Minish Cap is NOT First

[OOT]

Here's why it is not first in the timeline.
In, Minish Cap, in the figurine shop, you can win a figurine of Din. In the description, it says that she is a famous dancer from Holdrum. This puts OoX before Minish Cap.
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on this.

[Erimgard]

I'd agree that even Capcom seems to believe that Minish Cap goes after the two other games they designed under Nintendo's supervision, but most people will right that off as a cameo. I find that an ignorant thing to do, but meh, can't control people's minds.

[angelkid]

I personally do not think that MC comes first. However, just because it says she is a dancer in Holdrum doesnt necessarily mean that OoX comes first. She could have been a dancer for a while. I'm not arguing with your theory, because personally I have read that people put MC first because it is when Link gets his hat... and? He gets a tunic sbout 20 different times. Just because he gets his hat in this game doesnt mean this game comes first.

[Moosh_is_cool]

I disagree with you, OOT. As Angelkid said, the fact that she was a dancer in MC doesn't mean much of anything.

On a side note, I do think MC was first. Link seemed younger in MC than in any other games. :)

[sign of table]

I'd agree that even Capcom seems to believe that Minish Cap goes after the two other games they designed under Nintendo's supervision, but most people will right that off as a cameo. I find that an ignorant thing to do, but meh, can't control people's minds. While I agree it's an implication, it could take place before OoX. As long as they are in the same timeline, of course.

Storyline evidence > small likely cameos that don't mean much.

The old Swiftblade (the one who we think is the HoM) says that he's the only person to master the Great Spin Attack. Orca teaches Link that same technique in TWW.

Of course that's just literal evidence and isn't what I think shows the pure intent of TMC first. But who knows. There are enough things, that I think are cameos, but they may not be, to secure an AT placement for TMC, as well.

[Zeruda]

I never once believed that Minish Cap came first. Why? Because when OoT was made, Nintendo was very adament on making it clear that it was the prequel to the games. If they had gone ahead and made Minish Cap a prequel, I'm sure that they would have made that clear to us.

Secondly, we don't know how old Link is in TMC. He's a child, but it doesn't mean that he's the youngest of the Links. Even if he was, that doesn't determine placement in the timeline. In fact, it has hardly anything to do with it at all.

Third, I think people take the whole thing about Link not having a hat at first way too seriously. So what if he didn't have a hat? Whether or not he had a hat doesn't really determine placement in time. I think that they made him without a hat so that they could implement Ezlo. Really, how else could they have done that?

Most of the information that people come up with to support the theory of TMC being first are easily disproven or argued against.

[MrMosley]

There has already been a lot of talk about the Din figurine. Most likely, it is a simple cameo. I do not believe MC is first, but I don't think that the figurine helps much in explaining MC's placement. I actually believe that MC takes place in a separate timeline.

What could be possible is this. Din is the primary character of Oracle of Seasons. She is apparently the reincarnation of the goddess Din, therefore she would have certain powers and most likely be able to live forever. If MC were the first game in the timeline, then Din could have still originated in Holodrum, but traveled to other countries occasionally. In other words, her primary residence has always been Holodrum, but she can come to Hyrule or Labrynna or anywhere else she wants at any time.

[Zemen]

I never once believed that Minish Cap came first. Why? Because when OoT was made, Nintendo was very adament on making it clear that it was the prequel to the games.

When OoT was first made, they also intended for there to be a linear timeline that went OoT-ALTTP-LoZ/AoL but this has OBVIOUSLY changed due to the creation of WW and TP.

Also, with ALTTP, they intended for OoT to be the seal war but this, too has OBVIOUSLY changed drastically with due to the addition of WW in the timeline.

They intended for FS to be the first game in the series and the majority of the people believe this to be completely false (although it still could be first). The people who said that FS was thought to be first weren't the people who actually worked on that specific game.

As you can see, original intention can only be taken so far because the creators can, and have, retconned their original ideas before. If MC is first do you suggest that they completely remake OoT so that it works? Good luck with that dream.


If they had gone ahead and made Minish Cap a prequel, I'm sure that they would have made that clear to us.

Other than the timeline going OoT/MM-TP and OoT-WW/PH, give me one instance of anything dealing with the timeline being clear. The creators definitely don't and wouldn't make it clear like you believe. The timeline is confusing as hell.


Secondly, we don't know how old Link is in TMC. He's a child, but it doesn't mean that he's the youngest of the Links. Even if he was, that doesn't determine placement in the timeline. In fact, it has hardly anything to do with it at all.

I've never heard of anyone arguing MC being first because of Link's age...


Third, I think people take the whole thing about Link not having a hat at first way too seriously. So what if he didn't have a hat? Whether or not he had a hat doesn't really determine placement in time. I think that they made him without a hat so that they could implement Ezlo. Really, how else could they have done that?

How else could they have used Ezlo? The possibilities are endless. He could have easily been turned into a fly that constantly follows Link around or a fairy or just a spirit that is always with him or a talking rock or anything they want. The all powerful item in the game was a hat that was created by Ezlo. His apprentice wanted the hat for himself and Ezlo tried to stop him. Many villains are big on the whole irony thing so what is the most ironic thing that this hat thief could have turned Ezlo into? A hat...duh.

You could be right that the hat thing could have been just a ploy to have Ezlo in the game, but im pretty sure there was a creator who said that the hat meant something or something like that.

Also, the hero in the BS of MC doesn't wear a hat either and the BS doesn't resemble ANY of the previous Zelda games. This is the first game in the series to have a completely irrelevant BS to the series. This means that it's HIGHLY likely that the hero before this Link was not a Link at all. Now why would they make a game that goes in the middle of the timeline that has a BS about someone other than Link? And if it is a Link then why didn't he wear a hat either?

It makes a lot of sense that it's first in the series because the hat is one of the defining features of Link and this could help explain why all of them wear a green hat.


Most of the information that people come up with to support the theory of TMC being first are easily disproven or argued against.

And any reason why it isn't first can be easily disproved or argued against.

The figurines have an easy enough explanation to them. How do we know that the oracles in OoX aren't descendants of the oracles that are spoken of in MC? That can easily be the case. Also, it is most likely just an easter egg.

[angelkid]

I've never heard of anyone arguing MC being first because of Link's age...quote]

[quote=Moosh_is_cool;56975]On a side note, I do think MC was first. Link seemed younger in MC than in any other games. :)

Right there lol. Personally I think Mc is on a completely seperate timeline to OoX. However, the theory about Din living forever has some substance. She'd have to keep moving from place to place though. So that nobody noticed that she never aged. What about Farore and Nayru, do they always travel with her?

[Zeruda]

When OoT was first made, they also intended for there to be a linear timeline that went OoT-ALTTP-LoZ/AoL but this has OBVIOUSLY changed due to the creation of WW and TP.

This is true.



Also, with ALTTP, they intended for OoT to be the seal war but this, too has OBVIOUSLY changed drastically with due to the addition of WW in the timeline.

I don't know about that. OoT was actually intended to be a remake of ALttP but took a different turn and became a prequel to all. It's really hard to believe that it was intended to be the seal war, especially since I don't remember reading anything about OoT being the "seal war" in any interview. But, if you have a source, please show it to me- I'd like to read that. :)



They intended for FS to be the first game in the series and the majority of the people believe this to be completely false (although it still could be first). The people who said that FS was thought to be first weren't the people who actually worked on that specific game.

Yeah. I wouldn't believe anybody who didn't actually work on the game, either.



As you can see, original intention can only be taken so far because the creators can, and have, retconned their original ideas before. If MC is first do you suggest that they completely remake OoT so that it works? Good luck with that dream.

Yes, they are constantly making changes and trying to fix the timeline. It's good that they are. I don't think MC is first, nor do I think that OoT requires any sort of remake. I'm not one of those OoT fangirls.




Other than the timeline going OoT/MM-TP and OoT-WW/PH, give me one instance of anything dealing with the timeline being clear. The creators definitely don't and wouldn't make it clear like you believe. The timeline is confusing as hell.

My post wasn't about the timeline in general, it was about them making it clear that OoT was first. My post wasn't about OoT being first, but the fact that they made it clear to the fans that it was. Do you see what I'm getting at? They don't work very hard on telling us about the exact placement of all the games, but obviously the root of the games was important enough to the entire story that the games combine into. So important that they felt the need to tell us. If TMC predated that, I think they'd let us know.




I've never heard of anyone arguing MC being first because of Link's age...

Scroll up.




How else could they have used Ezlo? The possibilities are endless. He could have easily been turned into a fly that constantly follows Link around or a fairy or just a spirit that is always with him or a talking rock or anything they want. The all powerful item in the game was a hat that was created by Ezlo. His apprentice wanted the hat for himself and Ezlo tried to stop him. Many villains are big on the whole irony thing so what is the most ironic thing that this hat thief could have turned Ezlo into? A hat...duh.

You could be right that the hat thing could have been just a ploy to have Ezlo in the game, but im pretty sure there was a creator who said that the hat meant something or something like that.

Also, the hero in the BS of MC doesn't wear a hat either and the BS doesn't resemble ANY of the previous Zelda games. This is the first game in the series to have a completely irrelevant BS to the series. This means that it's HIGHLY likely that the hero before this Link was not a Link at all. Now why would they make a game that goes in the middle of the timeline that has a BS about someone other than Link? And if it is a Link then why didn't he wear a hat either?

It makes a lot of sense that it's first in the series because the hat is one of the defining features of Link and this could help explain why all of them wear a green hat.

I don't recall a creator saying that the hat meant anything. I think that's just fan speculation. I've yet to read any interview on that. And so what if the hero in TMC's BS doesn't wear a hat? It only supports the idea that Link doesn't have to have a hat.

The legend spoken of in TMC refers to a hero being given a sword and a golden light. The hero also uses both Wisdom AND Courage. Now, as I recall, none of the other Links have a "golden light" ("a source of limitless magical power", according to Ezlo), nor do they possess the blessing of wisdom. The hero mentioned in TMC does things that other Links did not. Perhaps this could mean that TMC takes place much later in the timeline.

Who's to say that this hero in the BS is a Link? Who's to say he isn't? If he is a Link, what difference does it make? It'd just go to show that there was somebody else who didn't wear a hat. He also had a green tunic, I might add. If he wasn't a Link, does that matter either? A hero named Link usually rises to fight off Ganon/dorf, occassionally a different villain. Maybe some other hero fought off evil. Maybe not. In any case, whoever the hero was in TMC's BC really doesn't say much about TMC's placement in the timeline, at least not right now. It's not hard to imagine that they'd throw a game in the middle of other games. They don't exactly work on an era-to-era basis- they skip around. 100 years here, a couple of months there... they don't stick to one thing.

Link obtaining a hat in TMC could just be his own way of getting one. TP!Link didn't start out with a hat, either, and that's centuries after OoT. Same thing with TWW!Link.

I honestly don't think the hat had anything to do with it. Look at OoT!Link- he didn't have a hat because some warrior of old did. He had one because he was raised among the Kokiri. They had hats.

[Skull_Kid]

Another thread about this?
I am gonna simplify it for you, OOT.

To start off and kill the discussion quickly, Myiamoto said that Four Swords(the one that came with the GBA version of ALttP) was the FIRST game in the timeline.
After that he said that Minish Cap was a PREQUEL to FOUR SWORDS!
Do I need to say anything else?

On a sidenote, referring to the Oracles figurines: Your only vague point is that, and if you are clever enough, then you can see that it just shows you that the Oracles of OoX are not the first ones.
The ones in Minish Cap are their ancestors

[Zemen]

This is true.


I don't know about that. OoT was actually intended to be a remake of ALttP but took a different turn and became a prequel to all. It's really hard to believe that it was intended to be the seal war, especially since I don't remember reading anything about OoT being the "seal war" in any interview. But, if you have a source, please show it to me- I'd like to read that. :)




[QUOTE=Zeruda;57038]My post wasn't about the timeline in general, it was about them making it clear that OoT was first. My post wasn't about OoT being first, but the fact that they made it clear to the fans that it was. Do you see what I'm getting at? They don't work very hard on telling us about the exact placement of all the games, but obviously the root of the games was important enough to the entire story that the games combine into. So important that they felt the need to tell us. If TMC predated that, I think they'd let us know.

