A ZD Timeline Project

[sign of table]

@Zemen: It doesn't matter. Both are god to the series and Miyamoto was all there was in 1998.

What difference does it make who could tell us that? Both could hypothetically go insane and make all their quotes mean nothing to you.

It doesn't matter who you argued, I'm arguing that Aonuma could do that, so you should disregard all quotes from Aonuma, right? Hell his quotes have even contradicted the in-game text that you place above everything (except I assume Aonuma; because you're too stubborn to change your timeline to a linear timeline even though in-game text contradicts the split timeline).

Both are extremely important to the series, and both could go insane and call Link Fred, like you say Miyamoto could (which a hypothetical fake situation that has never happened somehow makes all quotes from Miyamoto wrong. It's just stupid). Aonuma isn't exempt from the situation you talk about.

By the way, one day gravity could fail and we start soaring up, instead of down. Which means the theory of gravity would be wrong. Which means that the theory of gravity should be completely disregarded because of said hypothetical situation. (by the way, in case you can't see how stupid this last paragraph is out of pure stubborness, that whole last sentence was a non-sequiter. As is your whole Fred argument. Miyamoto could hypothetically name Link Fred, yes. So could Aonuma. But saying that either of them are untrustworthy because of the hypothetical situation is a complete non-sequiter)

The argument is so completely fallacious it's almost funny.

By the way, the most important part of this post is the one talking about how Aonuma has contradicted in-game evidence with the split timeline. Don't bother trying to defend your Fred argument, as I'm in need of a new sig, anyway. So don't post a red herring and avoid the "split timeline is wrong in your views" argument.

 

[Megamannt125]

Miyamoto confirmed the split timeline before Aonuma. Twice. In 2002 and 2002.

And Aonuma refers to Miyamoto as "the absolute" on all matters.

And Miyamoto has twice in the past 5 years taken over a project that Aonuma was working on because he didn't like the story and wanted to change it.

So um, how exactly is Miyamoto not the "smart one" or the one who "deal with timeline stuff" ?

I think he meant Aonuma is more focused on the timeline than Miyamoto, Miyamoto cares more about individual games, Aonuma is the one that cares more about the timeline.

 

[sign of table]

^Still doesn't make Miyamoto wrong about the timeline.

 

[MrMosley]

^Still doesn't make Miyamoto wrong about the timeline.

What makes Miyamoto wrong about the timeline is the fact that he hires people to write it for him. It'd be like if a child had a step-father most his life, and this step-father raised and knew everything about the child, but someone would go to the biological father, who had little to no involvement in the child's life, to ask questions about the kid. It wouldn't make sense to do that. Aonuma has written the story since MM so that Miyamoto didn't have to deal with it. Miyamoto has written the story himself to LoZ. Since then, he's had help or let someone else do it all on their own. For most of Zelda's existance, this has been Aonuma.

Aonuma is more correct over Miyamoto about any timeline discussion. Nothing will ever change that unless Miyamoto starts writing the stories himself, which probably will never happen.

 

[Hayzer]

By the way, one day gravity could fail and we start soaring up, instead of down. Which means the theory of gravity would be wrong. Which means that the theory of gravity should be completely disregarded because of said hypothetical situation.

The only problem with this is that Gravity is a LAW. Inertia is a LAW. They're not theories. Theories can be disproven (*cough*evolution*cough*). Laws can't. Also. Theories can't disprove theories (which is why Evolutionists can't disprove Creationists, and vice versa). Only Laws can disprove Theories. Wait...I just lost where I was going with this...

The only things that help the Miyamoto Order would be if (note how I said if) FSA is the Seal War, and that FSA Ganondorf is not OoT Ganondorf. That's it. While I agree that FSA could indeed be the Seal War, for ALttP to come after LoZ/AoL, FSA (a game that speaks of the origins of Ganon the Beast) Ganondorf would have to be a new Ganondorf, which is a theory that doesn't hold much credibility, imo. But this also poses the problem of how OoT Ganondorf becomes LoZ Ganon.

 

[Megamannt125]

The only problem with this is that Gravity is a LAW. Inertia is a LAW. They're not theories. Theories can be disproven (*cough*evolution*cough*). Laws can't. Also. Theories can't disprove theories (which is why Evolutionists can't disprove Creationists, and vice versa). Only Laws can disprove Theories. Wait...I just lost where I was going with this...

The only things that help the Miyamoto Order would be if (note how I said if) FSA is the Seal War, and that FSA Ganondorf is not OoT Ganondorf. That's it. While I agree that FSA could indeed be the Seal War, for ALttP to come after LoZ/AoL, FSA (a game that speaks of the origins of Ganon the Beast) Ganondorf would have to be a new Ganondorf, which is a theory that doesn't hold much credibility, imo. But this also poses the problem of how OoT Ganondorf becomes LoZ Ganon.

Personally, I think the Miyamoto Order was just Miyamoto getting a bit confused with himself in the interview.

 

[Zemen]

@Zemen: It doesn't matter. Both are god to the series and Miyamoto was all there was in 1998.

What difference does it make who could tell us that? Both could hypothetically go insane and make all their quotes mean nothing to you.

It doesn't matter who you argued, I'm arguing that Aonuma could do that, so you should disregard all quotes from Aonuma, right? Hell his quotes have even contradicted the in-game text that you place above everything (except I assume Aonuma; because you're too stubborn to change your timeline to a linear timeline even though in-game text contradicts the split timeline).

Both are extremely important to the series, and both could go insane and call Link Fred, like you say Miyamoto could (which a hypothetical fake situation that has never happened somehow makes all quotes from Miyamoto wrong. It's just stupid). Aonuma isn't exempt from the situation you talk about.

By the way, one day gravity could fail and we start soaring up, instead of down. Which means the theory of gravity would be wrong. Which means that the theory of gravity should be completely disregarded because of said hypothetical situation. (by the way, in case you can't see how stupid this last paragraph is out of pure stubborness, that whole last sentence was a non-sequiter. As is your whole Fred argument. Miyamoto could hypothetically name Link Fred, yes. So could Aonuma. But saying that either of them are untrustworthy because of the hypothetical situation is a complete non-sequiter)

The argument is so completely fallacious it's almost funny.

By the way, the most important part of this post is the one talking about how Aonuma has contradicted in-game evidence with the split timeline. Don't bother trying to defend your Fred argument, as I'm in need of a new sig, anyway. So don't post a red herring and avoid the "split timeline is wrong in your views" argument.

I'm a little confused here.

So, let me get this straight. You tried to make me look dumb but then you made yourself look dumb because you got what I said wrong and now you are arguing what I said because you messed it up to begin with? I guess that's a good way to recover from an epic failure.

I like how you guys ask all of these questions and make all of these statements that have already been answered.

As DL has said probably twenty times in this thread alone, Miyamoto has not dealt directly with any of the Zelda titles since the beginning of the series. Ever since MM, and beginning with MM, Aonuma has been the timeline man. He calls Miyamoto the absolute because it's his boss.

Think of it this way. Let's say you are a math teacher. The principal of the school you work at used to be an english teacher. The principal is the boss, or the absolute, so to speak. Just because the principal is the absolute of the school doesn't mean that you should take everything he says about math as fact.

And, honestly, you have the most fallacious argument on this entire thread. Your argument consists of calling us out on our fallacies rather than coming up with your own facts. You're not trying to come to an end or trying to find an answer to any questions. In fact, based on how you are arguing it's as if you would love to have this argument going on forever. Seeing as how DL and I have repeated ourselves a good number of times (in fact I think all of our posts are exactly the same as our last), I really think you just like to here your fingers hit the keyboard.

Oh, and I would love to see this interview, with sources, of Aonuma contradicting in game evidence. I look forward to your next, self-absorbed post.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

I really should have closed the discussion and moved on to the next thing sooner. My forum activity fluctuates a little bit, so I haven't been on much this past week. (By the way, DarkLink, your step-father analogy for the Miyamoto Order is very good.) I think we all agree that Four Swords Adventures is a direct sequel to Four Swords (thus telling us where we should put Four Swords), so...

FS Placement Discussion Closed

11.09 Four Swords Placement
- Discussion Closed -
Details: Four Swords Adventures tells us enough that Four Swords can be placed. The question is, is FSA a direct sequel?
Conclusion: Yes, it is a direct sequel.

Order so Far:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

12. The Minish Cap
- Current Discussion -

First Possibility:
............../--TWW
TMC--OoT
..............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

Second Possibility:
....../--TWW
OoT
......\MM--TMC--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoS/OoA

 

[Zemen]

I feel that we should only let the MC discussion go so long because there are multiple threads on this subject. After a couple days we should just go with what the majority believes.

Having said that, I believe MC goes before OoT, so possibility one.

MC has Link getting his hat with no one referring to a previous hero who wore the hat. In fact, the previous hero spoken of is shown without wearing a hat, as well, which is a good indication that the previous hero was not a previous Link. Since there are no legends throughout the series that speak of someone saving the world other than Link, I think that the BS of MC speaks of a time before any Link existed. Many people believe Link getting the hat is a crap reason for placing it, but I think it was too focused on to not be important. Link has no hat. One of the main characters happens to be in the form of a hat. The item that gives Vaati his powers is a hat. The title of the game is about a hat. The game focuses a lot on hats so I think it's dumb to say that the hat doesn't matter.

SoJ will call this an argument from ignorance or something like that, but I believe that the fact that Ganondorf is not mentioned is a good indication that he does not exist yet. This is my own, personal opinion and I am no way stating this as fact. I am merely saying that I think it means something. This is the only Hyrule based game to not have Ganon/dorf apart of the story. Any other Game that doesn't have Ganon/dorf in it is either a direct sequel to a game that had Ganon/dorf in it or a direct prequel to a game that has Ganon/dorf in it. This game has neither of those. It's the only standalone game with no mention/hint/easter egg to let us know that at some point in time, there was a creature named Ganon/dorf.

And many people will say that OoT Link is the one that started the green tunic and hat tradition, but I have my own theory for that. The Kokiri are the ones who many people believe to be the ones to start the green hat and green tunic. I believe that the picori transform into the kokiri somehow. With that in mind, it's not crazy that they wear what MC Link wears. The picori were saved by Link in MC who wore a green hat and a green tunic. Because he is their hero, they start to dress like him. They already wore green tunics with red hats so all they would change is their hat color. When they are transformed to their kokiri forms, they keep the fashion of green tunics and green hats which later gets passed on to OoT Link. To aid this theory, the GDT is the leader of the Kokiri. In MC, there were only 3 ways to transform into a minish. The square things in dungeons, the pots in houses and the stumps throughout the game. Stumps were magical because of the picori. The kokiri are ruled by a magical tree. With that in mind, and the knowledge that we know that the kokiri can change form (koroks in WW), it's not crazy that they could have had a previous form before being kokiri.

picoRI
kokiRI
KOrok

SoJ (I think it was him) used the argument that the more proper name for the picori is to call them minish, but I think it doesn't matter either way. The name of the sword you are given is the picori blade. If there wasn't a reason for calling them picori, then Nintendo would have just stuck with one name and called them minish if it was the true, correct name.

 

[MrMosley]

Well its about time! LULZ

But on with MC. First, I would like to openly say that I hate this game. Just putting it out there. But I have beaten it (literally forced myself).

Before I played it, and before I learned things about FSA particularly, and its connection to ALttP, and MC, I used to think that the Four Swords Saga was so radically different from the rest of the games that they had to come after WW. This possibility still floats around a bit, so I would consider adding it to your list, Caleb.

However, I do not agree with that decision anymore. That includes a lot of speculation, and I have slowly became a theorist who relies on the more basic ideas of the games, and most obvious of intent. That said, MC definitely works best as the first game in the entire series. Reasons?

* No mention of Ganon
* Master Sword is no where to be found/never mentioned
* Knowledge of the Triforce is little to none

Then there's also the fact that Aonuma once stated FS to be the first game. This was all well and good at the time, because FS did exactly the same things that MC does. It too had no Ganon, no Master Sword, and no mention of the Triforce. However, once FSA came out, and we learned by its intro that FS was quite obviously a direct prequel to FSA, the fact that MC still has all these examples makes it a good candidate to be first. Also, FSA's intro reference of MC talks about it as a legend, not giving Link a name, but just dubbing him a "hero". This shows, in my opinion, that MC was a tale that took place long before FS and FSA. And if FSA is right before ALttP, then MC would have to come somewhere prior to that.

Therefore, when you think about all the games that would be prior to ALttP, you find that MC has to be a distant prequel to FS. Really, the only place it can fit well is before OoT. The fact that the game doesn't reference the Triforce or Ganon is a good indication of its placement. FS doesn't mention them either, but they didn't have to by this time because Ganon or the Triforce were not topics of interest. However, we know that by understanding that FSA is a direct sequel of FS, those two sort of act as a unit. So Ganon actually does play a part in that generation, while in the MC generation, he was no where to be found/mentioned at all.

Result, the order would be:

............./--TWW
MC--OoT
.............\MM--FS/FSA--ALttP/LA--LoZ/AoL--OoX

 

[sign of table]

I'm too lazy to find an exact quote, but Bill Trinen (I really need to figure out if it's spelled Trinnen or Trinen...) said that TMC could be looked at as the origin of Link's cap.

picoRI
kokiRI
KOrok

SoJ (I think it was him) used the argument that the more proper name for the picori is to call them minish, but I think it doesn't matter either way. The name of the sword you are given is the picori blade. If there wasn't a reason for calling them picori, then Nintendo would have just stuck with one name and called them minish if it was the true, correct name.

The game is call Minish Cap, and they call themselves the Minish so I'd say the correct name would be Minish.

Fun fact that I learned from Erimgard (like a year ago... jesus I've been theorizing a while): The lumberjacks in LttP are actually called "Kikori". Maybe Nintendo just likes names that sound like Kikori.

* Knowledge of the Triforce is little to none

IIRC (I'm not completely 100% sure about this. I'm saying this on memory), there are pictures of the Triforce EVERYWHERE in castle town (or whatever it was called...).

For a summary on all of the good TMC first arguments, go to LA, look for Impossible's timeline thread, download his 200 page document (I'm not kidding. His document is 200 pages long in Word) and read his part about TMC.

SoJ will call this an argument from ignorance or something like that, but I believe that the fact that Ganondorf is not mentioned is a good indication that he does not exist yet.

I really just don't see this point as evidence. A lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything at all. Although to note something that uses the same logic, but is evidence for OoT first.

TMC never, ever, ever mentions the word Hylian. It replaces every single opportunity to use the word Hylian, with the word Human. Hyrule is named after the Hylians. You'd think that maybe once in the game it would mention Hylians.

I really don't like either argument because, as I said, a lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything. It's worth thinking about, though.

@the Miyamoto argument thing: I don't really want to continue debating this, as it's not really gonna get anywhere. But Miyamoto still gets what he wants with the Zelda series. If he wants it to go OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP, it does. That's my opinion on Miyamoto's authority anyways.

 

[MrMosley]

TMC never, ever, ever mentions the word Hylian. It replaces every single opportunity to use the word Hylian, with the word Human. Hyrule is named after the Hylians. You'd think that maybe once in the game it would mention Hylians.

Actually, I just did a text dump search of the word Hylian. It does come up one time in the entire text dump, right here:

"Heh heh heh...

To think things would go this well!

The Picori Blade and the Bound Chest
spoken of in Hylian lore...
This chest must hold that which I seek!
I'll relieve you of its contents now."

Now I'm no wizard on MC so I don't know who says that. But anyway, its definitely in there, referring to the people as Hylians.

It also mentions the word, "Hyrulean", here:

"Hello, Link. We are studying
Hyrulean Literature right now.
It's a very important subject!"

TP says human a lot, instead of Hylian. In fact, TP only specifies the Hylian Pike, Loach, and Shield. It never says Hylian to actually specify the people of Hyrule; Just items based on them. Another interesting thing is that when the game does specify the people of Hyrule, it calls them Hyrulians. So, TP uses all three. I don't think that what they are called matters too much.

Quote from TP:

"Oh, hello there! I came here today
to look into the Hyrulian legend of
the sky beings called the Oocca,
but..."

Weird how Hyrulean and Hyrulian are spelled different from MC to TP.

 

[angelkid]

"Heh heh heh...

To think things would go this well!

The Picori Blade and the Bound Chest
spoken of in Hylian lore...
This chest must hold that which I seek!
I'll relieve you of its contents now."

Now I'm no wizard on MC so I don't know who says that. But anyway, its definitely in there, referring to the people as Hylians.

That would be Vaati DL.

Anyway, I also believe that MC is first. It shows the origin of Link's hat as alot of other people have mentioned and the previous hero who looks alot like he is a Link does not wear a hat which strongly suggests that this is the first Link to wear a hat.

Another thing that makes this feel first to me is the fact that Link is called upon purely because he is a childhood friend of Link. Noone knows that he posesses any special power, but looking around town, he is the only person of a suitable age. Minish can only be seen by children and the only other children are younger then Link and would therefore not really stand much of a chance. This is why they ask Link, unlike in other games where someone either knows that he is the 'chosen one,' or he proves himself in some way, or in WW he does it for personal reasons. In MC there are no godesses or even deities/ demi gods. No one knows at all that Link is special, and this is why I think he is the first Link, he starts the legend of Links.

I'm too lazy to find an exact quote, but Bill Trinen (I really need to figure out if it's spelled Trinnen or Trinen...) said that TMC could be looked at as the origin of Link's cap. The game is call Minish Cap, and they call themselves the Minish so I'd say the correct name would be Minish.

Fun fact that I learned from Erimgard (like a year ago... jesus I've been theorizing a while): The lumberjacks in LttP are actually called "Kikori". Maybe Nintendo just likes names that sound like Kikori. IIRC (I'm not completely 100% sure about this. I'm saying this on memory), there are pictures of the Triforce EVERYWHERE in castle town (or whatever it was called...)..

The triforce is depicted around town in several places, for example above the bell there is a carving of the triforce/bird symbol. However, this is because this is the symbol of the gods, not because the townspeople know what the Triforce is. I am one of the people who believe that the Light force= the Triforce because I think it's just a bit too coincidental for Zelda to have two different magic 'forces' just swimming round inside her. If this is true and Triforce=Light force, then that means that they people do not know what the Triforce is, or else they would not be referring to it as the Light force constantly.

Also, I have to agree with Sign I think that the Minish is their real name not the Picori as they call themselves Minish not Picori.

 

[sign of table]

Actually, I just did a text dump search of the word Hylian. It does come up one time in the entire text dump, right here:

Whoa... the text dump I'd used must suck really badly then lol. Where did you get your text dump? If you could give me a link, I would greatly appreciate it.

TP says human a lot, instead of Hylian. In fact, TP only specifies the Hylian Pike, Loach, and Shield. It never says Hylian to actually specify the people of Hyrule; Just items based on them. Another interesting thing is that when the game does specify the people of Hyrule, it calls them Hyrulians. So, TP uses all three. I don't think that what they are called matters too much.

Hmm... I really need to brush up on my TP knowledge.... Although I'm gonna go check the LA translations to see.

Weird how Hyrulean and Hyrulian are spelled different from MC to TP.

I assume it's just because translating a fake Japanese word might be spelled a little oddly.

Stupid inconsistent NoA

If this is true and Triforce=Light force, then that means that they people do not know what the Triforce is, or else they would not be referring to it as the Light force constantly.

How the hell can the Triforce be the Light Force, though? You're saying that the Minish gave Zelda the Triforce?

 

[Hayzer]

Also, I have to agree with Sign I think that the Minish is their real name not the Picori as they call themselves Minish not Picori.

Picori Sword.

Anyway, I agree with the majority. MC must come before OoT. And again, I have no fun...

I like Zemen's theory about the Picori->Kokiri->Koroks, but I think I already stated that somewhere...

Anyway...yeah.