• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Why MC Isn't First

Joined
Apr 16, 2010
I get really annoyed whenever people say that MC is first on the timeline.:mad: Here are some reasons to disprove this theory:

1. In the BS of MC there is shown what is quite obviously Link saving Hyrule from Ganon. And in OoT, Ganon/dorf is trusted by the king.

2. Just because it shows how 1 Link got his hat, that doesn't mean ****. I mean, in practically every game that has a new Link it tells why Link got his clothes. In OoT, he is dressed like a Kokiri, in WW and TP he gets the Hero's Clothes, in ST he wears the clothes to get past the royal guards, etc.

3. At no point in the game is there proof that it is first(and yes I have beaten the game).
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
1) It's not Ganondorf he's beating, he's defeating the monsters.
2) I've never used that for proof.
3) There is proof, but I can't remember everything, I haven't played it much recently, and I'm not the best theorist, really.
4) There is some proof for it, such as the quote at the end, "And so ends Link's first quest."
 
R

Rauru

Guest
Yeah, you're pretty much wrong in every aspect of your argument.
but.. you can legitimately argue that Minish Cap isn't first because of King Gustav. in OoT hyrule is supposed to be around 10-13 years old (the backstory), and King Gustav is supposed to have ruled hyrule hundreds of years ago or something similar. either way i doubt hyrule would have been saved twice with in a 10-13 year period, by two completely different child heroes.
 

Mases

Lord of the Flies
Administrator
Site Staff
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Location
West Dundee, IL
In may of 2004, Eiji Aonuma stated that at the time, the Four Swords title for the Gameboy Advanced was the "oldest tale in the Zelda timeline". He stated that Four Swords Adventures was a sequel taking placing "sometime after that".

If you believe The Minish Cap to be a prequel to Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures, then it would only make sense for it to take place before Four Swords, and thus, before Ocarina of Time, which most would then label it as being the first adventure in the Zelda timeline.

You can find the quote in regards to the timeline placement of Four Swords during the interview with Game Informer. (Just press Control + F and search for the word 'timeline')

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/Interviews-2004-05-17-Game-Informer-Eiji-Aonuma.php
 

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Yeah, you're pretty much wrong in every aspect of your argument.
but.. you can legitimately argue that Minish Cap isn't first because of King Gustav. in OoT hyrule is supposed to be around 10-13 years old (the backstory), and King Gustav is supposed to have ruled hyrule hundreds of years ago or something similar. either way i doubt hyrule would have been saved twice with in a 10-13 year period, by two completely different child heroes.

I've heard this argument before, and I disagree. First of all, I believe it states the the King of Hyrule in OoT united Hyrule, which can mean any number of things. Perhaps he brought in outlying lands towards the central kingdom or something. Second, in OoT (I think) Impa says something about the Shiekah guarding the royalty of Hyrule for decades. Clearly, if the royalty of Hyrule had existed for at least several decades, it isn't a ten year old kingdom.
 
S

Slambofett

Guest
Hmm I am hesitant to accept minish cap, seasons and ages, I dont base my timeline theory's off them.
 

Jesper

I am baaacccckkkk
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Location
Norway
I also agree that Minish Cap is NOT a prequel to OoT.
My opinions:

1. The sacred blade in the prologue is the Picori Blade, not the Master Sword. Also it is created by the Minish, not the Gods. Which pretty much ruins the whole point of it "being the master sword" and all that. Also the blade is destroyed.
2. The enemies are the pig-like things and Chu-Chu's and all that. Did they die out before OoT and come back to life in WW? I mean, in the WW timeline, the Chu-Chu's exist in all games.
3. The prologue also features the "a long long time ago" thing. Prequel to the Minish Cap? I have made some thinking about the next DS Zelda being the prequel...

I don't wanna make more arguments now, its late night in Norway, and I'll come back in the morning... cya'll :P
 

Pinecove

Last Chance
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Location
Toronto Ontario
From the Japanese text of TMC at the ending:

こうして リンク のはじめての 冒険は おわりました
しかし これからも リンク に ゼルダにハイラルに さまざまなできごとが おとずれるでしょう
そう ものがたりは つづいていくのです
フォースの みちびきが あるかぎり…

Thus Link's first adventure ended.
But hereafter, many kinds of occurences will perhaps come to Link and Zelda in Hyrule.
So, the story goes on.
As long as there is the Force's guidance...

