA: Vaati is once again able to trick link into releasing him on the world. this time, not only does Vaati kidnap some more girls, but he has a diabolical plot to ressurect Ganon who was not at all mentioned in FS or MC (thats one main reason why many people put FS and MC before OoT). link rescues the girls, defeats Ganon and seals him in the chest that the four sword was protecting.

this leads into ALTTP which has the four sword shrine and it shows he broken sword and opened chest which means that Ganon escaped.

theres your quick run down.

[Mike Pothier]

well FSA has ganon in it and has the trifork of power or the trident of power in it or whatever you want to call it and seeing as how ganon appears in other zelda games and has the trident in another zelda game, we have to include them in the timeline. just because they were made by capcom does not mean that they are not canon. miyamoto is still involved in the creation of the games hes just doing it while someone else is paying the bills.

Oh, I realize that. I just don't care.

[Zemen]

Oh, I realize that. I just don't care.

thats like saying that if Hershey lets a different company make a candy bar with their candy, its not a hershey bar.

Zelda let another company make a zelda game (while still being overlooked by the creator), its still zelda, just with a different label on the sponsor spots.

[Skull_Kid]

Oh, I realize that. I just don't care.

So, in that case, let's suppose you like metroid(i dunno if you do), so you would completely ignore the Prime subseries cause it's made by Retro, under Nintendo's wing, right?
Well... the Oracles are made by Capcom too, and ALttP, I believe(at least the GBA version is)

[Mike Pothier]

There's nobody debating the timeline for Metroid.

The reason I don't care has nothing to do with Capcom. Its because those games are so vague they can be placed anywhere in the timeline.

[Zemen]

There's nobody debating the timeline for Metroid.

The reason I don't care has nothing to do with Capcom. Its because those games are so vague they can be placed anywhere in the timeline.

the metroid thing was an example...he wasnt trying to get you to discuss metroid...

EVERY zelda game is vague. thats why no one knows what the for sure timeline is and im pretty sure i just explained to you why it is included and how it is included. this entire thread is about a capcom game that has substantial evidence towards it being placed number one in the timeline.

[Mike Pothier]

the metroid thing was an example...he wasnt trying to get you to discuss metroid...

I realize that. What I was saying was that the Metroid series so far has been stable and there is no question where each game goes, even the ones made by Retro.


EVERY zelda game is vague. thats why no one knows what the for sure timeline is and im pretty sure i just explained to you why it is included and how it is included. this entire thread is about a capcom game that has substantial evidence towards it being placed number one in the timeline.

Not every Zelda game is vague. Of the core games, its pretty obvious what order they go in. The side stories tend to be the vague ones, and honestly, I've stopped caring a long time ago if and where they fit in the timeline. Because its obvious Nintendo doesn't.

[Zemen]

I realize that. What I was saying was that the Metroid series so far has been stable and there is no question where each game goes, even the ones made by Retro.



Not every Zelda game is vague. Of the core games, its pretty obvious what order they go in. The side stories tend to be the vague ones, and honestly, I've stopped caring a long time ago if and where they fit in the timeline. Because its obvious Nintendo doesn't.

miyamoto has said that on their computers they have a special folder that has all of the details of how every game connects to each other. he has also said he focuses more on making a solid game than making a game that fits a timeline, but he still said there IS a timeline. obviously they care about it. please stay on topic now. the topic is about where the placement of MC may go, not whether or not you think the capcome games should be on the timeline nor is the topic whether or not nintendo cares about a timeline.

[Mike Pothier]

Huh. I am on topic. I just said I didn't care.

And I tend to take what Miyamoto says about the timeline with a grain of salt. He's contradicted himself before. As for this supposed document, I have no reason to believe it doesn't exist, but without access to it, its not much use to us.

[Zemen]

Huh. I am on topic. I just said I didn't care.

And I tend to take what Miyamoto says about the timeline with a grain of salt. He's contradicted himself before. As for this supposed document, I have no reason to believe it doesn't exist, but without access to it, its not much use to us.

hence why people come up with their own timelines...

you werent on topic at all. all you said was that you dont care about where it goes because you dont include the capcom games as canon. how is that on topic at all? the topic is where does MC go on the timeline. saying you dont care isnt on topic..