As I stated before, they wouldn't make it clear. OoT was made LONG before MC. OoT was meant to be first in the timeline so of course it's clear that it's first. Years pass and they want this game to be first. Since OoT is heavily implied and confirmed to be first, they can't have much at all relating it to OoT. The fact that nothing in the game can be directly connected to OoT makes it that much more possible that it's first. Also, this is the ONLY game in the series that takes place in Hyrule and doesn't have a mentioning of Ganon/dorf anywhere. The only other Hyrule based game with no Ganon/dorf is FS which is more of a spinoff than an actual game.



And so what if the hero in TMC's BS doesn't wear a hat? It only supports the idea that Link doesn't have to have a hat.

EVERY SINGLE ZELDA GAME HAS LINK WEARING A HAT.

If the next game to come out featured Link with no hat through the entire game then you know there would be a thread with a million posts on ZD about how mad people are Link didn't have a hat. I mean this in the nicest way possible...cut the crap, we both know Link DOES need to have a hat.


The legend spoken of in TMC refers to a hero being given a sword and a golden light. The hero also uses both Wisdom AND Courage. Now, as I recall, none of the other Links have a "golden light" ("a source of limitless magical power", according to Ezlo), nor do they possess the blessing of wisdom. The hero mentioned in TMC does things that other Links did not. Perhaps this could mean that TMC takes place much later in the timeline.

Link didn't get the golden light, from what I recall. I'm pretty sure that they gave it to the royal family and that Zelda was the one who had it. So you don't think any other Link is wise? Just because they don't have the triforce of wisdom doesn't mean they aren't wise. You're suggesting that Zelda is the only wise person in the series, here.

MC is also a prequel to FS which is a prequel to FSA which is heavily implied to be a prequel to ALTTP which does seems to not take place that much later.


Who's to say that this hero in the BS is a Link? Who's to say he isn't? If he is a Link, what difference does it make? It'd just go to show that there was somebody else who didn't wear a hat. He also had a green tunic, I might add. If he wasn't a Link, does that matter either? A hero named Link usually rises to fight off Ganon/dorf, occassionally a different villain. Maybe some other hero fought off evil. Maybe not. In any case, whoever the hero was in TMC's BC really doesn't say much about TMC's placement in the timeline, at least not right now. It's not hard to imagine that they'd throw a game in the middle of other games. They don't exactly work on an era-to-era basis- they skip around. 100 years here, a couple of months there... they don't stick to one thing.

As I said before, it's the only game to have a BS about someone other than Link. It is one of the only BS' to have a BS that does not explain or even partially explain any previous events in the Zelda universe. WW talks about OoT. TP talks about things that happen shortly after MM. ALTTP talks either about OoT or FSA. FSA talks about FS. PH is a confirmed sequel to LoZ. LA is almost obviously a sequel to either OoX or ALTTP. LA has a BS that fits nicely with ALTTP or OoX. As you can see, these games either have BS' about another title or are obviously connected to another title. We have no idea how long before FS MC takes place and the BS is not about any of the other titles. Things that you think aren't big deals ARE big deals.


Link obtaining a hat in TMC could just be his own way of getting one. TP!Link didn't start out with a hat, either, and that's centuries after OoT. Same thing with TWW!Link.

Except that there is a reason why TP Link and WW Link got their hats. Their hats were once worn by a great hero (HoT). Every Link who has gotten an outfit has had a reason for that outfit. OoT Link because the kokiri wear it. WW because OoT Link wears it (same with TP Link).

The only reason that MC Link gets a hat is because it's Ezlo. And then the only reason he keeps the hat is because "it suits him"

There is no mentioning of any past hero wearing a hat similar to his. How much do you want me to believe that some random hero, years after many great heroes, stumbles into a great adventure where he coincidentally wears the exact same outfit as past great heroes?

That's a little too much of a coincidence for me to believe that it doesn't have more meaning.

[Skull_Kid]

Guys?Why are you discussing this?I pretty much killed the discussion, and, Zeruda, sorry to admit, but Zemen's right, imo

[Zeruda]

As I stated before, they wouldn't make it clear. OoT was made LONG before MC. OoT was meant to be first in the timeline so of course it's clear that it's first. Years pass and they want this game to be first. Since OoT is heavily implied and confirmed to be first, they can't have much at all relating it to OoT. The fact that nothing in the game can be directly connected to OoT makes it that much more possible that it's first. Also, this is the ONLY game in the series that takes place in Hyrule and doesn't have a mentioning of Ganon/dorf anywhere. The only other Hyrule based game with no Ganon/dorf is FS which is more of a spinoff than an actual game.

What I'm pointing out is that they made it fact. Instead of implying it in OoT, the creators themselves told us. See what I'm getting at yet? What I'm saying is that the important information is usually given to us, while less important things such as individual placement is left up for debate. I really think that if they were going to make a game that predated OoT, they'd tell us. They thought it important to tell us the first in the timeline, they thought it important to verify a timeline split, they thought it important to tell us where TP and TWW fell into place. Those were of more importance that individual placement of all the games, so, I'm sure that if they were going to get ahead of all of that and make a pre-prequel, they'd let us know.





EVERY SINGLE ZELDA GAME HAS LINK WEARING A HAT.

If the next game to come out featured Link with no hat through the entire game then you know there would be a thread with a million posts on ZD about how mad people are Link didn't have a hat. I mean this in the nicest way possible...cut the crap, we both know Link DOES need to have a hat.

I never said they don't have hats. I'm not trying to sound rude, but are you even reading what I am saying, or are you skimming through it? I said they don't all start with hats. If TMC!Link started the hat trend, then explain how that'd have made OoT!Link adopt the trend. He wears Kokiri clothing. Even Malon notices that his clothes are foreign. It's more believable, IMO, that the trend would have been adopted from OoT!Link

"I mean this in the nicest way possible...cut the crap" <-- If you consider this "nice", Zemen, you are mistaken. I find it quite rude and immature. If you wish to discuss this with me or anybody else, it'd behoove you to do so in a more decent manner. I have respected your own ideas, but I do not have to agree with them. Likewise, you should respect mine, and not treat me or anybody else with such behavior just because they don't agree with you. Okay? :)




Link didn't get the golden light, from what I recall. I'm pretty sure that they gave it to the royal family and that Zelda was the one who had it. So you don't think any other Link is wise? Just because they don't have the triforce of wisdom doesn't mean they aren't wise. You're suggesting that Zelda is the only wise person in the series, here.

MC is also a prequel to FS which is a prequel to FSA which is heavily implied to be a prequel to ALTTP which does seems to not take place that much later.

A long, long time ago...
when the world was on the verge of being swallowed by shadow...
The tiny Picori appeared from the sky, bringing the hero of men a sword and a
golden light.
With wisdom and courage, the hero drove out the darkness.

I'm not suggesting that Zelda is the only wise person, please don't assume things. I am being blunt in my posts, and telling you exactly what I think. Keyword here is think. I'm not saying anything is fact, and likewise, I don't think you should say what is or isn't without proof or sources.

What I'm saying is that courage is associated with Link, and wisdom with Zelda, and that is all I'm saying.



As I said before, it's the only game to have a BS about someone other than Link. It is one of the only BS' to have a BS that does not explain or even partially explain any previous events in the Zelda universe. WW talks about OoT. TP talks about things that happen shortly after WW. ALTTP talks either about OoT or FSA. FSA talks about FS. PH is a confirmed sequel to LoZ. LA is almost obviously a sequel to either OoX or ALTTP. LA has a BS that fits nicely with ALTTP or OoX. As you can see, these games either have BS' about another title or are obviously connected to another title. We have no idea how long before FS MC takes place and the BS is not about any of the other titles. Things that you think aren't big deals ARE big deals.

All I'm going to say on this is that you're stating things as if they are fact. For all we know, these could be completely out of the timeline. We don't know where they fit, and there is very little evidence for any of it. What I don't remember, though, is anything about TWW being mentioned in TP like you stated. Source, please? I don't even see how that could be possible, being that they are on opposite sides of the timeline.




Except that there is a reason why TP Link and WW Link got their hats. Their hats were once worn by a great hero (HoT). Every Link who has gotten an outfit has had a reason for that outfit. OoT Link because the kokiri wear it. WW because OoT Link wears it (same with TP Link).

The only reason that MC Link gets a hat is because it's Ezlo. And then the only reason he keeps the hat is because "it suits him"

There is no mentioning of any past hero wearing a hat similar to his. How much do you want me to believe that some random hero, years after many great heroes, stumbles into a great adventure where he coincidentally wears the exact same outfit as past great heroes?

That's a little too much of a coincidence for me to believe that it doesn't have more meaning.
This is the image shown in TMC. This hero wears the green tunic, but he hasn't a hat. Is he a Link? He has the tunic. But maybe he's not a Link. Maybe he's a random hero. I'm not sure whether you think he's a Link or a random hero. I don't really think it matters at this point. Maybe later on when the timeline is better developed, but not now. And I'll reiterate- OoT!Link has his hat because he was raised in Kokiri Forest. So, that would mean that Link didn't adopt this trend from another Link. That is almost enough to throw the hat theory out the window. If TMC came before OoT, then the Ezlo wouldn't have anything to do with how Link gets hats in other games. It helps my theory that TMC!Link only gets his hat through an adventure, and it has little impact on the timeline.
http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/2h/images.gamezone.com/screens/24/1/0/s24100_gba_13.jpg



Guys?Why are you discussing this?I pretty much killed the discussion, and, Zeruda, sorry to admit, but Zemen's right, imo

You're entitled to you own opinion. :) We're discussing it because, well, that's what the thread is about. But I'll end my part in the discussion, as Zemen seems to be a little... well, I'll say "touchy" about this topic. I usually don't take part in discussions such as these because of the touchy people who end up flaming others. Seeing as Zemen has already proven to be rude towards others with a difference in opinion, I think I'll wait until this topic arises again later on in a less heated debate.

It is an interesting topic, though, and I respect the opinions and ideas of others. Debates like this help keep the fandom alive between games. Perhaps Nintendo will clear this up later on, eh? Sometimes I wonder, though... you think that Nintendo will allow games that Capcom worked on to be in the timeline? Maybe they'll keep Nintendo-only games in the timeline. You never know. ;)

[Zemen]

What I'm pointing out is that they made it fact. Instead of implying it in OoT, the creators themselves told us. See what I'm getting at yet? What I'm saying is that the important information is usually given to us, while less important things such as individual placement is left up for debate. I really think that if they were going to make a game that predated OoT, they'd tell us. They thought it important to tell us the first in the timeline, they thought it important to verify a timeline split, they thought it important to tell us where TP and TWW fell into place. Those were of more importance that individual placement of all the games, so, I'm sure that if they were going to get ahead of all of that and make a pre-prequel, they'd let us know.

False. They told us OoT started the timeline because if they didn't then we would literally have nowhere to start. They didn't even have to tell us where TP and WW take place because the games completely confirm their placements on their own. The split had to be confirmed otherwise the timeline would be impossible to figure out without that knowledge. The stuff they have told us is stuff we needed to know to even start a timeline. Other than that, we have to figure it out on our own.

Also, THEY HAVE SAID THAT FS IS FIRST IN THE TIMELINE. I believe it's Aunouma who said this and he later said that he was not working on the game, but he never once said that he didn't think it was first anymore.

So the fact that he said it's first without retracting his statement is evidence that MC is first because it's a prequel to FS.

Also, I said cut the crap because you were implying that if they made a game where Link didn't wear a hat then it would be ok and I was letting you know that the hat is a staple to the character and is more important than you are making it out to be.

What if the kokiri wear the green tunic because a previous hero (like the hero of men or MC Link) wore this outfit?

I have a thread somewhere on here with a theory of mine that the kokiri were once the piccori. It's a pretty good theory if you ever feel like searching for it and checking it out. It basically says that many of the piccori died out and the ones left in the forest were transformed into the kokiri. Also, notice that in order to become minish sized in MC you must be on a stump (base of a tree) and the leader of the kokiri is a grown, powerful tree. Now, if the kokiri were once the piccori then it makes sense that the kokiri wear green tunics and hats, because the hero who saved them from an evil minish (vaati) wore a green tunic and hat.

In essence, it can work and there is plenty of evidence for MC to be first on the timeline. You say that I'm being touchy about it but maybe you should go back and read your posts because you weren't all rainbows and ponies about the topic either, chum.

[Erimgard]

Also, THEY HAVE SAID THAT FS IS FIRST IN THE TIMELINE. I believe it's Aunouma who said this and he later said that he was not working on the game, but he never once said that he didn't think it was first anymore.

So the fact that he said it's first without retracting his statement is evidence that MC is first because it's a prequel to FS.

