Minish Cap is NOT First

[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
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

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

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

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.