The Desert Colossus

I'm making this poll to see how many people here actually consider the possibility that Minish Cap could be first. I'm placing it in General Discussion for all to see and openly debate. Please try to be clean, and it would be nice if you gave some evidence to support your position.


I want as many people's opinion about this. If you will look on the storyline board, topic, continuity theory, you can see that Lady Nintendo and I have been debating.

Most of the other boards are pretty underused when it comes to traffic, so please don't move this topic... please?

I'm wondering if this should be in one of the Zelda boards.

whats this topic about, anyway?

If Minish Cap was the first game in the series.

Whether or not Minish Cap stands a chance of being the chronologically first game in the timeline. Take a look at what Lady Nintendo and I were debating about over in the Continuity theory topic over in the storylines board...

OoT V. Minish Cap: which one is more likely to be first

hmm i'd ahve to say heck no to that, the president of Nintentdo said the OoT WAS the very first one so i dont think its very duspitable

And I think he never said that after the release of TMC.

Anyway, just for the discussion, a bit more in-game arguments please and a bit more arguments in general, seeing that most vote but don't reply.

I think OoT was first.

me too i think Ocarina of Time is first

This is not about whether you think OOT or TMC was first, but why you think one of them was first! Arguments please! Df and I were debating, not doing a yes-no-yes-no thingie. Arguments is what is asked for. We can't say one is first because the majority says so. Say what you think, vote and then give (an) argument(s).

Well, in MC, you here all about how some guy dressed in green saved all the people from the monsters. In OoT, it doesn't say anything about a boy in green saving Hyrule in the past, so it looks like OoT was when all the rage and destruction started.

This is definetly Theories stuff, I'll take care of it.

Yes, but now no one will look at it...  >:( >:( >:( >:( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

Well, nobody actually really did. Care to just return to our old topic and continue our debate?

we need more people with this topic... it gets kinda boring if we just fight each other without anyone caring...

But I gotta agree with what Vaati said.

I think my theory in "Is it remotely possible for TMC to be first?" topic (now in the Theories) should take care of my side. Feel free to look.

Quote from: Darkpuppet fears on October 14, 2006, 01:58:41 PM
we need more people with this topic... it gets kinda boring if we just fight each other without anyone caring...

But I gotta agree with what Vaati said.

Well dûh! You said the same thing too! And I already said it's VERY unlikely that OOT Link was the first, if only for the reason the Master Sword, like the Four Sword, was already legendary in those games. Why if it never has been used and proven its worth? And even if the original wielder of the Master Sword was not a Link, why doesn't he gets mentioned in OOT? OOT clearly shows it's not the beginning of time and important events, but it doesn't mention anything about those events either. TMC does, it's just honest about it. And Ganondorf has probably already caused trouble before OOT too, but we don't learn any details about that either.

Also, we're not fighting. We're debating. :)

Aaaarrgh, but it's only the games that have actually been released. It is made out in Minish Cap that Zelda and Link already know each  other personally, but with OoT, there is an atmosphere that they only knew each other through some long ago sense. And with MC, it's like all of this has happened before, over and again. But with OoT, there is this sense of seriousness, one that can't be openly denied.

And then there is the whole exploration of hyrule's history. A level and point that  we don't go about in any other game,  except maybe Windwaker... Speaking of which, wouldn't WIndwaker made mention of The events of Minish Cap, had it really been made out to be first? Seeing that Minish Cap should've passed into legend... But I know this can't be because Minish Cap is the newest, so all things mentioned in Minish Cap aren't the stuff of legend within the other games.

Then TMC's pre-history doesn't count either. Because if it's only about the released games, then TMC has no games before it too. Or can you tell me which Link used the Four Sword before TMC, who befriended the Minish and who got the Lightforce? No game has ever been released featuring a Link like that. OOT and TMC BOTH make references to a past that has not been featured in any other game, but that past is canon.
And some Links and Zeldas know eachother before the big adventure starts. Not that strange seeing as that all races seem to prefer to live among their own kind and that OOT Link just thought he was a Kokiri for the first nine years of his life by accident. The fact that a Link and Zelda meet for the first time during the adventure says about 0% about a Link and Zelda in other times.