Correction. He said "we're thinking of it as the oldest tale[/i]" and in the previous paragraph, he stated that they hadn't yet made the timeline to include all the games.

He did no work on FS. He was only producer on FSA for part of the time, and then got trumped by Miyamoto, who changed the plot.

If Aonuma's "uh we think this game that I had nothing to do with might go here, but I don't really know" counts as canon, then why don't you follow the "Miyamoto Order", which was stated definitively, without hesitation, and has ALSO never been contradicted?

Just because Aonuma never went back and said "my bad, I was wrong about FS" doesn't mean his half-*** answer was worth anything.

[Zemen]

If Aonuma's "uh we think this game that I had nothing to do with might go here, but I don't really know" counts as canon, then why don't you follow the "Miyamoto Order", which was stated definitively, without hesitation, and has ALSO never been contradicted?

Because, the games clearly contradict his old, linear timeline. He doesn't need to contradict himself if the games do it for him.

FS has absolutely nothing in it that completely destroys it's idea of being before OoT so the fact that someone on the Zelda team, regardless of if he worked on it or not, saying it could be first means it can be first. There is nothing in the plot that suggests that it can't be before OoT, same with MC.

[Erimgard]

Confirmation of the Split Timeline does not debunk the Miyamoto Order.

[Zemen]

Confirmation of the Split Timeline does not debunk the Miyamoto Order.

So you're saying that because there is a confirmed split timeline BY Miyamoto that doesn't mean his linear timeline is wrong? Him confirming a split timeline DOES contradict his linear timeline.

[Erimgard]

...../WW-PH-(LoZ-AoL-aLttP)
OoT
.....\MM-TP-(LoZ-AoL-aLttP)

voila
The Miyamoto Order isn't debunked just becuase there's a split. It can exist on either side of the timeline.

[Zemen]

...../WW-PH-(LoZ-AoL-aLttP)
OoT
.....\MM-TP-(LoZ-AoL-aLttP)

voila
The Miyamoto Order isn't debunked just becuase there's a split. It can exist on either side of the timeline.

I don't see what this has to do with anything...

Technically any order you make up could be right then as long as OoT is before LoZ/AoL and ALTTP in that order, so what exactly did anything you just said prove?

And like I said before, the games are more canon than the creators word. The box on ALTTP clearly says that Link is the predescessor of the Link in LoZ/AoL. Whether or not the box is canon (many believe it to be), there is not a creator quote saying that the box isn't canon and the box contradicts Miyamoto. If it's in the game or it's part of the story of the game it's gonna be more canon than Miyamoto's words will ever be.

And this ties in with what I said earlier. Miyamoto doesn't have to give a public statement saying he is wrong if the games do that for him. If he says Link has blue hair and he ends up having pink hair in the game then is it really necessary for him to give a public statement? We already know he's wrong, he doesn't have to straight up admit it every time he's wrong.

[Erimgard]

You have yet to prove that Miyamoto is wrong though.
Nothing prevents an arc of OoT-LoZ-AoL-aLttP with newer games between them.

[Zemen]

You have yet to prove that Miyamoto is wrong though.
Nothing prevents an arc of OoT-LoZ-AoL-aLttP with newer games between them.

Except what I literally JUST said. The back of the box on the original ALTTP says that Link is the predecessor of Link in LoZ/AoL. In case you don't know what that means, it means he comes BEFORE them which would put ALTTP before LoZ/AoL which means I did just prove that Miyamoto was wrong provided that the box is canon and since it's part of the background of the character in the story and there are no creator quotes saying the box/manual are not canon, it's widely accepted as canon except by those people who just don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit their timeline.

By the way, this topic is about MC being or not being first. Maybe you should stop veering off from that conversation.

[Erimgard]

Miyamoto's quote was made after aLttP's box.
If you can discredit a straight-forward timeline answer by Miyamoto, then I can discredit a "well I don't know but maybe it's this but I didn't really work on it" quote by Aonuma.

[Zemen]

Miyamoto's quote was made after aLttP's box.
If you can discredit a straight-forward timeline answer by Miyamoto, then I can discredit a "well I don't know but maybe it's this but I didn't really work on it" quote by Aonuma.

I'm not discrediting anything. You obviously aren't getting the point so I will give a simple example.

I make a videogame. The back of the box says that the character was born an orphan with no siblings. Later on, in an interview, I say that the character has a sister. Does this change the game? No, the game still says that he is an orphan with no siblings.

The back of the box says that Link is the predecessor of the Link in LoZ/AoL. Just because Miyamoto says that it goes after those games doesn't change what the game, itself, says. And for the last time, the game is always going to be more canon than the creator ever will be. Him saying it goes after LoZ/AoL doesn't change that the game, itself, says otherwise.

You're basically saying that if Miyamoto came out and decided to tell us that WW was on the child timeline then you would automatically believe him even though the game OBVIOUSLY says otherwise.

[Erimgard]

Miymoto produced and directed the game, and also invented the very concept of the series. If he changes his mind about something, then guess what? He can do that. It's his right.

[Zemen]

Miymoto produced and directed the game, and also invented the very concept of the series. If he changes his mind about something, then guess what? He can do that. It's his right.

Or not...

You're saying that tomorrow if he decided that there was no split timeline and that OoT was last on the timeline he'd be right?

Sorry, but you have TERRIBLE logic here. The game is going to be right, not him. He can't just change something once it's done unless it's being retconned which they did with ALTTP and only changed one thing, really...the presence of the POTFS. That's like redoing your homework after it's already been graded.

If tomorrow he said "Link has purple hair in every game" then is that going to change the fact that the games clearly show Link with blond and brown and pink hair? No.

[Erimgard]

And you're assuming that Miyamoto is mentally retarded. Obviously he's not going to change stuff like that. This is his series. He invented it. He owns it. He directs and/or produces almost every game. He supervises every game. Aonua refers to him as "the absolute" when it comes to storyline.

If he says something that contradicts a marketing ploy NoA box, then he can do that.

[Zemen]

If he says something that contradicts a marketing ploy NoA box, then he can do that.

And you are assuming that the box is not canon. Give me a statement by Miyamoto that says anything said on the box or in the manual is all incorrect. NoA translates their boxes directly from Japan. This means that whatever that box says, so do the boxes in Japan. He says the games go after LoZ/AoL but the game says otherwise.

No matter what he says, the game is always going to contradict him and it's the games that are set in stone until he redoes them.

You swear like he can change ANY aspect of the game he wants when he can't. He would have to remake the game for his timeline to work and, what's this? He already did remake it and it didn't change it's placement? OMG!

You're not getting it. I'm done. responding to your posts. I'll respond when it has to do with the actual topic of the thread.

[sign of table]

I never once believed that Minish Cap came first. Why? Because when OoT was made, Nintendo was very adament on making it clear that it was the prequel to the games. If they had gone ahead and made Minish Cap a prequel, I'm sure that they would have made that clear to us. Yeah, 11 years ago OoT was first. 11 years ago OoT was the SW. 11 years ago a direct connection between OoT and LttP was possible. 11 years ago there was no TWW. 11 years ago there was most likely no split. Hell 11 years ago LttP was certainly the prequel to LA. Now OoX is possibly the prequel to LA.

A lot of things have come and changed the series. I'm not saying that all of the above has changed, but a lot of it has.

And when have they EVER made a timeline placement clear in a game except for the direct sequels (which aren't always completely clear, either)? Sure OoT contained quite a few origins for things. But TMC contains origins for VERY MANY other things as well. Probably as many as OoT did.


Third, I think people take the whole thing about Link not having a hat at first way too seriously. So what if he didn't have a hat? Whether or not he had a hat doesn't really determine placement in time. I think that they made him without a hat so that they could implement Ezlo. Really, how else could they have done that? I'd agree with you... if Bill Trinen didn't say that TMC is the origin of Link's hat... that makes it something worth considering.


Most of the information that people come up with to support the theory of TMC being first are easily disproven or argued against. Ok since symbolic evidence doesn't matter to you, let's try some literal evidence.

Tell me, if Swiftblade the First (the really, really old one) says that he's the only person to ever learn the great spin attack (the one that spins around and around) how does Orca in TWW teach it to Link?


If Aonuma's "uh we think this game that I had nothing to do with might go here, but I don't really know" counts as canon, then why don't you follow the "Miyamoto Order", which was stated definitively, without hesitation, and has ALSO never been contradicted? Something interesting that KJ Contrarion (spelling?) pointed out on ZU. Even though he may not have done much work on the game, he's still the director of the series. Now I'll agree that FS first isn't likely, but it's just something I thought I'd point out.
FS has absolutely nothing in it that completely destroys it's idea of being before OoT so the fact that someone on the Zelda team, regardless of if he worked on it or not, saying it could be first means it can be first. There is nothing in the plot that suggests that it can't be before OoT, same with MC. I agree, nothing in Four Swords' plot stops it from being before OoT. But let's look at FSA. The beginning is very clear that they are the same Link. About as clear as LttP is about the Ganon and Dark World of the SW are the same as in LttP (:P@Erimgard).
Technically any order you make up could be right then as long as OoT is before LoZ/AoL and ALTTP in that order, so what exactly did anything you just said prove? He just proved exactly what you just said; that it can work as long as they go in that order.
I make a videogame. The back of the box says that the character was born an orphan with no siblings. Later on, in an interview, I say that the character has a sister. Does this change the game? No, the game still says that he is an orphan with no siblings. It doesn't change the game, but it changes the canon of the series. It's called a retcon, short for retroactive continuity. Also something to note. The GBA box does not state anything of that sort.
Sorry, but you have TERRIBLE logic here. The game is going to be right, not him. He can't just change something once it's done unless it's being retconned which they did with ALTTP and only changed one thing, really...the presence of the POTFS. That's like redoing your homework after it's already been graded. Actually a lot of people would say that the GBA version changed a LOT of things. By the way, the box of the "retconned" version of LttP does not contain that quote.

Also, you're saying that an older game quote retcons a newer developer quote (LttP being before LoZ), but that Aonuma's FS quote retcons a later made game quote? I'm sorry, but... lol

Just so you know. The FSA manual is even more clear about FS Link being the same as FSA Link than the Japanese LttP box is.

I agree that the box is talking about LttP being before LoZ/AoL, but take a look at Erimgard's thread on the matter on ZI. He does make a good point. (I do think he was over analyzing it a bit, but it does show that it isn't as clear as the NoA version made it out to be.)

Disregarding the FSA manual is disregarding CLEAR intent.

You can say it was referring to a different Link, but it wasn't.

[Erimgard]

And you are assuming that the box is not canon. Give me a statement by Miyamoto that says anything said on the box or in the manual is all incorrect.



Ocarina of Time is the first story, then the original Legend of Zelda, then Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and finally A Link to the Past.
That says that the part of the box stating that aLttP Link is the predecessor of LoZ Link is incorrect.

[Zemen]

That says that the part of the box stating that aLttP Link is the predecessor of LoZ Link is incorrect.

Once again, you fail to see the point. You're assuming that one statement made is more correct than the thousands upon thousands of boxes that were created and never corrected. Miyamoto never once came out and said "the boxes are wrong, Link is not the predecessor of Link in LoZ/AoL"

He's been wrong before and I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't bluntly say that the box is wrong. Just stop arguing because you are not at all understanding anything I'm saying.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Edit: Wait... you guys aren't talking about The Minish Cap? What the heck? Isn't this thread about that game? *smells off-topic*



My timeline does have The Minish Cap at the beginning. It's not something my timeline hinges on; I would be willing to have it after Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, and The Legend of Zelda, but never all the way after the Oracle games. The mention of Din being from Holodrum is something so little that everything significant in the main story heavily outweighs it. Even with The Minish Cap before the Oracle games, it's probable that the Din of that game came from Holodrum and her descendants moved back at some point. There's at least some thousand, two-thousand, five-thousand years in between for that to occur.

There are always these OoT-ish or TWW-ish characters in the Oracle games and the Four Swords games that cause these small inconsistencies in the timeline. Yes, they're in Four Swords Adventures, too - a game made by Nintendo themselves. These characters can exist how they are in different generations because, like the respective bloodlines of Link and Zelda, they have descendants that reuse the same names. (It's probably some coincidence that Talon is always Malon's father, mostly for the creators' convinence.)