As for your arguments:

1. That is no Ganon and there's no proof that it's Link.
2. Bill Trinen stated the hat was important.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
From the Japanese text of TMC at the ending:



As for your arguments:

1. That is no Ganon and there's no proof that it's Link.
2. Bill Trinen stated the hat was important.

Just because it says "Link's first adventure" doesn't mean anything. It means that it is that Link's first adventure. And, yes it is Ganon. I don't think there's any other giant pig villains in Hyrule.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Location
Florida
1. In the BS of MC there is shown what is quite obviously Link saving Hyrule from Ganon. And in OoT, Ganon/dorf is trusted by the king.

And, yes it is Ganon. I don't think there's any other giant pig villains in Hyrule.
I highly doubt that's supposed to be Ganon. The Boar creature shown in the BS is red and holds a spear. Ganon is either blue or black and if he holds a weapon, its most likely a Trident. Though appearance probably isn't that strong an argument
Plus, even if that is supposed to be Ganon, its probably just a cameo to represent great evil, like the Dark Links were shown to represent the Interlopers in Twilight Princess

3. At no point in the game is there proof that it is first(and yes I have beaten the game).
Actually, yes there is. Like Mases said, there are quotes from Eiji Aonuma saying Four Swords was the earliest adventure for Link. Minish Cap goes on more by explaining the origin of the Four Sword, which was forged by fusing the Picori Blade with the Elements.
 
S

Slambofett

Guest
Yea it is just that links first adventure as far as I see it. Not the first link to go on a adventure.
 

ChargewithSword

Zelda Dungeon's Critic
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Location
I don't want to say.
"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 is what Aonuma said in relation to the Four Swords series (including MC.) This is undeniable proof that the game is the first in the timeline.
Some people use this quote to disprove it but I don't see the relevance:

"Aonuma: In an example with Four Swords Adventures, I was the producer.. I didn’t actually put the story for that game together... Mr. Miyamoto then came in and upended the tea table... we changed the story around quite a bit... storyline shouldn’t be something complicated that confuses the player... and the storyline changed all the way up until the very end."

Aonuma has access to the story team and can simply ask them where the games would take place. If that first quote wasn't from his mouth, then it was from theirs.
 

Pinecove

Last Chance
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Location
Toronto Ontario
Just because it says "Link's first adventure" doesn't mean anything. It means that it is that Link's first adventure. And, yes it is Ganon. I don't think there's any other giant pig villains in Hyrule.

The entire story has the symbolic: Adventures will continue" thing.

That either means the quote is referring to ALL Links or you have to make up some sort of fan fiction involving an untold sequel to TMC.
 

Zemen

[Insert Funny Statement]
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Location
Illinois
I have played MC more than any of the other games in the series and I put it first on my timeline and I LOVE arguing it's placement. This will be fun ;)

1. In the BS of MC there is shown what is quite obviously Link saving Hyrule from Ganon. And in OoT, Ganon/dorf is trusted by the king.

Well there is no proof at all that the hero in the BS is any past Link, and even if it was, he is hatless which shows that before this Link, no past heroes wore a green hat which actually helps the argument of MC being first.

Also, it's not Ganon. You asked "what other giant pig villains are there?" and here's your answer.

http://zeldawiki.org/Moblin

You said you'v beaten MC, I'm surprised you didn't notice the common Moblins that roam Hyrule and are literally giant pig villains.

2. Just because it shows how 1 Link got his hat, that doesn't mean ****. I mean, in practically every game that has a new Link it tells why Link got his clothes. In OoT, he is dressed like a Kokiri, in WW and TP he gets the Hero's Clothes, in ST he wears the clothes to get past the royal guards, etc.

Bill Trinen said that the hat is important, thus the hat is important regardless of how much you dislike it.

3. At no point in the game is there proof that it is first(and yes I have beaten the game).

False. There is the fact that Ganondorf is not mentioned anywhere in this entire game. You believe that he is depicted in the BS (which I gave a great reason as to why it's not him) yet he isn't mentioned or even hinted to in the entire game. Does it make any sense to you that the greatest threat to Hyrule in all of history isn't mentioned anywhere? You can't find a single hint to his existence. The fact that he is not around or mentioned is good enough proof for most that he hasn't existed yet, thus MC would be first.

In fact, there seems to be absolutely no connections from this game with any other previous game. All of the other games seem to have at least one little thing in it that connects with another game, but the only connection that MC has with any other games is the presence of the Four Sword. Other than that there is more evidence to place it first then there is to not place first.
 
I

Impossible

Guest
I have this feeling like everything that happens in the timeline nowadays is my fault. I know some people like to blame me. -_- In this case, I never had time to release my intended version 1.6 of my timeline document, which had some important things I needed to fix and details I needed to add (IIRC, from more retranslations and the like) before ST came out and forced some bigger changes.