TMC clearly happens before ALTTP too, but I didn't see anything about TMC in ALTTP either. Same goes for the events of TP not being mentioned in TWW. And I also don't see anything about OOT in TMC. Point is, time erases some stories from people's memories, or they are not relevant at that time.

Heh, except it's speculated that TP will reveal a lot about what happened tween Wndwaker and OoT. Even I can say that there may be links in the chain yet to be found.

I was just picking random games that do not get mentioned in the storywise younger games. TP probably won't be about the flood and therefor is not mentioned in TWW. TWW refered to a great hero: the Hero Of Time, which isn't TP Link. TWW refers to events that probably happened ages after TP. I could be wrong, but for now everything seems to point to that direction.
I could've picked lots of other games to prove some events that happened before *insert randomly chosen game* are not mentioned by anyone or anything in both the game and manual. FS happens after TMC, but it does not mention anything about it. The story FS refers to is not TMC. And ALTTP doesn't mention anything about the event of TWW. And no, I do not believe in a split timeline theory, because it's impossible or would've caused one timeline to be taken over by Ganon(dorf), which didn't happen.

I have one that can beat all your theories, it has officially been stated that OoT is the very first game in the time line, so for me that's enough.
Now, let me jump with a theory of my own, it is very clear that MC Hyrule is very different from OoT Hyrule, my theory is that since OoT comes WW, and at the end of WW Link is told for a new land, so I think MC could very well be that land, but not necessarily the first game to unfold in it.

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

How often do I have to say this? He hasn't claimed that for a long time. The one time he said that, was when OOT was released. Now, if a game would be released about the war before OOT, should we still listen to that outdated statement and think OOT is first? I had hoped I didn't have to do this:

BB:  That's something that, you (Bill Trinen – Localization Team) and I have talked about with the release of the Zelda compilation disc, cleaning up some of the spellings like Ganon, and making sure everything is cohesive.  Maybe that's an American thing – us wanting to know how it all works together.  I guess that leads me to my next questions.  How do the Links in The Four Swords Adventure relate to the overall story line?  Or is it just a subchapter or something like that?

EA:  The GBA Four Swords Zelda is what we're thinking as the oldest tale in the Zelda timeline.  With this one on the GameCube being a sequel to that, and taking place sometime after that.  

I could not care less about that quote, but if it's necessary to defeat an even less relevant quote, I'll use it.

Actually, TMC's Hyrule is A LOT like OOT's. Mount Crenel = Death Mountain and the graveyard would indeed be where Kakariko Village should be located. The castle of Hyrule in TMC is located in an area you can't reach in OOT, so it might still exist. The waterfall = Zora's domain, The Minish Woods = Lost Woods. Even Lon Lon Ranch is almost at the same spot as it was in OOT. Almost identitical maps, with the exception of a swamp, a desert and Lake Hylia. The desert seems off-map to me in TMC, and the swamp off-map in OOT.  Lake Hylia is a bit tricky, but it could easily be an entire different lake. It is located in what I think will be the Lost Woods in OOT. There are traces of a lake in OOT, or that there at least once was one. It leads to Zora's Domain in OOT, which fits perfectly. If the Minish Woods really became the Lost Woods, then the "original" Lake Hylia would've been inaccesible, forgotten, and the name would've been reused for another lake.

I believe TMC Hyrule is OoT Hyrule, and is west of ALttP. In TMC what I guess to be the Lost Woods goes all the way up at the eastern part of the map, and in ALttP it's in the west. The Master Sword is in the Lost Woods, close to the foot of Death Mountain. Hyrule Castle Town, which I believe is Hyrule Town, is close to Death Mountain. That's also where the Master Sword is.

I could say more, but I don't want to spoil TP to any one.

QuoteI have one that can beat all your theories, it has officially been stated that OoT is the very first game in the time line, so for me that's enough.

In a mistranslated interview, years ago.

Heeheeheheheheheeheh...