[Skull_Kid]

Huh. I am on topic. I just said I didn't care.

And I tend to take what Miyamoto says about the timeline with a grain of salt. He's contradicted himself before. As for this supposed document, I have no reason to believe it doesn't exist, but without access to it, its not much use to us.

He didn't contradict himself... he once said that OoT was the first in the timeline, and like 4 or 5 years after he said that FS was the first in the timeline, that is not contradicting, he was just adding things

[Dark Link '98]

1st. i have proof, but don't criticize me for my opinion. :P

[Mike Pothier]

God, I think you guys are over analyzing what i'm saying.

[cpunerd96]

1st. i have proof, but don't criticize me for my opinion. :P
Proof of what exactly?

FSA: Vaati is once again able to trick link into releasing him on the world. this time, not only does Vaati kidnap some more girls, but he has a diabolical plot to ressurect Ganon who was not at all mentioned in FS or MC (thats one main reason why many people put FS and MC before OoT). link rescues the girls, defeats Ganon and seals him in the chest that the four sword was protecting.

Ressurect Ganon?
That would suggest that Ganon had died which means there must be a story somewhere before that, right?

[Zemen]

Proof of what exactly?


Ressurect Ganon?
That would suggest that Ganon had died which means there must be a story somewhere before that, right?

in my explanations of the game i only ever said that many people put FS and MC infront of OoT. i even specifically said that many people put FSA before ALTTP, which would mean that it comes after OoT.

this is what myself, and many other people believe. MC is first followed by FS and then OoT.

FSA doesnt come til later in the timeline before ALTTP.

i said that in the post where i was explaining the games...

heres the rest of the post since you obviously didnt read it...





FSA: Vaati is once again able to trick link into releasing him on the world. this time, not only does Vaati kidnap some more girls, but he has a diabolical plot to ressurect Ganon who was not at all mentioned in FS or MC (thats one main reason why many people put FS and MC before OoT). link rescues the girls, defeats Ganon and seals him in the chest that the four sword was protecting.

this leads into ALTTP which has the four sword shrine and it shows he broken sword and opened chest which means that Ganon escaped.



there ya go..

[MrMosley]

See this is what dosen't make any sense to me. Why would MC and FS come first, then FSA a long time later if they all revolve around the same story, same basic "sword power" idea, and same boss. It dosen't make any sense how in MC and FS, Vaati would be the main boss and Link would use the Four Sword to vanquish him, then OoT happen as well as TP, which involves Ganondorf and the Master Sword, then completely abandon the Master Sword and go back to the Four Sword. That dosen't make sense.

Seeing as how MC, FS, and FSA all take place within the same plot, main boss idea, and use the same weapon, I think that MC comes sometime later, maybe even in New Hyrule, followed by FS where we see a different generation of Link, then FSA with the same Link as in FS. That is my opinion. I personally have never heard Miyamoto say anything about FS taking place before OoT, not to say that he didn't, but I haven't heard or read anything at all about that. So as of right now, going with what information I have available, to me it makes more sense for the Four Swords Saga to take place in their own time, apart from the rest of everything thats going on in the Zelda universe, and the only way to do this is to put it before or after everything that has happen. And I've already explained how its confusing to put part of it after and part before, or all before.

[Zemen]

See this is what dosen't make any sense to me. Why would MC and FS come first, then FSA a long time later if they all revolve around the same story, same basic "sword power" idea, and same boss.

you do realize that this is the same EXACT thing that happens in EVERY zelda game that involves Ganon but many of those games take place hundreds of years apart so why cant the four swords series games do the same thing?

many people put FS infront of ALTTP which means it comes after TP, IMO. at the end of TP, the master sword is stuck inside of a stone ganondorf. taking it out would release ganondorf so they ditch it to use the four sword which is the only sword ever proven to defeat Vaati who is trying to ressurect ganondorf. Vaati can not bring ganondorf back but he CAN bring ganon back. because Link has the four sword he uses it to trap ganondorf in the same chest that Vaati was trapped in.

every zelda game involving Ganon does the same thing as the four sword series and those games have hundreds of years between them so i dont see why MC, FS, and FSA cant. youre argument is really flawed there.