These small things do not shake the games placement, however. The Oracle games only work as a distant sequel to A Link to the Past, while Four Swords Adventures must be a distant prequel to A Link to the Past, strongly supported by the existance of the Four Sword Palace in LttP-GBA. There's no question that The Minish Cap is before Four Swords Adventures, which means that it is in turn before A Link to the Past and before the Oracle games.

[Erimgard]

Once again, you fail to see the point. You're assuming that one statement made is more correct than the thousands upon thousands of boxes that were created and never corrected. Miyamoto never once came out and said "the boxes are wrong, Link is not the predecessor of Link in LoZ/AoL"


The remake of aLttP released in 2004 does not say that Link and Zelda are the predecessors of LoZ/AoL Link.

Miyamoto directly contradicted it with his words.
It was taken off the re-release.

Anything else?


He's been wrong before
When?



and I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't bluntly say that the box is wrong. Just stop arguing because you are not at all understanding anything I'm saying.
No one asked him about the box. They asked him the timeline. His words contradicted the box. The new box doesn't say that.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

He's been wrong before

*tears hair out* AAAUGHRHMOSH!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!

I am SO tired of people saying Miyamoto was wrong. Here's a little news flash for you: Miyamoto is the CREATOR of the series!! It's HIS DECISION how the story of the Zelda games play out! It's not POSSIBLE for Miyamoto to be wrong about the story HE CREATED!! When will you people realise that?!

Phew... That felt good. XD Sorry about the "yelling." It's just hard for me to bear some people's stupidity... No offense.

[sign of table]

Once again, you fail to see the point. You're assuming that one statement made is more correct than the thousands upon thousands of boxes that were created and never corrected. Miyamoto never once came out and said "the boxes are wrong, Link is not the predecessor of Link in LoZ/AoL"

He's been wrong before and I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't bluntly say that the box is wrong. Just stop arguing because you are not at all understanding anything I'm saying. GBA version doesn't have the quote. Miyamoto, the creator of the series who has control over everything, said that it went differently AFTER the quote had been made. That quote has not appeared since LttPs release. Quotes have appeared more recently that contradict that old quote. Put the two pieces of info together.

If that doesn't invalidate the box then I don't know what does.

That said I do heavily lean towards LoZ/AoL after LttP, anyway.

Also, why would Miyamoto say that they aren't the predecessor of Link in LoZ/AoL when the Japanese box never said that...

When has anyone come out and said that Miyamoto's quote was wrong? It works both works both ways.
In case you do what I might think you do I'm going to respond to that now.

I'm assuming you might say that Miyamoto has been wrong in the past which, somehow, invalidates what he said. Shall I analyze every single Nintendo box and tell you how many were wrong? One box/quote being wrong doesn't invalidate others. That's a logical fallacy.
The Oracle games only work as a distant sequel to A Link to the Past Can you explain why please? In my personal timeline (well kinda my timeline. My views are so close to changing all the time I don't really want to keep to one timeline. Especially with a new game coming out soon because that will just enhance my bias about that game.) I place OoX after LttP. But OoX works fine before LttP... *glances at Erimgard's timeline*

[Erimgard]

Erimgard's tentative timeline :P
I know it has flaws, and I want to see if ST indicates a connection to any games other than WW/PH.

And whether you put the Oracle games after aLttP or not, they work very well as a distant sequel to AoL.

AoL ends with:
-Three Triforce pieces together, but not physically combined, resting in a Hyrulean Castle (though not necessarily Hyrule Castle itself). In possession of the Royal Family.

-Ganon is dead, and his minions have failed to resurrect him in Hyrule.

OoX starts with:
-The three Triforce pieces together, but not physically combined, in Hyrule Castle. Possessed by the Royal Family.

-Ganon's minions have hatched a plot to resurrect him outside of Hyrule.

Both games have a Hero with a mark on his left hand, even though he has no Triforce piece.

[sign of table]

Hahaha.

I agree. OoX is best placed as a distant sequel to LoZ/AoL. Although I disagree on the marks having anything to do with that as evidence.

The marks are there for completely different reasons and, imo, the spell from AoL was only for AoL and would have only worked on the AoL hero.

And WOW we've gone off topic. From TMC to the box of LttP to the placement of LoZ/AoL and OoX O_o

So back onto the original topic.

Most of the non-TMC first evidence tends to be small little non-story things. And, imo, you should NEVER take small, easter egg-like pieces of evidence over storyline evidence.

That said, there is both small pieces of evidence and storyline evidence present in the same damn game (lol) which makes this game a pain to place.

[Zemen]

That said, there is both small pieces of evidence and storyline evidence present in the same damn game (lol) which makes this game a pain to place.

Exactly. This is probably the most debated game to place in the timeline for 2 big reasons.

One reason is because It's a new game. People (noobs) always bring up the quote by Miyamoto saying that OoT is first on the timeline. It is an irrelevant quote when we have a new game that is created after the quote was stated. Miyamoto has never come out and said that OoT is still first so it lingers in our thoughts.

The reason it lingers in our thoughts is the second reason why it's so highly debated. It's not at all connected to the "Ganon/dorf Saga" (as I like to call it).

The game isn't about someone trying to capture the triforce, nor is Ganon/dorf shown or even mentioned anywhere in the game. It's so unconnected from OoT that it makes it that much more possible that it could go before it. If this game had Ganon/dorf mentioned, shown or even hinted to have existed or currently exist then we would right away know it's after OoT. But there is no connection to Ganon/dorf in the game so it makes it that much harder.

I think that it should also be noted and extensively be kept in mind that this is the ONLY Hyrule based Zelda game that doesn't have Ganon/dorf in it. I have mentioned this on multiple occasions but people disregard it and don't even comment on it. I think that the Zelda series is highly based on symbolism and the fact that Ganon/dorf is the biggest threat to Hyrule and isn't spoken of or even hinted to exist or have existed at one point is a big statement that the series is making.

[Erimgard]

I think that it should also be noted and extensively be kept in mind that this is the ONLY Hyrule based Zelda game that doesn't have Ganon/dorf in it.
Four Swords for the GBA disagress with you :P



I have mentioned this on multiple occasions but people disregard it and don't even comment on it.
Because it's not proof of anything.



I think that the Zelda series is highly based on symbolism and the fact that Ganon/dorf is the biggest threat to Hyrule and isn't spoken of or even hinted to exist or have existed at one point is a big statement that the series is making.
Meh, he's just not relevant to the plot.

Now here's my question:
aLttP and TP both say that in the days in between Creation and Ocarina of Time, there was a battle (TP) or "spilling of blood" (aLttP) because all the people were obsessed with finding the Sacred Realm Triforce.

While OoT doesn't specifically say it was over the Triforce, it does also refer to a "Fierce War" ending just prior to the game.

So if there was all this civil war and bloodshed over the Sacred Realm and the Triforce lasting from just past creation till just before OoT...then why doesn't anyone in Minish Cap mention the Sacred Realm or the Triforce or any war about them?

They clearly have some knowledge of the Triforce as it appears in the town square and in Hyrule castle, but no one is remotely interested in finding it. Instead, everyone just wants the Light Force. How can MC be between Creation and OoT?

[Alter]

I should point out that the instruction manuals (in both English and Japanese) essentially say that TMC is not the first, but the storyline clearly says otherwise.

My guess is that the "Din" statement is a simple cameo. The real question here is "how was this intended?". We all know that Nintendo never planned for a split timeline. They really just boxed themselves in. I mean, do you really think that in OoT they though "Hmm... let's say that the "ending" never really happened"?? Nooo...

Methinks that Capcom intended for this game to be after OoX, but they either decided not to go through with it, and left that in there by mistake, or inserted it as a cameo as I previously mentioned.

[MrMosley]

I should point out that the instruction manuals (in both English and Japanese) essentially say that TMC is not the first, but the storyline clearly says otherwise.

I went back and read the manual. I didn't really get any hint from it at all that said MC was not first. It pretty much says what the game intro says, adding on the story of the festival and Vaati.

[Donuty7]

wow...

isnt the whole discussion about what the creator of Zelda wanted as a timeline

and youre saying he is wrong?

If it wasn't for him, you wouldn't be discussing anything right?

I thought he made it so complex and so uninformative to create discussions like this, to keep people intrigued by the game. So when he throws in his 2 cents, maybe its just to throw us a bone to the actual storyline.

HE CAN NOT BE WRONG.

He created it. damn.

[Zemen]

Four Swords for the GBA disagress with you :P

Four Swords, IMO, is not a legitimate Zelda game. It's more of a spin-off, IMO. You HAVE to have at least 2 people to play. It's way more of a addon to the game just to help it sell than it is an actual game in itself.

As far as legit, full blown Zelda games go, there is no a single Hyrule based game that doesn't have Ganon/dorf in it except for MC.


Meh, he's just not relevant to the plot.

So what? There are other things mentioned in the game that are not at all relevant to the plot but are mentioned.

-Triumph Forks are mentioned
-Din, Nayru, Farore from OoX (or ancestors from OoX) are mentioned

Those 2 come to mind right away. How hard is it to make a Ganon/dorf figurine? They didn't do it. He's the biggest villain in the series and they didn't make a figurine for him. Seems a little fishy that 3 oracles get a cameo/easter egg appearance but not the biggest villain in the series.

Who cares if it's relevant or not. It's as simple as having a book about him like they do the triumph forks or having a figurine for him like they do the oracles. But this doesn't take place. You really think that when they were making those figurines they didn't say to themselves "should we make a Ganon/dorf one?" because I sure as **** find it hard to believe that he didn't cross their minds at all. I feel as though they left him out for a reason.


So if there was all this civil war and bloodshed over the Sacred Realm and the Triforce lasting from just past creation till just before OoT...then why doesn't anyone in Minish Cap mention the Sacred Realm or the Triforce or any war about them?

They clearly have some knowledge of the Triforce as it appears in the town square and in Hyrule castle, but no one is remotely interested in finding it. Instead, everyone just wants the Light Force. How can MC be between Creation and OoT?

Well the same question can be asked about the light force. Why is there all of this mayhem from Vaati over the light force in MC but not in any other game in the series? Obviously the Triforce exists. They know it exists, but instead of the Triforce, this villain goes for the light force. Does this mean the light force is more powerful or something? If so, then why is it the only game that the light force is sought after?

[Erimgard]

-Triumph Forks are mentioned
How do we know that's not relevant?



-Din, Nayru, Farore from OoX (or ancestors from OoX) are mentioned
They're actually in the game though. Ganon is not.



Those 2 come to mind right away. How hard is it to make a Ganon/dorf figurine?
Ganondorf wasn't in the game. Making him a figurine is pointless.




Well the same question can be asked about the light force. Why is there all of this mayhem from Vaati over the light force in MC but not in any other game in the series?
Because in the end of the game Vaati absorbs the vast majority of it out of Princess Zelda and then dies? That tends to...ya know...do a number on it's importance to the series.

Not to mention, "force" is found in other games of the series.

[Zemen]

How do we know that's not relevant?

Whether it's relevant to timeline placement or not is a different question than what you were stating. You specifically said that Ganon/dorf has no relevance to the plot, not in general.

The Triumph Forks have absolutely no relevance to the plot. Now if you are talking in terms of timeline placement then yes, the Triumph Forks being mentioned could be relevant, but so could the mentioning (or lack there of) of Ganon/dorf.


They're actually in the game though. Ganon is not.

I don't recall them being relevant to the plot, however, and the plot is what you were discussing.


Ganondorf wasn't in the game. Making him a figurine is pointless.

Like I stated earlier, it doesn't HAVE to be a figurine. They could have mentioned him multiple ways. They could have had a book about him in the library, they could have had Vaati mention something like "I will succeed where the great king of the dark realm failed" or something along those lines. It would have taken a nanosecond to have his name mentioned somewhere or have his existence hinted at and relevance to the plot wouldn't have mattered, but they didn't mention him anywhere. Do you really believe that they accidentally didn't have him mentioned anywhere? There is no way that when creating a Zelda game Ganon/dorf would not cross the creators mind.

Now this is what you're suggesting happened.

-"Should we mention Ganon/dorf anywhere?"
-"No, he's not relevant to the plot."
-"Yeah, but we have a tiny mentioning of the Triumph Forks. We could just put a little tid bit somewhere about him."
-"No, the Triumph Forks are OK to add but the greatest villain in the series doesn't deserve recognition."
-"Yeah, but if we want people to believe that this game is not first in the timeline it would make sense to make his past existence obvious."
-"No, it doesn't matter."

This outcome seems more likely to me.

-"Should we mention Ganon/dorf anywhere?"
-"No, this game takes place before his existence."



Because in the end of the game Vaati absorbs the vast majority of it out of Princess Zelda and then dies? That tends to...ya know...do a number on it's importance to the series.

Except he doesn't die....(FS, FSA) Why didn't he go after the rest of the light force?


Not to mention, "force" is found in other games of the series.

But not Light Force, and that is the specific thing sought after in this game and in no other game. You're suggesting that all force is the same.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

-"No, the Triumph Forks are OK to add but the greatest villain in the series doesn't deserve recognition."I'll back that up a little, that you're saying the situation in the quote is not what happened. I've played the whole series (except for Adventure of Link) and have payed a lot of attention to what influences the timeline and how it effects where each game should be placed. Having analyzed it that much, I don't even remember what the Triumph Forks are or what games they were mentioned in. They're simply not relevant to the overall placement, so of course the developer wouldn't resort to mention of the Triumph Forks to imply what has already happened and what hasn't.

I generally place The Minish Cap and Four Swords at the beginning of the timeline, before Ocarina of Time, with Four Swords Adventures much later, as a distant prequel to A Link to the Past. Ganon/dorf is a huge influence on Hyrulian history, so you are highly likely to hear mention of him if he has already made his mark in the past. So, in order to help establish timeline placement, Nintendo made sure there was no mention of him in The Minish Cap and Four Swords, but they deliberately made many mentions of Ganon in Four Swords Adventures's script. This coincides well with the order of the Four Swords games.

Edit: By the way, you spelled okay wrong. ;)

[Alter]

I went back and read the manual. I didn't really get any hint from it at all that said MC was not first. It pretty much says what the game intro says, adding on the story of the festival and Vaati.

I actually went the official stories, which involves all three games.

Let me show you. Here is the FSA one:


"Long ago in the inner reaches of Hyrule, an evil wind sorcerer known as Vaati began kidnapping beautiful young maidens, one after another. Nobody could stop Vaati, and the people of Hyrule despaired.

Then, a brave young wanderer carrying a single sword appeared. When the young lad took out his sword, he split into four separate beings. The legends say that these beings worked as one and defeated Vaati.

The wanderer, united once again, imprisoned Vaati deep in Hyrule and sealed the prison with his own sword. This place became known as the Realm of the Four Sword.

Basically FS.

After that, a long time passed...


Then the wind sorcerer Vaati broke out of his prison, and snatched Princess Zelda of Hyrule. Zelda's childhood friend, a young boy named Link, claimed the strange power of the Four Sword, and fought Vaati fiercely. In the end, he succeeded in sealing Vaati away once again.

I'm sorry, but this one just screams TMC.


And so peace was restored to Hyrule. Or so everyone thought..."

And here begins FSA. :0

And from FS:


"Long ago, in the kingdom of Hyrule, there appeared a Wind Sorcerer named Vaati. Vaati could bend the wind to his will and used this awful power to terrorize many villages of Hyrule. In his assaults on the villages, Vaati would kidnap any beautiful girls who caught his fancy.

Many knights from the castle and other brave men set out to subdue the sorcerer and rescue the girls, but each one fell in turn to Vaati's awesome power. Just as the people had begun to lose hope, a lone young boy traveling with little but a sword at his side appeared.

When this boy heard what was happening, he said only, "I will defeat this sorcerer." He boldly entered Vaati's palace, mystically trapped the evil sorcerer inside the blade of his sword, and returned the young girls to their villages. The boy then went deep into the forest and disappeared.

The villagers asked the girls how a boy so young could have saved them all and defeated the sorcerer when no one else could. The young girls told a story of how with just a wave of his sword, the boy's body shattered into four pieces, each of which then formed a complete copy of the boy. These four young boys then worked together to defeat the sorcerer. The people did not believe the story, but they called it the Four Sword nonetheless. As rumors of the blade's power to divide a person into four entities spread, the people built a shrine to protect it.

Princess Zelda of the land of Hyrule was a beautiful young girl born with mysterious power to sense approaching forces of evil. For this reason, she was assigned with the sacred duty of protecting the shrine of the Four Sword and the blade itself. One day, Zelda was in Hyrule Castle when she sensed that something unusual was occurring at the Four Sword Shrine. She asked a boy named Link, whom she trusted above anyone else, to accompany her to investigate the happenings at the shrine..."

This supports the idea.

Any questions?

[MrMosley]

The story you quoted is basically what FSA talks about in its intro. To me, it describes them in the order of MC, FS, then leads into FSA.

Taken from the FSA intro:

"Long ago, in the kingdom of Hyrule, a wind sourceror named Vaati appeared. Vaati terrorized the people of Hyrule and kidnapped many beautiful young maidens from their homes.

When all hope seemed lost, a young boy carrying little more than a sword appeared. According to the legends, when the boy drew his sword, he split into four, the four-who-are-one worked together to vanquish Vaati. The hero used his sword to bind Vaati in a remote area of Hyrule. The people christened the blade the Four Sword and built a shrine around it. There it remained undisturbed for many years."

This details MC. Before MC, the Four Sword did not exist. You create the blade in MC, and at the end, the people of Hyrule built the Four Sword Shrine around it. You see this shrine for the first time in FS, which means that MC came before it.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Wait, you're actually suggesting that Four Swords is before The Minish Cap, Alter? What has the world come to? No, The Minish Cap is definitely the first out of the three Four Swords games, whether or not it's before Ocarina of Time. Though what the Four Swords Adventures intro says about Vaati kidnapping girls is a vague connection with The Minish Cap, we see pretty much the same description in Four Swords, minus the part at the end about Vaati returning and kidnapping Zelda. That screams Four Swords, NOT The Minish Cap. One could assume that the details about the events of The Minish Cap became vague over time, to the point where Vaati had kidnapped many girls, rather than just Zelda. This description is obviously of Vaati's first appearance, though, so it would have to be The Minish Cap.

[Zemen]

I don't even remember what the Triumph Forks are or what games they were mentioned in. They're simply not relevant to the overall placement, so of course the developer wouldn't resort to mention of the Triumph Forks to imply what has already happened and what hasn't.

Exactly. The fact that the Triumph Forks are such a irrelevant and almost unknown thing makes it strange that it would be mentioned as a timeline placer. If they clearly wanted this game to be after OoT then they would have mentioned something more obvious, like Ganon/dorf.

Triumph Forks are from WW, by the way.


Ganon/dorf is a huge influence on Hyrulian history, so you are highly likely to hear mention of him if he has already made his mark in the past. So, in order to help establish timeline placement, Nintendo made sure there was no mention of him in The Minish Cap and Four Swords

Exactly. Regardless of him being relevant to the plot or not, if he had already existed and MC takes place after many Ganon/dorf based adventures, then he would have been mentioned. He literally is/was the biggest threat to Hyrule and every game that is based in Hyrule has him in it. This is the one exception and not only does it not have him as the main villain, but it doesn't even mention his name anywhere. Regardless of relevance to the plot, the greatest evil ever known would be mentioned. He wouldn't just be forgotten because something new came along. There are clearly history books in the library but nothing about the greatest evil to walk the earth?


they deliberately made many mentions of Ganon in Four Swords Adventures's script. This coincides well with the order of the Four Swords games.

Not only was he mentioned in FSA, but he was actually IN the game as the main villain.

Ganon was pulling Vaati's strings through the entire game. Now if he existed prior to MC then how come he didn't use Vaati to free him then? If he existed prior to FS then how come he didn't use Vaati to free him then? Why did it take Ganon/dorf so long to realize "hey, I can use this clown to make myself more powerful?"

If Ganon/dorf existed prior to MC, not only would/should he have been mentioned, but he probably would have been incorporated into the plot as some sort of string pulling villain or as a mission to be ressurected, but no, there is no sign/hint/mentioning of him anywhere.


One could assume that the details about the events of The Minish Cap became vague over time, to the point where Vaati had kidnapped many girls, rather than just Zelda. This description is obviously of Vaati's first appearance, though, so it would have to be The Minish Cap.

Exactly. For those of you who believe that FS does not come before OoT, this is a good indication that MC does. The BS for FSA clearly talks about 2 different instances in which Vaati appeared. There are only 2 other games that deal with Vaati so it has to be talking about those games. Obviously, however, the first game/story mentioned in the BS strays extremely far away from the actual storyline in MC. Vaati did not kidnap many maidens. A brave, young wanderer carrying a sword did not just appear out of no where. Link was a childhood friend of Zelda who had a sword made by his uncle for the festival and definitely was not a wanderer. Link did not immediately split into 4 beings during MC. It was a power he acquired over time and even then was just a limited thing when used.

The BS for FSA that is supposed to explain MC is so vague and wrong that it must mean that MC takes place a very long time before FSA and if you put FS after OoT it would take place a long time before that as well. This supports MC being first because MC could have happened, then tons of stuff in between with Ganon/dorf and then FS happens, then FSA happens which combines the 2 villains.

[Erimgard]

Like I stated earlier, it doesn't HAVE to be a figurine.
It doesn't HAVE to be ANYTHING. Ganon wasn't part of the plot. They had no reason to mention him in any way, shape, or form. Leaving him out does not indicate it's the first game.



But not Light Force, and that is the specific thing sought after in this game and in no other game. You're suggesting that all force is the same.
They are the exact same word in the Japanese.

[Zemen]

It doesn't HAVE to be ANYTHING. Ganon wasn't part of the plot. They had no reason to mention him in any way, shape, or form. Leaving him out does not indicate it's the first game.

Once again, the Triumph Forks had NOTHING to do with the plot either but they are mentioned in the game. You really think that they thought that Triumph Forks fit better into the series than Ganon/dorf does. You are seriously suggesting that they thought that mentioning the Triumph Forks was more relevant to the Zelda series than mentioning Ganon/dorf, the main villain.

As stated by Caleb, he doesn't even remember what game the Triumph Forks are from. Why put such an insignificant easter egg into the game but not mention the greatest villain Hyrule has ever known. Zelda is notorious for incorporating cute little easter eggs into the game and the library had "historical" books in there. If they really wanted this game to be after OoT all they had to do was title one of the books "the king of the dark realm"

You swear like every single aspect of the game HAS to be relevant to the plot. Triumph Forks have nothing to do with MC but they are mentioned in the game. Why can't they do the same with Ganon/dorf? You're argument that he is not relevant to the plot is the worst argument in the world because it's clear that there are things in the game that are not relevant to the plot. You're argument fails.


They are the exact same word in the Japanese.

Light Force, in Japanese, is the same as Force? I find that hard to believe. You're saying that the force gems are exactly the same as the light force? False.

[sign of table]

^Sorry Zemen. The Light Force is just called force in Japan. Not false. True.

Your Ganon not appearing in the game is null as he wasn't important to the plot of the game. I agree that Triumph Forks don't mean anything, but atleast they were mentioned.
I'm sorry, but this one just screams TMC. Ummm more like FS. When did Vaati escape anything in TMC?

It clearly shows that FSA and FS Link are the same.

@Zemen: If FSA talks about FS then your Ganon point is even more null because it's another game without Ganon appearing.

The appearance of enemies, or lack thereof, does not prove a timeline. As shown with the LA debate...

[Matt]

There is as much to say it is first as there is to say it is not first. Just circumstantial evidence on either side. On one side it is the cap thing, which is a rather naive assumption. And the other is the Oracles in the games. That too is a naive assumption. Because there is nothing saying that the oracles encountered in the Oracle games are the first in their lines. The figurine says one of the long line of Oracles from Holodrum.
But that's besides the point as their appearance in The Minish Cap is clearly just a cameo. Saying that their appearance has timeline implications is like saying the Mario and co. pictures in Ocarina of Time means that they exist within the realm of Zelda. It is reading too much into a cameo.

[Zemen]

I agree that Triumph Forks don't mean anything, but atleast they were mentioned.

So you're suggesting that out of every possible thing they could have mentioned in the game, they seriously thought Triumph Forks were more important to mention than Ganon/dorf? You seriously think that Triumph Forks came to mind but not Ganon/dorf? That's like saying they made a Mario game and Bowser didn't once cross their minds at all but some EXTREMELY minor detail in one of the games was something they felt was important to add to the game.

[sign of table]

So you're suggesting that out of every possible thing they could have mentioned in the game, they seriously thought Triumph Forks were more important to mention than Ganon/dorf? Did you actually read the message that was quoted? I said I agree that they don't mean anything, but it is still more plausible evidence than your Ganon "evidence" because it is actually mentioned.