Everyone takes from 'mistranslated' interviews. Actually I'm really starting to think that mistranslation has become the scapegoat and the dues ex machina for all who want to form their own opinions even though official sources say otherwise...

To Lady Nintendo: Isn't it possible that your connection could very well be the same the other way around? You say that the hyrule of Minish Cap is an early form of the hyrule in OoT. But isn't it equally possible that the reverse could be true? IE: Desert turning into swamp, the lake being forgotten and placed in another place... etc, etc...

But here's the thing that one may see: We already know that quite a few geographical features of windwaker are parallel to those in OoT. Even though they may not be exact, it becomes more apparent that the hyrule of OoT is the one that is majorly featured. Heh, it could even be explained in such ideals that after the flood, the desert became a swamp, and the lake was completely placed in a different area... I'm speaking as if the koroks somehow drained the great sea. In the insuing time, the landscape and geography of hyrule would've changed VASTLY over the course of hundreds of years. This assumption is very likely when one considers what happens in reality after a flood. Geographical features become eroded and vastly different, Environments are changed and characteristics that existed in the original land are no longer present in the same area in the changed land. If you really want a real world example of this geographical transformation, look at Egypt. Even though it was never covered by a flood, there is evidence that the desert that exists across North Africa was once a fertile marshland.

Hmm, this makes me think of something new: What if the minish are actually another form of the Koroks/kokiri?

This is the only order we know of the games:
OOT is before LTTP and MM
MC is before FS and FSA
OOA and OOS are the same time
WW is after OOT and MM, but LTTP is unclear
PH is after WW

FSA comes before ALTTP. Two reasons: Dark World and Trident Of Power. :)

Df: If it's mistranslated, then it is not an official source when it is known it is mistranslated. It's not an excuse to form our own theories while we happily ignore "evidence and facts". It's the reason why we doubt things, question things and find different ways to interpret facts.

I'm aware of that it could easily be the other way around. I didn't use that to prove TMC comes before OOT, but to prove TMC Hyrule is probably not the "new land". Unless we count drained Hyrule to be that new land. I never said the Desert became the Swamp or vice versa. Why? Because ALTTP and FSA clearly show the Desert still exists. The Swamp and the Desert aren't in the same area. Using OOT's map, I'd say the Desert is a bit west of the Swamp.

I wouldn't know about the Kokiri/Minish. Only that it was stated the Deku Tree created the Kokiri and that he is Hyrulean, while the Minish came from another world. They also don't worship a big tree.

QuoteFSA comes before ALTTP. Two reasons: Dark World and Trident Of Power.

People don't change the Dark World in FSA and we don't know if the Trident of Power is the one Ganon has in ALttP.

In OoT, if you pay attention, there are two different stories of how the Golden Land changes.

1. If the person who enters it has a dark heart the land will turn evil.

2. If the one who touches the Triforce makes an evil wish the land will be filled with evil.

So... from this I guess that the Golden Land already turns evil when Ganon enters it, but still is the same land with its golden sky, though it probably gets more seductive (the children who disappear in the Village of the Blue Maiden don't want to return home, after all). And when Ganon touches the Triforce the land becomes visible evil.

In FSA it looks more like a twisted version of the Golden Land, so Link has to turn the Dark World back into the Golden Land before FSA, and then a villain has to change the land not by obtaining the Triforce, but by his own will (I believe that he/she has to be the most powerful person in the Golden Land).

What else could that trident be? Not to mention the link with the pyramid it was found in.

And I don't think there really are two ways to corrupt the Sacred Realm. The Sacred Realm was created solely as a resting place for the Triforce. The Triforce is its reason of existance. If one "corrupts" the Triforce, the land suffers the same fate. After all, evil is not more powerful than good (the other way around even seems more likely in the tloz games). Shouldn't a good soul be able to turn the place good again by just entering too? It seems ridiculous that presence alone can truly change a divine land and that it only works one way around. But corrupting its divine source might do the trick.  

Ejia Aunouma stated that the Four Sword was in fact first in the series but this was before MC was released, MC now is first in the Timeline. In another interview before WW was released Mr. Aunouma and Mr. Myiamoto stated that there was a Dual Timeline in the Zelda series. Adult Link's Timeline has TP and WW, Kid Link's Timeline has MM, FSA, and ALttP. People tend to ignore FSA but it states the origins of Ganon's Trident which makes it before ALttP. Here's something that will prove the Dual Timeline Theory:
http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?p=848

Read my posts in the timeline theory topic. If they really go for a dual timeline, they've messed up OOT for good. Single Timeline is difficult, but not impossible. Dual Timeline is downright impossible.

Read it! They actually made absolute sense unlike most single Timeline theorists. >:( And if Mr. Myiamoto and Mr. Aunouma say that there is a Dual Timeline, you know it is right! 8) You'll find the interview in many sites! The Single Timeline is more impossible than the Dual Timeline! Actually the Single Timeline is just downright confusing!

Have you read my arguments in the other topic?

Maybe I've been a little too harsh on the dual timeline theory, but I still think it's a single timeline. Both haven't really got any flaws, only very awkward situations. So I stick with the single timeline theory until a game proves it's dual. I do not listen to anything the developers have stated. Because whatever they say keeps changing, contradicting earlier statements.

I have posted that Link in the Topic: Your Continuity Timline, or whatever it was called...

And I have read it 2.5 times. I just don't agree with it. That's just my opinion though. I think it makes a few awkward turns and the idea of an entire new timeline just for Link is just.....heroes are not supposed to be rewarded like that. And it's not like he deserved his lost years more than anyone else (everybody lost those years because of Ganondorf).

Quote from: LadyNintendo on October 22, 2006, 11:54:30 AM
And I have read it 2.5 times. I just don't agree with it. That's just my opinion though. I think it makes a few awkward turns and the idea of an entire new timeline just for Link is just.....heroes are not supposed to be rewarded like that. And it's not like he deserved his lost years more than anyone else (everybody lost those years because of Ganondorf).

Everybody BUT Link LIVED through those years, they didn't lose those years, duh! And just because Link didn't get rewarded, it doesn't mean he is not a hero! Single timeline theorists, what can you do?  ;D

So what? I prefer to be unaware of the bad things surrounding me if I don't have some sort of responsiblity. Link was spared from all the bad things that happened and probably saved from death too. He could just continue his life without a care after Ganondorf's defeat, while others will have to work hard to put everything behind them. Almost everyone has suffered a lot more than Link and they did lose those seven years. Nabooru is a very nice example. Why didn't she get the right of a new timeline?

I'll post my vision, a single timeline one, sometime this week. I'd like you to judge it, okay? :)

The problem with a single timeline, though, is that Link could have just returned the Master Sword at once to its pedestal, returned to his original time, closed the Door of Time, and Ganon would have been trapped in the Golden Land/Dark World.

Also, according TWW Link appeared as from no where, seals Ganon away, and then disappear (through time). According ALttP (one of the maidens say this) when Ganon had entered the Dark World he was trapped there.

Two different stories. Both points towards OoT.

No problem if you can see time as something unchangeable. Somthing that whatever you do, can't be affected by your actions because those actions are build in. This seems to count for the Master Sword, looking at the Song Of Storms (I will keep saying that).

Suppose this happened: Link entered the Sacred Realm and was followed by Ganondorf. We don't know what happened exactly here, but likely, Rauru saved Link. Knowing/thinking this child might be able to defeat Ganondorf, Rauru kept him with him for seven years, away from the war that was destroying the lands.

So far, we agree, right? I'm going to continue timewise, and not link's timewise.