[MrMosley]

you do realize that this is the same EXACT thing that happens in EVERY zelda game that involves Ganon but many of those games take place hundreds of years apart so why cant the four swords series games do the same thing?

many people put FS infront of ALTTP which means it comes after TP, IMO. at the end of TP, the master sword is stuck inside of a stone ganondorf. taking it out would release ganondorf so they ditch it to use the four sword which is the only sword ever proven to defeat Vaati who is trying to ressurect ganondorf. Vaati can not bring ganondorf back but he CAN bring ganon back. because Link has the four sword he uses it to trap ganondorf in the same chest that Vaati was trapped in.

every zelda game involving Ganon does the same thing as the four sword series and those games have hundreds of years between them so i dont see why MC, FS, and FSA cant. youre argument is really flawed there.

At the end of TP, Ganondorf is not a stone. That is WW. TP, Ganondorf is just stabbed with it. In fact, during the ending credits, we see the Master Sword returned to its pedestal in the forest. That is where your arguement is flawed.

Sure anything can happen every hundred years or so, but the fact is that it does not make sense in that manner. You don't completely abandon one idea and go with another for no reason. At least to me, and I'm sure to anyone else who thinks about it, it does not make sense to say "Oh well, here is Vaati...Link use this Four Sword to beat him, seal him away in this shrine here, and you'll be a hero." Then years later.."Oh well, Vaati escaped...Use this same sword here to seal him back in this shrine." Then all of a sudden nothing happens until Ganondorf appears, does his thing, then the Master Sword is made/used to beat him, while the whole time the shrine, four sword, and Vaati are completely ignored. All of these are new elements not only to the plot, but to Hyrule. It would make sense if they didn't use the Master Sword because it was stuck in Ganondorf's head at the bottom of the sea after WW, but randomly sticking it somewhere between games and plots on the other side of the timeline is both confusing, and dosen't have enough proof to support the idea.

Where is the Shrine of the Four Sword in all of the Zelda titles if MC and FS came before OoT? Why is the Master Sword not used? These questions have yet to be answered and I don't believe you will be able to answer them because there is no information available yet to do so. That is why they can come before or after, in my opinion.

[blackmoon]

What's with Gustav? I thought Gustaf was supposed to be the deceased King of Hyrule, I never heard anything about him being a hero...




MC: Vaati releases evil onto the world that was once sealed away in a chest and held shut by the power of the picori blade. Vaati destroys the picori blade making it the white sword. Vaati is after the light force and Zelda gets in his way so he turns her to stone. Link is off to try and return power to the white sword to make it the picori blade so he can turn Zelda back to normal and defeat Vaati who is after the light force which ends up being inside of Zelda herself. Vaati is trapped in the very chest that he had opened in the beginning of the game and thats where the picori sword remains. the picori sword is also known as the four sword but thats not mentioned in this game. the back story of MC is not related to any previous zelda games.

FS: sequel (but made before MC). Vaati tricks link into setting him free. Vaati kidnaps 7 or 8 girls who are protectors of something or other and link must rescue them by using the picori sword (or four sword as it is known in this game) and splitting into 4 different links (hence the multiplayer).

FSA: Vaati is once again able to trick link into releasing him on the world. this time, not only does Vaati kidnap some more girls, but he has a diabolical plot to ressurect Ganon who was not at all mentioned in FS or MC (thats one main reason why many people put FS and MC before OoT). link rescues the girls, defeats Ganon and seals him in the chest that the four sword was protecting.

this leads into ALTTP which has the four sword shrine and it shows he broken sword and opened chest which means that Ganon escaped.

theres your quick run down.

...1) I don't remember Vaati kidnapping 7 or 8 girls in Four Swords. I remember him kidnapping Zelda, but that's it. Link collects three keys from around the place, then goes on to smack Vaati up.

2) I never actually got into the Four Sword shrine. (It's hard playing Four Swords by yourself... and not very exciting, having to go through the entire level twice...) Is there a detailed description, or better yet, a video of it?

[Zemen]

At the end of TP, Ganondorf is not a stone. That is WW. TP, Ganondorf is just stabbed with it. In fact, during the ending credits, we see the Master Sword returned to its pedestal in the forest. That is where your arguement is flawed.

Sure anything can happen every hundred years or so, but the fact is that it does not make sense in that manner. You don't completely abandon one idea and go with another for no reason. At least to me, and I'm sure to anyone else who thinks about it, it does not make sense to say "Oh well, here is Vaati...Link use this Four Sword to beat him, seal him away in this shrine here, and you'll be a hero." Then years later.."Oh well, Vaati escaped...Use this same sword here to seal him back in this shrine." Then all of a sudden nothing happens until Ganondorf appears, does his thing, then the Master Sword is made/used to beat him, while the whole time the shrine, four sword, and Vaati are completely ignored. All of these are new elements not only to the plot, but to Hyrule. It would make sense if they didn't use the Master Sword because it was stuck in Ganondorf's head at the bottom of the sea after WW, but randomly sticking it somewhere between games and plots on the other side of the timeline is both confusing, and dosen't have enough proof to support the idea.

Where is the Shrine of the Four Sword in all of the Zelda titles if MC and FS came before OoT? Why is the Master Sword not used? These questions have yet to be answered and I don't believe you will be able to answer them because there is no information available yet to do so. That is why they can come before or after, in my opinion.

the fact of the matter is that miyamoto said that FS is first. this was before MC which is obviously before FS. i dont know where the quote is but i remember reading it on another website and im not the only who has seen it. there ar emany people in other posts who say theyve seen the quote too.

just because they games have the same basic gameplay doesnt mean they have to be one right after another. as i said before, all the games with ganon have the same basic formula but take place many years apart so i dont see why you find that so weird with the FS series.

[MrMosley]

the fact of the matter is that miyamoto said that FS is first. this was before MC which is obviously before FS. i dont know where the quote is but i remember reading it on another website and im not the only who has seen it. there ar emany people in other posts who say theyve seen the quote too.

just because they games have the same basic gameplay doesnt mean they have to be one right after another. as i said before, all the games with ganon have the same basic formula but take place many years apart so i dont see why you find that so weird with the FS series.

But see that is what I was pointing out, that quote is something that few people have seen, and many have not. I wish I could find it somewhere so that it would clear some more up about the placement, but until I do I can't agree with it.

Personally, the Four Swords Saga really dosen't matter to me. If it had never been made I wouldn't be any happier/more sad than I am now. So wherever it goes dosen't really affect the rest of the series in my view. However, it does bother me that the series would skip plot ideas as you suggest.

I do find it very weird in fact that the series would abandon big plot ideas such as the Master Sword being the blade of evil's bane, for a crappy Four Sword. Link took the chance of pulling the Four Sword from the pedestal in FSA, which unleashed Vaati once again. If this game takes place after OoT, then why couldn't he have just went and got the Master Sword? That dosen't make sense to me, nor do I see how it would make sense to anyone else. They are completely separate plot ideas that both include different places in Hyrule not featured in every game, namely the shrine of the four sword. You don't just abandon an entire storyline like that.

[Zemen]

But see that is what I was pointing out, that quote is something that few people have seen, and many have not. I wish I could find it somewhere so that it would clear some more up about the placement, but until I do I can't agree with it.

Personally, the Four Swords Saga really dosen't matter to me. If it had never been made I wouldn't be any happier/more sad than I am now. So wherever it goes dosen't really affect the rest of the series in my view. However, it does bother me that the series would skip plot ideas as you suggest.

I do find it very weird in fact that the series would abandon big plot ideas such as the Master Sword being the blade of evil's bane, for a crappy Four Sword. Link took the chance of pulling the Four Sword from the pedestal in FSA, which unleashed Vaati once again. If this game takes place after OoT, then why couldn't he have just went and got the Master Sword? That dosen't make sense to me, nor do I see how it would make sense to anyone else. They are completely separate plot ideas that both include different places in Hyrule not featured in every game, namely the shrine of the four sword. You don't just abandon an entire storyline like that.

Link didnt "take a chance" and pull the four sword. he was tricked, by Vaati, into pulling the four sword, which was holding Vaati captive. obviously, Link would use the sword that held him captive, to defeat him. its the same thing with Ganon. the only sword proven to defeat Ganon was the master sword. the only sword proven to defeat Vaati was the four sword. youre thinking of this way too literally. youre making it sound like there is only ONE weapon in the world to save the world. each villain is different with their own differences. the four sword was made by the piccori. Vaait is a piccori so it makes sense that the only sword that can defeat him is a sword that was made by his people. also, in FSA, the four sword proves itself to be able to defeat Ganon so obviously its nearly as powerful as the master sword, if not, as powerful.

[MrMosley]

Link didnt "take a chance" and pull the four sword. he was tricked, by Vaati, into pulling the four sword, which was holding Vaati captive. obviously, Link would use the sword that held him captive, to defeat him. its the same thing with Ganon. the only sword proven to defeat Ganon was the master sword. the only sword proven to defeat Vaati was the four sword. youre thinking of this way too literally. youre making it sound like there is only ONE weapon in the world to save the world. each villain is different with their own differences. the four sword was made by the piccori. Vaait is a piccori so it makes sense that the only sword that can defeat him is a sword that was made by his people. also, in FSA, the four sword proves itself to be able to defeat Ganon so obviously its nearly as powerful as the master sword, if not, as powerful.

Obviously the Four Sword is powerful, but the reason Link used it to defeat Ganon in FSA is because they completely ignored A) The existance of the Master Sword, and B) Link didn't know about Ganon until the very end. Sure there were people talking about him in Hyrule, but he didn't make an official appearance until the very end of the game.

I don't mean to be making it sound like there is only one weapon, and I believe I am thinking of it quite simply rather than literally. The Four Sword, the place where it is held, and the whole thing with Vaati is part of its own Saga. One that dosen't stray from its plot or various items included in its plot very often, aside from Ganon being the main boss in FSA. I'm simply excluding this particular saga from the main stream story line that the rest of the Zelda titles have.

Still, the question has not been answered as to why FSA leaves out so much about Hyrule that is present in other games such as OoT and TP, if in fact it comes after those. So, the most simple way to answer why it leaves those things out is to go with what I have heard in Wind Waker, and that is that Link and Zelda were sent to find a new Hyrule. Therefore, not many things from the old Hyrule would be present, including the Master Sword. It answers the placement of the saga in a very simple manner.

[Zemen]

Obviously the Four Sword is powerful, but the reason Link used it to defeat Ganon in FSA is because they completely ignored A) The existance of the Master Sword, and B) Link didn't know about Ganon until the very end. Sure there were people talking about him in Hyrule, but he didn't make an official appearance until the very end of the game.

I don't mean to be making it sound like there is only one weapon, and I believe I am thinking of it quite simply rather than literally. The Four Sword, the place where it is held, and the whole thing with Vaati is part of its own Saga. One that dosen't stray from its plot or various items included in its plot very often, aside from Ganon being the main boss in FSA. I'm simply excluding this particular saga from the main stream story line that the rest of the Zelda titles have.

Still, the question has not been answered as to why FSA leaves out so much about Hyrule that is present in other games such as OoT and TP, if in fact it comes after those. So, the most simple way to answer why it leaves those things out is to go with what I have heard in Wind Waker, and that is that Link and Zelda were sent to find a new Hyrule. Therefore, not many things from the old Hyrule would be present, including the Master Sword. It answers the placement of the saga in a very simple manner.

i came up with a pretty easy answer to all of this. Link is tricked into pulling the Four Sword, as i said before. When he pulls it in FSA he becomes 4 different Links and the only way to change is back is by capturing Vaati and putting the sword back in the chest. he HAS to use that sword because of the split curse thats on him. it wouldnt matter if the master sword was around or not because hes pretty much forced to use to the four sword.

[MrMosley]

i came up with a pretty easy answer to all of this. Link is tricked into pulling the Four Sword, as i said before. When he pulls it in FSA he becomes 4 different Links and the only way to change is back is by capturing Vaati and putting the sword back in the chest. he HAS to use that sword because of the split curse thats on him. it wouldnt matter if the master sword was around or not because hes pretty much forced to use to the four sword.

Now that, is a very good possibility. Logical enough for me. Nice answer.