Maybe they did think of adding Ganon but couldn't find a good spot. Who knows. I do agree that Triumph Forks mean nothing but it's better evidence than your Ganon evidence because, you know, it's actually solid.

[Zemen]

Did you actually read the message that was quoted? I said I agree that they don't mean anything, but it is still more plausible evidence than your Ganon "evidence" because it is actually mentioned.

Maybe they did think of adding Ganon but couldn't find a good spot. Who knows. I do agree that Triumph Forks mean nothing but it's better evidence than your Ganon evidence because, you know, it's actually solid.

The point I'm trying to make is, if they really wanted to mention Ganon/dorf somewhere then why not put him in place of something they did put in, like oh say the Triumph Forks...

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not talking about how they put Triumph Forks in and not Ganon/dorf. I'm talking about how if he crossed their minds why didn't they just replace an "easter egg" that was already there with him? That's why I keep saying do you really think they thought Triumph Forks was more important. They could easily have taken those out and mention Ganon/dorf in its place, but they didn't.

[sign of table]

Sure they could have. They could have called the people in the game Hylians just ONCE. But they didn't they were consistent in using human. Why weren't they called Hylians if it was before OoT? I wonder if it crossed their mind at all to call them Hylians instead. But we'll never know.

[Erimgard]

And you still haven't answered the question of why there is absolutely no mention of civil war, bloodshed for information, etc regarding the Sacred Realm and/or Triforce.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I agree that they don't mean anything, but it is still more plausible evidence than your Ganon "evidence" because it is actually mentioned.

You're such a hypocrite. If the Triumph Forks being mentioned in The Minish Cap don't mean anything, that's it. They can't be more concrete evidence than anything because they aren't anything themselves.

I found another little piece of evidence yesterday that essentially proves that they intend The Minish Cap to be the first in the timeline. On Zelda Wiki, they have a page titled "Timeline Quotes" (which is very useful for almost any timeline debate).

Aonuma: The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline. With this one on the GameCube [(FSA (http://www.zeldawiki.org/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Four_Swords_Adventures))] being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.

This was while they had Four Swords Adventures listed as a "Coming Soon" title, so The Minish Cap had yet to be concieved. He says, plainly and simply, that Four Swords was first in the timeline (at the time). (He even uses the word timeline!) The Minish Cap was made since then as a prequel to Four Swords, so it would have to be first.

Also note that this is Anouma being quoted, NOT Miyamoto (who apparently has a repuation for being wrong about his own timeline. XP)

The fact that Ganon was intentionally never mentioned only supports what Anouma said. The name "Triumph Forks" could very well have been used in Hyrule for some other rumor about the Triforce as a whole (hence "Triumph Forks" being derived from "Trifoce.") I'm not sure what the game says exactly, though. If someone could provide that quote, it would be easier to analyse.

[:.:Mikki:.:]

Actually, I don't know if this is all true.

But, Legend of Zelda 1 was the first Zelda game to be released on the Famicom console. ;]

[sign of table]

You're such a hypocrite. If the Triumph Forks being mentioned in The Minish Cap don't mean anything, that's it. They can't be more concrete evidence than anything because they aren't anything themselves. How does that make me a hypocrite? My personal beliefs are that it doesn't mean anything, but from an ubiased point of view it clearly means more than Zemen's lack of Ganon "evidence". How does that make me a hypocrite?
This was while they had Four Swords Adventures listed as a "Coming Soon" title, so The Minish Cap had yet to be concieved. He says, plainly and simply, that Four Swords was first in the timeline (at the time). (He even uses the word timeline!) The Minish Cap was made since then as a prequel to Four Swords, so it would have to be first. Something to note. FSA was still in its beta period at that time. And at that time it was still the Seal War. The game changed a lot and now it's clearly a direct sequel to FS. Now I won't say that FSA before OoT is impossible (only because KJ Contrarion makes it work), but, imo, it's ridiculously unlikely.
The fact that Ganon was intentionally never mentioned only supports what Anouma said. Imo the fact that the word "Hylian" is not used ONCE throughout the entire game means more. They intentionally replace EVERY SINGLE TIME the word Hylian would be used and replace it with Human. And this isn't can't be a Capcom mistake because they'd already made OoX which contained the word Hylian.

They didn't just not mention Hylian, they intentionally used a completely different word in place of Hylian. That's far more important than not mentioning a villain who doesn't appear in the game...

[Caleb, Of Asui]

How does that make me a hypocrite? My personal beliefs are that it doesn't mean anything, but from an ubiased point of view it clearly means more than Zemen's lack of Ganon "evidence". How does that make me a hypocrite?
You're saying that it doesn't mean anything, but then you're saying it means more than something else, which implies that it means something.


Something to note. FSA was still in its beta period at that time. And at that time it was still the Seal War. The game changed a lot and now it's clearly a direct sequel to FS. Now I won't say that FSA before OoT is impossible (only because KJ Contrarion makes it work), but, imo, it's ridiculously unlikely.
Direct sequel? No... Nothing in either title supports that Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures feature the same generation of Link and Zelda. He says Four Swords Adventures takes place "some time after" Four Swords. Other games can fit in this some time.

Besides, the fact that this was in the beta stages of Four Swords Adventures explains why he didn't mention what games are in between - they decided LATER that Four Swords Adventures was the Seal War, or at least somewhere around that period. It fits quite wonderfully as a prequel to A Link to the Past, especially with the Four Swords Palace in the GBA version.

I'm not saying that Four Swords Adventures is before Ocarina of Time with the rest of the trilogy. Nintendo has confirmed that the first two Four Swords games (TMC and FS) are at the beginning of the timeline, while its obvious that a lot of Ganon's backstory has to take place between Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures. (This being Ocarina of Time and some other games, depending on your timeline theory.)


Imo the fact that the word "Hylian" is not used ONCE throughout the entire game means more. They intentionally replace EVERY SINGLE TIME the word Hylian would be used and replace it with Human. And this isn't can't be a Capcom mistake because they'd already made OoX which contained the word Hylian.

[QUOTE]They didn't just not mention Hylian, they intentionally used a completely different word in place of Hylian. That's far more important than not mentioning a villain who doesn't appear in the game...
Human is a SPECIES. Hylian is a RACE. They don't mention the name Hylian because it's not worth mentioning. There's nothing to distinguish from. Gerudos, Zoras and everything are all humans as well - they're just different races.

When do they use the word "human," anyway? What are they distinguishing from?

[Zemen]

Something to note. FSA was still in its beta period at that time. And at that time it was still the Seal War. The game changed a lot and now it's clearly a direct sequel to FS.

Exactly where is your proof and your source that FSA was changed after the quote about FS being first was stated? I've heard you use this as proof/evidence a lot and I have yet to see any sources or quotes to back it up.

And I don't think it's clear that it's a direct sequel. That's HIGHLY debatable. The only evidence that anyone ever gives for it being a direct sequel of FS is the fact that the BS uses the actual names of Link and Zelda, which doesn't mean much at all to me.

[Erimgard]

And you still haven't answered the question of why there is absolutely no mention of civil war, bloodshed for information, etc regarding the Sacred Realm and/or Triforce.

Hey, maybe third time's a charm?
I'd like to see this addressed.

[Super Goombario]

How about we stop arguing and remember when Nintendo said the order goes "OoT, Zelda 1, Zelda 2, and LttP"

[Caleb, Of Asui]

How about we stop arguing and remember when Nintendo said the order goes "Zelda 1, OoT, MM, LA, Oracles, Zelda 2"What? When did they say that? I know Miyamoto said "OoT, LoZ, AoL, LttP," but what you're saying sounds a bit farfetched. [/EDIT]


Hey, maybe third time's a charm?
I'd like to see this addressed. A charm? What do you mean by that? By "third time," I assume you mean Four Swords Adventures.


And I don't think it's clear that it's a direct sequel. That's HIGHLY debatable. The only evidence that anyone ever gives for it being a direct sequel of FS is the fact that the BS uses the actual names of Link and Zelda, which doesn't mean much at all to me.

No, I'd have to say it isn't debatable. They definitely feature a different generation. Nintendo said Four Swords was first in the timeline prior to The Minish Cap's relese, and Four Swords Adventures clearly has to be after Ocarina of Time, hence Ganon's history in that game.

(Maybe you could be weird and say Four Swords, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Four Swords Adventures ALL have the same Link and Zelda, but I think the fact that Link and Zelda have yet to meet at the start of Ocarina of Time completley writes that off.)

Nintendo wouldn't change where Four Swords is in the timeline simply because of Four Swords Adventures, especially not after revealing Four Swords's place in the timeline to the public. So, honestly, this whole thing SHOULDN'T be debatable. Still, there are those of you (coughSignOfJusicecough) who still chose to contradict Nintendo's official word about the story they created. I'll never understand people like that.

[Erimgard]

How about we stop arguing and remember when Nintendo said the order goes "OoT, Zelda 1, Zelda 2, and LttP"
That was before Minish Cap came out ;)


A charm? What do you mean by that? By "third time," I assume you mean Four Swords Adventures.

No, I mean I have asked Zemen three different times how MC can be before Ocarina of Time, when several games state that there was a battle over the Sacred Realm that started soon after Creation and leasted up until around the time Link was born. No such battle is occuring during MC. Zemen has refused to answer my question to this point.

[sign of table]

And I don't think it's clear that it's a direct sequel. That's HIGHLY debatable. The only evidence that anyone ever gives for it being a direct sequel of FS is the fact that the BS uses the actual names of Link and Zelda, which doesn't mean much at all to me. It doesn't mean much? So a Link and Zelda being mentioned in a manual and then a current Link and Zelda being mentioned without any distinction that the two are different means nothing? That is completely and utterly ridiculous. No writer in their right mind would make it so clear that they are the same and give no indication that they are different, but making it so they really are different.

The SW as OoT encounters this same problem, but atleast it can be worked around because intent has changed.
Exactly where is your proof and your source that FSA was changed after the quote about FS being first was stated? I've heard you use this as proof/evidence a lot and I have yet to see any sources or quotes to back it up. http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/zelda-theorizing/89161-removed-text-from-fsa-and-some-strange-bits-of-text.html That's the removed text.

The game changed a LOT.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/...s-of-text.html (http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/zelda-theorizing/89161-removed-text-from-fsa-and-some-strange-bits-of-text.html) That's the removed text.

The game changed a LOT.With those in the game, Four Swords Adventures would DEFINITELY be a prequel to A Link to the Past. You can tell that's what they intended. Though, if the game's still supposed to be a prequel, why are these all left out? I think I'll answer that myself. I made a topic about why the timeline isn't revealed to us, and the general reply was "it's a good selling point for the game." At some point, they made it less obvious that Four Swords Adventures is a prequel to A Link to the Past. They wanted us to figure it out, rather than having it essentially told to us. Leaving us to figure this out would give the game better sales. I believe I do have it figured out, though: Four Swords Adventures has connections to the GBA version of A Link to the Past that hold the former as a prequel more concretely than anything.


No writer in their right mind would make it so clear that they are the same and give no indication that they are different, but making it so they really are different.There's plenty of indication that they're different. At this point in the series' history, everyone knew that there are many generations of characters named Link and Zelda. Nintendo is being inconsistent if they have the same Link and Zelda. Throughout the series, each generation features in two games, except for the generations in the Four Swords series, which has one game per generation. (Twilight Princess and Spirit Tracks are bound to recieve direct sequels soon enough, but that's doubtful for The Minish Cap.)

If they were really intended to be the same generation, Nintendo would give a lot more evidence in-game. In Four Swords Adventures, Zelda still explains the Four Sword Shrine and Vaati as if he didn't know much about it. Besides that, the fact that Nintendo said Four Swords is before all of the other games released at that point and that Four Swords Adventures has to be after Ganon's defeat should be enough to prove they're in different generations.

Nintendo never intended for these to be the same generation. That's why Nintendo, through both a quote and Ganon's appearance in Four Swords Adventures, places them so far apart in the timeline.


No, I mean I have asked Zemen three different times how MC can be before Ocarina of Time, when several games state that there was a battle over the Sacred Realm that started soon after Creation and leasted up until around the time Link was born. No such battle is occuring during MC. Zemen has refused to answer my question to this point.

What? This was never mentioned in any of the games. There was a battle in A Link to the Past's backstory, but that was around Four Swords Adventures. It didn't start at the creation. Is the Link you're talking about the one in Ocarina of Time? If so, all those events regarding Link being left with the Kokiri have to do with turmoil regarding Ganondorf trying to find the Sacred Stones. Never does it say all that started soon after the creation.

I'll once again reiterate that Four Swords is confirmed to be before Ocarina of Time. No war ever lasted all the way from the beginning of Hyrule until Ocarina of Time.

[Zemen]

No, I mean I have asked Zemen three different times how MC can be before Ocarina of Time, when several games state that there was a battle over the Sacred Realm that started soon after Creation and leasted up until around the time Link was born. No such battle is occuring during MC. Zemen has refused to answer my question to this point.

I don't recall you ever asking that, but I will answer now I suppose.

I believe that the BS of MC says something that goes like this.

"Evil spirits appeared in the land of Hyrule, and just when it seemed that the world was to be cast into the darkest of shadows, the tiny Picori descended from the skies and bestowed on a courageous human a shining golden light and a single sword."

It doesn't say when the evils spirits appeared, only that they did appear so this could easily have taken place shortly after creation of the world. Now the fact that the picori came to help the humans out by giving them the light force and giving the hero of men a sword is a good indication that some sort of battle was going on. A war, maybe?

There is a clear statement of evil in the world and the world almost being consumed by it. There is a clear indication of a hero who was previously trying to stop them and then received help from another race. One nation (Hyrule) getting help from another (Picori/Minish) to stop an apparently vast amount of evil. Sounds like a war, to me. No one ever said that all of the wars spoken of in past games HAVE to be happening during MC. If you analyze the BS of MC, it appears as though the game takes place many years after a war for the world.

Or, better yet, I'll use the same argument you used against my "no mentioning of Ganon/dorf" evidence.

This game has absolutely nothing to do with the Sacred Realm or the Triforce so why would a past war about either be mentioned or take place in this game? ;)

Does that answer your question?

[sign of table]

You can tell that's what they intended. Though, if the game's still supposed to be a prequel, why are these all left out? I think I'll answer that myself. Aonuma said that Miyamoto "upended the teatable" and changed a lot of the story near the end of the developement because he thought that the story was too complicated.
There's plenty of indication that they're different. At this point in the series' history, everyone knew that there are many generations of characters named Link and Zelda. Nintendo is being inconsistent if they have the same Link and Zelda. Throughout the series, each generation features in two games, except for the generations in the Four Swords series, which has one game per generation. (Twilight Princess and Spirit Tracks are bound to recieve direct sequels soon enough, but that's doubtful for The Minish Cap.) That's not an indication.

When you see that a character named Link defeated an evil previously then the main character is named... Link what are the writers trying to tell you?
No, I mean I have asked Zemen three different times how MC can be before Ocarina of Time, when several games state that there was a battle over the Sacred Realm that started soon after Creation and leasted up until around the time Link was born. No such battle is occuring during MC. Zemen has refused to answer my question to this point. 1 game states that. And, while I'll agree it's an implication, there are far bigger implications and it isn't completely solid. It's even more heavily implied that nothing has happened between the SW and LttP. I'd rather go with the one that makes sense and is the more hinted implication.
I'll once again reiterate that Four Swords is confirmed to be before Ocarina of Time. No war ever lasted all the way from the beginning of Hyrule until Ocarina of Time. It was confirmed by someone who didn't work on the game before FSA, a new game made by the person who said that quote, came out and is CLEARLY the FS sequel.

Ignoring that is ignoring intent. Sorry if I seem arrogant on this, but I'm right. The point is to find the developer intended timeline and the developers intended for FSA to be the FS sequel.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

It was confirmed by someone who didn't work on the game before FSA, a new game made by the person who said that quote, came out and is CLEARLY the FS sequel.

He did work on Four Swords Adventures, though. (Source: http://www.zeldawiki.org/Aonuma) He is heavily involved in the Zelda series, so he knows what he's talking about when he says a certain game is first and I'm sure he knows very well that Four Swords Adventures is some time after Ocarina of Time.

I watched a video of the beginning of Four Swords Adventures earlier today, and I'll admit that it is easier to think that this is the same generation of Link and Zelda. I'll note another thing about the quote:
"The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we’re thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline."
It's possible that Four Swords is something they felt more freedom adjusting in the timeline after its release, seeing as it's such a small game that had little influence on the games so far, AND it was bundled on the same cartridge A Link to the Past, which is definitely one of the larger games in the series. So, perhaps they didn't quite have it completely decided then, and decided to keep moving it around and experimenting until they were finished with the full sequel, Four Swords Adventures.

What does this mean for The Minish Cap, though? Even if Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures are somewhere after Ocarina of Time and feature the same generation of characters, this in no way means that The Minish Cap isn't before Ocarina of Time. Somebody could have interviewed Aonuma or Miyamoto about it, but they didn't, so we're stuck looking at the evidence. Honestly, the biggest piece of evidence is that Ganon is never mentioned, even briefley, which means that, yes, The Minish Cap is first. Considering it first also gives a - comfortable - excuse for it not to be paired with a direct sequel like the rest of the series. (Still, though, I'd enjoy a Minish Cap sequel.)

---

Just a small extra comment I'd like to add about the issue concerning wars before Ocarina of Time: I looked at a text dump for the game on Zelda Legends (a ZD affiliate). I used ctrl+F to find the word "war," and came to the quote from the Deku Tree sprout about the war predating Ocarina of Time. He does NOT say it lasted since the creation of Hyrule. He does, however, say it was before the king united Hyrule as one kingdom - possibly an explanation to why the Hyrule of The Minish Cap is a small area around Hyrule Castle and Castle Town, rather than the expanse southward that most of the games give us.

[HeroofAges]

I tend to agree.. In fact I don't believe that FS is immediately after MC. The intro movie to Four Swords clearly indicates that it is a different Link and Zelda than in MC.
"Legends say that when mighty Vaati attacked, a hero arose and saved the people from destruction. They go on to say that by using this sword, the one was as four and the four combined strength....." Then Vaati shows up and clearly does not recognize Zelda. Four Swords definitely follows Minish Cap but it could be 5 years later or 500. If Minish Cap is first Four Swords is by no means second.

I agree that the OoT is first statement was true when it was made though Minish Cap seems to fit quite well before that. Since it came out after that statement it is possible that they just changed their mind..

I will say that, as I have said before, the hat thing IS NOT enough to base a theory on. Maybe Link didn't start the game with a hat because the designers wanted Ezlo to be the hat. Or maybe it was a subtle clue. I personaly place this game at the front of my timeline for a few reasons, many of which are already listed. But I would not be surprised to find out I am wrong later on.

[Alter]

Wait, you're actually suggesting that Four Swords is before The Minish Cap, Alter? What has the world come to? No, The Minish Cap is definitely the first out of the three Four Swords games, whether or not it's before Ocarina of Time. Though what the Four Swords Adventures intro says about Vaati kidnapping girls is a vague connection with The Minish Cap, we see pretty much the same description in Four Swords, minus the part at the end about Vaati returning and kidnapping Zelda. That screams Four Swords, NOT The Minish Cap. One could assume that the details about the events of The Minish Cap became vague over time, to the point where Vaati had kidnapped many girls, rather than just Zelda. This description is obviously of Vaati's first appearance, though, so it would have to be The Minish Cap.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm simply pointing out what the manuals say.

[sign of table]

He did work on Four Swords Adventures, though. (Source: http://www.zeldawiki.org/Aonuma) He is heavily involved in the Zelda series, so he knows what he's talking about when he says a certain game is first and I'm sure he knows very well that Four Swords Adventures is some time after Ocarina of Time. That's a pretty good point... if FSA, the game that should, in my opinion, take place after OoT (on either side), wasn't the game that hints so heavily that FS wasn't a direct prequel.

The only evidence we have for each placement is an interview that happened before FS came out and the person who had the interview didn't even work on the game, and a game which came after the interview that is very clear on what happens.

I know which one I'm going with...

[Zemen]

That's a pretty good point... if FSA, the game that should, in my opinion, take place after OoT (on either side), wasn't the game that hints so heavily that FS wasn't a direct prequel.

The only evidence we have for each placement is an interview that happened before FS came out and the person who had the interview didn't even work on the game, and a game which came after the interview that is very clear on what happens.

I know which one I'm going with...

Once again, the only real connection that the FSA has for being a direct sequel to FS is that FSA uses Link and Zelda's name in the BS.

If I do recall, doesn't Link get tricked into pulling the Four Sword in FSA? And in FS he pulls the sword for other reasons. The point is, after FS, Link knows what will happen when the sword is pulled so why would he be so easily tricked in to pulling it out after he has just got done with a quest using the Four Sword?

Also, the BS probably shouldn't be used as a basis for deciding whether or not FSA is a direct sequel. The BS explains 2 previous encounters with Vaati. Before FSA there are only 2 previous encounters that we know of with Vaati. The first encounter explained of in the BS of FSA is clearly NOT MC that is being discussed as nothing in the FSA BS matches up at all with the plot of MC. Seeing as how the first 50% of the BS is extremely vague, and wrong, why would you even use the rest of the BS to decide anything?

[sign of table]

Once again, the only real connection that the FSA has for being a direct sequel to FS is that FSA uses Link and Zelda's name in the BS. So you're saying that there isn't enough evidence? I can't recall anything that suggests that they have different Link's.

Give me ONE time in ANY STORY where it refers to two characters in the backstory and happens to have two characters with the same name, that do the same thing, and gives no distinction that they are different, while being different. You won't find any because no writer would ever be that freaken stupid.
If I do recall, doesn't Link get tricked into pulling the Four Sword in FSA? Actually from what I remember he gets tricked in FS, and in FSA he knows what'll happen if he takes out the sword.
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LNWrZs4K0I 4:42ish it says "The sword guards the seal on Vaati. If you draw the sword you must know what will happen." He knew.
Also, the BS probably shouldn't be used as a basis for deciding whether or not FSA is a direct sequel. Really? The backstory shouldn't be used to decide if a game is a PART of said backstory?
The BS explains 2 previous encounters with Vaati. One of which is identical to FS, contains two characters mentioned by name with the same name as the two main characters, and the main character already knows what'll happen if he pulls the sword. Nah there's no proof here.
The first encounter explained of in the BS of FSA is clearly NOT MC that is being discussed as nothing in the FSA BS matches up at all with the plot of MC. A few things to note. It has to be TMC because it is heavily implied to be the first usage of the FS. The developers have confirmed that TMC is before FS/FSA because it is the birth of the FS.

Another thing. The game came out after FSA, but was worked on around the same time and by a different company. I can't imagine that the BS would perfectly match... I mean look at OoT back in 1998 when it was confirmed to be the SW. It barely matched at all and contained more problems than answers. But OoT was the SW back in 1998.

The other half of the plot directly references FS in quite good detail. Why should we disregard the good half because of the bad half?
Seeing as how the first 50% of the BS is extremely vague, and wrong, why would you even use the rest of the BS to decide anything? That's actually a logical fallacy. Gimme a little while to get you a link to explain it, but it basically means that it's wrong everything because of one wrong aspect.

You're trying to win the debate, not trying to figure out the best timeline.

[Zemen]

Give me ONE time in ANY STORY where it refers to two characters in the backstory and happens to have two characters with the same name, that do the same thing, and gives no distinction that they are different, while being different. You won't find any because no writer would ever be that freaken stupid.

Hmmm funny you should bring the whole fact that it's never happened before because I'm pretty sure I asked you a similar question.

Give me ONE time in ANY OF THE ZELDA GAMES that takes place in Hyrule that doesn't feature or mention the existence of Ganon/dorf other than MC.

You completely disregarded that as evidence so why can't I disregard this? It's pretty much the same exact argument.

You basically said, just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't now.

I'm going to use that answer. I love irony.


it says "The sword guards the seal on Vaati. If you draw the sword you must know what will happen." He knew.

Yeah, this is pretty self explanatory. It basically says that it's the lock to his locked door. It's obvious what would happen if the sword was pulled (the lock would be removed). This doesn't hint to him previously knowing what would happen because it is an extremely self explanatory statement.


The other half of the plot directly references FS in quite good detail. Why should we disregard the good half because of the bad half? That's actually a logical fallacy. Gimme a little while to get you a link to explain it, but it basically means that it's wrong everything because of one wrong aspect.

If I lied to you about something and then started telling you about something related to the lie, would you believe it?


You're trying to win the debate, not trying to figure out the best timeline.

I'm pretty sure that this whole thread is a debate on where MC goes. I believe it goes first, therefor I am going to try and "win" by giving more evidence for it being first. You're just trying to win too by giving evidence for it not to be first, so don't be a hypocrite.

[sign of table]

Give me ONE time in ANY OF THE ZELDA GAMES that takes place in Hyrule that doesn't feature or mention the existence of Ganon/dorf other than MC. I can't name a Zelda game, but I can name plenty of literature where the main villain doesn't appear in one of the main books. But you will NEVER find a book that mentions two people who are childhood friends, while there are two characters in the backstory with the same names and were childhood friends. Because no writer is that damn stupid.
You completely disregarded that as evidence so why can't I disregard this? It's pretty much the same exact argument. Ganon not appearing in TMC isn't evidence for its placement. It fits nicely if it goes first, but you can't use that to prove its placement because it just isn't solid enough. For example. If TMC is first it could mark the beginning of organized villainry. Now that isn't evidence for its placement, but it would fit nicely if it went first. You get what I'm saying?


Yeah, this is pretty self explanatory. It basically says that it's the lock to his locked door. It's obvious what would happen if the sword was pulled (the lock would be removed). This doesn't hint to him previously knowing what would happen because it is an extremely self explanatory statement. He clearly didn't get tricked into pulling the sword, of course, as he knew fully well what would happen if he pulled the sword.
If I lied to you about something and then started telling you about something related to the lie, would you believe it? If you're wrong about one thing, then correct on the other half of the tale, does that automatically make the other correct half of the tale wrong? No it doesn't. We know for a fact that the second half of the tale is 100% correct. We can't deny it because FS came out before it and it describes it perfectly.

The second half is correct. The second half makes no mistakes on what happens in FS, so why should we believe that it is wrong when it was made to describe FS and it does so perfectly and adds a few details?
I'm pretty sure that this whole thread is a debate on where MC goes. I believe it goes first, therefor I am going to try and "win" by giving more evidence for it being first. You're just trying to win too by giving evidence for it not to be first, so don't be a hypocrite. I actually heavily lean towards TMC being first. But I'm not going to take every piece of evidence as, well, evidence when some of it just doesn't work and is fallacious and illogical.

Also that comment was about FS placement, not TMC placement.

What evidence is there for FS as first(/second after TMC or whatever...)? A developer who didn't work on the game saying their thinking of it being first before it even came out.

What evidence is against it as first? A game made by the same developer who made the original quote that gives a huge implication in the backstory which came out after the quote.

Weren't you the one who said in a previous debate game evidence > developer quotes?

[Zemen]

I can't name a Zelda game,

Exactly.


but I can name plenty of literature where the main villain doesn't appear in one of the main books. But you will NEVER find a book that mentions two people who are childhood friends, while there are two characters in the backstory with the same names and were childhood friends. Because no writer is that damn stupid.

Too bad that statement has absolutely nothing to do with Zelda and is completely irrelevant. Terrible argument.


Weren't you the one who said in a previous debate game evidence > developer quotes?

Where have I argued any creator quotes?

[sign of table]

Too bad that statement has absolutely nothing to do with Zelda and is completely irrelevant. Terrible argument. So you're telling me that to place FS as first I have to ignore all common sense of writing and believe that the writers were that stupid?

I'm sorry but it's just a ridiculous argument. The OoT as SW has some merit and makes some sense. This doesn't. You cannot give me any example of any writer above the age of 4 being as stupid as you claim the FSA BS writers were. It's called common sense.

It says that Zelda had a childhood friend named Link. Zelda is still the princess in FSA. Zelda is friends with Link. Link knows what will happen if he pulls the sword.

You are claiming that the Link and Zelda in the first instance are different from the second/third/fourth one that I posted? If-so I can only say one thing....... lol

Where have I argued any creator quotes? Earlier in this very thread:

Once again, you fail to see the point. You're assuming that one statement made is more correct than the thousands upon thousands of boxes that were created and never corrected. Miyamoto never once came out and said "the boxes are wrong, Link is not the predecessor of Link in LoZ/AoL"

He's been wrong before and I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't bluntly say that the box is wrong. Just stop arguing because you are not at all understanding anything I'm saying. Stop changing your arguments for each debate to suit you. It's doing exactly what I was talking about. You're trying to win, not trying to find the best timeline.

[Zemen]

Stop changing your arguments for each debate to suit you. It's doing exactly what I was talking about. You're trying to win, not trying to find the best timeline.

Your previous post said that I was the one who said that game evidence was more important than creator quotes. You then posted something I said that went exactly with my theory of game evidence being more important than creator quotes. I fail to see how that proved me wrong on anything. All you did was verify that i stick to my belief. Congrats. And you seem to be only trying to "win" as well, so once again, stop being a hypocrite. If you really don't care about winning, then stop posting because all you are doing is retaliating my posts and by doing so, you are doing exactly what I am supposedly doing.

[sign of table]

Your previous post said that I was the one who said that game evidence was more important than creator quotes. You then posted something I said that went exactly with my theory of game evidence being more important than creator quotes. Your only evidence is a quote from Aonuma. Whereas I'm using more recent in-game evidence. If in-game evidence is more important than developer quotes, why are you still following FS-OoT?


All you did was verify that i stick to my belief. Actually you're doing quite the opposite. Earlier in this thread you said in-game > developer quotes for timeline stuff. Now you're using an Aonuma quote and saying that it's more important than the more recent in-game evidence. You even said: "Where have I argued any creator quotes?" That is NOT sticking to your belief and it's annoying as hell.
If you really don't care about winning, then stop posting because all you are doing is retaliating my posts and by doing so, you are doing exactly what I am supposedly doing. Except I'm posting with logic and evidence, whereas the only thing you've done is say that it's not important, but you've yet to give me ANY example of ANYTHING FROM ANY PIECE OF FICTION OR STORY EVER IN THE HISTORY OF TIME to do what you're claiming the FSA BS did.

[Zemen]

Actually you're doing quite the opposite. Earlier in this thread you said in-game > developer quotes for timeline stuff. Now you're using an Aonuma quote blah blah blah

Where am I arguing that quote about FS being first and where did I ever state that I believe FS to be first? All I'm doing is arguing every spectrum that's possible. Not once have I taken my stance on where FS is placed on the timeline. All I'm doing is telling you that there is no solid evidence, other than the BS (according to you), for FS to be a direct prequel. That doesn't mean I believe it isn't a direct prequel. I'm simply stating a fact that there is only one piece of evidence for it.

Similarly, there is not one single post of mine that argues the quote Aounuma made about FS. I believe you are getting me mixed up with Caleb, who actually has been hardcore arguing that quote. But I can promise you that I am one of the people that does not take that quote seriously.

Maybe you should figure out who actually posted stuff before you start bashing the wrong person.

[sign of table]

Where am I arguing that quote about FS being first and where did I ever state that I believe FS to be first? All I'm doing is arguing every spectrum that's possible. Not once have I taken my stance on where FS is placed on the timeline. All I'm doing is telling you that there is no solid evidence, other than the BS (according to you), for FS to be a direct prequel. That doesn't mean I believe it isn't a direct prequel. I'm simply stating a fact that there is only one piece of evidence for it. As long as I've remembered you did place FS before OoT and I don't remember you ever mentioning that you didn't believe it was before OoT. Sorry for any misunderstanding, then ):
Similarly, there is not one single post of mine that argues the quote Aounuma made about FS. I believe you are getting me mixed up with Caleb, who actually has been hardcore arguing that quote. But I can promise you that I am one of the people that does not take that quote seriously.

Maybe you should figure out who actually posted stuff before you start bashing the wrong person. I'm terribly sorry for any misunderstanding. Back when you first started theorizing you did use that quote, but I guess it has been a long time since. So I'm sorry about all that. Since you seemed to be arguing for FS and the only proof for FS before OoT is the Aonuma quote I thought you still believed it mattered.

Sorry :P

[Zemen]

As long as I've remembered you did place FS before OoT and I don't remember you ever mentioning that you didn't believe it was before OoT. Sorry for any misunderstanding, then ): I'm terribly sorry for any misunderstanding. Back when you first started theorizing you did use that quote, but I guess it has been a long time since. So I'm sorry about all that. Since you seemed to be arguing for FS and the only proof for FS before OoT is the Aonuma quote I thought you still believed it mattered.

Sorry :P

No harm, no foul.

I wonder if anyone else will start posting now that are minor feud is out of way :lol:

[jco5055]

I think TMC comes first, but that FS/FSA come much later (after OoT sometime), but are the same Link in those two games.

Aonuma stated that the FS story is the oldest story in the Zelda universe, but couldnt he mean not the particular story itself, but the saga of the FS/Vaati is the oldest? That would mean that only the first game chronologically (TMC) would have to be the oldest, and come first overall. Also, though i last beat TMC three years ago so my memories a little hazy, doesnt Vaati get sealed away, so presumably thousands of years could pass betwen TMC and FS?

[Zemen]

I think TMC comes first, but that FS/FSA come much later (after OoT sometime), but are the same Link in those two games.

Aonuma stated that the FS story is the oldest story in the Zelda universe, but couldnt he mean not the particular story itself, but the saga of the FS/Vaati is the oldest? That would mean that only the first game chronologically (TMC) would have to be the oldest, and come first overall. Also, though i last beat TMC three years ago so my memories a little hazy, doesnt Vaati get sealed away, so presumably thousands of years could pass betwen TMC and FS?

Vaati getting sealed away is not a good basis for evidence as to FS being thousands of years later because he also gets sealed away in FS but apparently, as many people believe, he shortly gets released again in FSA which would only be a few years.

[MrMosley]

Vaati getting sealed away is not a good basis for evidence as to FS being thousands of years later because he also gets sealed away in FS but apparently, as many people believe, he shortly gets released again in FSA which would only be a few years.

I agree. What you should look at as far as the length of time between the Four Swords Saga games is the intro to FSA, which many believe has inaccurate or misleading information, but really gives a lot of hints to the games' placements. For example, the intro to FSA talks about MC Link as a legendary hero and does not specify his name. It talks about FS Link as just Link, so apparently, it is signifying that it is the current Link. Because it talks of MC Link in the way that it does, you know automatically that the game has to have taken place ages ago, as it is now a legend.

[Clucluclu]

No matter how much in game evidence and cameos you pull out of MC, you will never have proved anything. Nintendo said that MC goes first so thats that. Let me paint a picture for.

God is to earth as Nintendo is to Zelda.

If there are one million things in the game that point to it going anywhere in the timeline after OoT, It won't matter. What Nintendo says is the hardest evidence we could possibly have. Much more concrete than "Link gets a hat" or "Din was already a dancer in Holodrum" I mean, what can anyone try to do? Prove Nintendo wrong? That surely won't happen. All we can do is hope Nintendo comes up with a game that explains this. That is all there is to it.

[ganonlord6000]

I don't know if this was mentioned before or even follows the current argument, but the Japanese ending of TMC actually said that it was Link's first adventure. This cannot be taken lightly. I strongly believe that TMC is first as I can't see it fitting after OOT due to Hyrule looking drastically different from Hyrule in other games. Nintendo also stated that OOT was first ALMOST ELEVEN YEARS AGO WHEN THERE WERE ONLY FIVE GAMES IN THE SERIES!!!!

[Hayzer]

Nintendo said that MC goes first so thats that. Let me paint a picture for.

Find me this quote plz. I have asked many people on this forum, and no one has come forth with the quote. I can't believe it until I read the actual interview. Find this dang quote for me.

[Aurora]

cant we all agree that all th e games were made in different dimensions?

[Hayzer]

cant we all agree that all th e games were made in different dimensions?

Nope. And here's why:

Nintendo has stated many times that a timeline connecting all the games exists.

That's about all you should need to realize that the games are not separated by dimensions.

[sign of table]

Nintendo has stated many times that a timeline connecting all the games exists. I <3 nitpicking :P

Nintendo says that they are trying to put the games together, but they just haven't done it yet. According to Aonuma anyway.

[Pinecove]

^

http://stars.ign.com/dor/objects/919342/eijiaonuma/videos/aonumainterview_071907.html

[ganonlord6000]

Find me this quote plz. I have asked many people on this forum, and no one has come forth with the quote. I can't believe it until I read the actual interview. Find this dang quote for me.
I would like to see this quote as well even though I d obelieve that TMC is first. Maybe this quote for NOA's current translator Bill Trien says something similar to what is mentioned: "This game takes you very deep into Hylian lore. You van almost look at it as the story of how Link got his hat."