One of those fixes was clarifying that the person who mentioned TMC being the story of how Link got his cap wasn't actually Bill Trinen. It's just a nitpick, as it doesn't actually matter who it is all that much - but it wasn't Trinen. And it's probably because of me saying it was that everyone thinks so, it wasn't until much later that I found another version of the video that actually showed the person. (I assumed it was Trinen because I had seen videos of him demonstrating other games at the same event.)

Er, I just dropped in because of that, but while I'm here, may as well make the same points I seem to make over and over anyway.

1. In the BS of MC there is shown what is quite obviously Link saving Hyrule from Ganon. And in OoT, Ganon/dorf is trusted by the king.

It's not Ganon. It's most likely a Moblin. And regardless, the backstory mentions nothing about Ganon or any ruler behind the evil. The stained glass couldn't possibly literally show what happened, it's just trying to represent the fact that a hero fought off a bunch of assorted monsters. One of which was a pig-like beast. All the monsters were sealed away, and released by Vaati in TMC. Ganon wasn't in there. If anything, this implies that TMC occurs before evil had a king, as it's just kind of random monsters.

2. Just because it shows how 1 Link got his hat, that doesn't mean ****. I mean, in practically every game that has a new Link it tells why Link got his clothes. In OoT, he is dressed like a Kokiri, in WW and TP he gets the Hero's Clothes, in ST he wears the clothes to get past the royal guards, etc.
This is true, but you're arguing, as so many against the pre-OoT placement do, against what is really a straw man argument. The point isn't that the hat literally was invented by Ezlo and that's why all the other Links wear it. The point is that TMC is "the story of how Link [the main character of the Zelda series, not any previous specific Link we know] got his cap", even according to Nintendo. In fact, the context of the statement was as an example of how TMC delves deep into the lore of the series.

It's meant in a metaphorical sense. We have a backstory of a past hero NOT wearing a cap, which we haven't seen before. Then we have a capless Link at the beginning of the game. Then, in a symbolic moment at the end of the game, literally the final thing we see before the credits, Ezlo gives Link a cap as a memento of their adventure. There's supposed to be a clear arc to these events, where we see the introduction of the cap into Zelda lore.

Also, technically, OoT Link's hat is different to any other Kokiri's. Not that it really matters. The point is that this is the first story of a cap-wearing hero named Link.

3. At no point in the game is there proof that it is first(and yes I have beaten the game).
The problem with this is that people tend to see the evidence they're looking for, and not evidence for the alternatives. There may be a lot of things you aren't aware of. Some of these are minor or circumstantial points, but they arguably have more plot/character relevance than any of the evidence for any other placements.

For example, every human sprite in the game has distinctly long, pointed, Hylian ears, except for Beedle's, and he's actually implied to be a foreigner. That would suggest that the Hylian blood is yet to weaken, because in many later games, Link and Zelda have much longer ears than most people you see.

But whether that's important or not... What is significant evidence is NoA's **** up in the credits, where they were supposed to say that this was Link's first adventure. It implies that as long as the Light Force is around, Link will keep having adventures. Again, it sounds like a sort of metaphorical concept. Why even say something like that unless you mean to refer to Link as a character, and not the specific thing? Especially right after you just showed the (metaphorical) origins of Link's signature hat? I mean, TMC wasn't made to have a sequel, it was made to be a prequel to FS, which has a different Link anyway. And the light force would be around for a lot longer than that Link's lifespan.

you can legitimately argue that Minish Cap isn't first because of King Gustav. in OoT hyrule is supposed to be around 10-13 years old (the backstory), and King Gustav is supposed to have ruled hyrule hundreds of years ago or something similar. either way i doubt hyrule would have been saved twice with in a 10-13 year period, by two completely different child heroes.

This is a common misconception, too. I never got the impression from OoT that Hyrule was a newly formed kingdom, considering we hear about its ancient origins. Rather, we know that there was a war that divided the kingdom and the races, fighting over the Triforce's power. That doesn't mean that Hyrule hadn't also been a kingdom BEFORE that war, it just means that the king united (or reunited) the races.

In fact, this could be taken to support the pre-OoT placement of TMC, because the outcome of the war before OoT is that other races ally with Hyrule and form a united kingdom. Those races are hardly present or not at all in TMC, almost suggesting that this is a time before they populated the kingdom itself, and they weren't yet allied with the Hylians. On the other hand, though, there may be evidence that Hyrule and the races were united long before OoT, due to the presence of the temples protected by each race. Either way, though, nothing suggests that Hyrule did not exist prior to the war before OoT.

Also, regardless of where TMC may actually be placed, if Pinecove is destroying your argument with little ability to counter him, you're definitely doing something wrong. :P
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom