Minish Cap is NOT First

[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)] 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.

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...t-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 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.