After falling asleep, another Link emerged, this one being the younger version of the future version of the currently sleeping Link. This Link gets the Eye Of Truth and leaves, only to emerge again several seconds later. This time it is to meet Nabooru. After that, he leaves again. Again to return several seconds later. He returns the Master Sword to its pedestal, closes the door and leaves the Temple Of Time in search of Zelda. I have reasons to ignore/question the meeting-part of OOT's ending. I look at it as being a thought, a wish. Link met Zelda, but it wasn't in Hyrule Castle. It was wherever Impa had hidden her. Anyway, Link and Zelda spend some time together, maybe a month or two. Link told Zelda she should stay in hiding, because he knew what was coming. Maybe he even told her the entire story. Anyway, he left after a while, either because he knew what was coming or because he missed Navi. He returned to Hyrule, but not to known locations. Maybe he helped the other two Sages during these times, but it's not very important. He stayed out of sight because he knew he would not interfere during those years. That, or he was killed without anyone being able to identify him.

Ganondorf escaped, possibly by some of his henchmen's doings. He didn't bother about closing it. Why would he?

A little less than seven years later, sleeping Link wakes up. He does what we all know he did and went back in time twice before defeating Ganondorf. Zelda, during all those years, had become aware of what had happened and thus of what will happen. She guides Link, because she know she "should" do that. (I can't explain this stuff very well. Try to imagine you know the big lines of what happens and you know that everything you do is what "should happen"). When Link defeated Ganondorf, instead of celebrating their new found freedom, she sends him back, because she knows that's what she apparently "did".

Like I said, I can't explain this very well and certainly not in 10 minutes of typing. But try to imagine such a situation. Try to imagine who knew what at which point and consider time not changeable by any means presented in OOT. If you can't understand people doing things simply because they "have to" do them, this is a simpler solution of why Link and Zelda decided not to change anything that had happened and will happen: They knew that despite the horrors of those seven years, everything will be allright (except maybe Link, but they don't know that) and are possibly scared that if they try to make a change, things will end up worse. Link vs Ganon(dorf) was 50-50.

WTF? :o Seriously, now you are just making a lot of things things up, oh wait... that is what most single timeline theorists do. (I'm not trying to be mean)

Sorry to say, but you do sound mean. Especially the part about looking down upon single timeline theorists was not necessary.

Like I said, I can't explain it very well, and certainly not in the time I had. I actually need pictures to explain it too. I'm not making anything up. Do you know the show Gargoyles? If you do, try to compare that show's time with OOT's. Elfquest also works with unchangeable time.

Okay, let's try to do it like this: you do the thinking for me. I can't explain it (note: I KNOW what I mean and that it works. I just am not capable of finding the right words to explain it to others that don't know me, in a language that isn't even my own.). What I'm trying to say is: allow yourself for awhile to accept there might be a single timeline. Done? Now, think of OOT's entire story: from the beginning till the end (the end being Link's return to Hyrulean ground, but his adventure in Termina is not important). But think of it that everything that happened (and I hate to say it this way) was "meant" to happen. When Link goes back in time, he's not altering the past. He's fullfilling it. When Zelda sent Link back, it wasn't because she wanted it, but because she knew that is what she did/will do. It's like a circle; the past makes the future, which makes the past. Don't worry too much about this, just try to accept it for awhile and think about it. If you, after that, say: "Okay, it is possible, but I still prefer/ think that it's a dual timeline", then that's enough and all I ask.

I used to be a single timeline theorists but I tried to create a timeline but I got so confused. Then I read a board on a gaming website regarding the dual timeline, it made a lot of sense so I became a Dual timeline theorists. Now this is my Timeline:
MC
FS
OoT<Split>OoT
MM            
FSA-----------TP
ALttP--------WW
LA------------PH
LoZ
AoL

Eeeeeh....... FSA takes place some months, after FS...  :-[

This is what I think:

OoT
MM
TP
LoZ
AoL
LttP
LA
OoA
OoS
MC
FS
FSA
WW
PH ...phew! That was alot to write...

Quote from: M-Warrior on October 28, 2006, 09:36:13 PM
I used to be a single timeline theorists but I tried to create a timeline but I got so confused. Then I read a board on a gaming website regarding the dual timeline, it made a lot of sense so I became a Dual timeline theorists. Now this is my Timeline:
MC
FS
OoT<Split>OoT
MM            
FSA-----------TP
ALttP--------WW
LA------------PH
LoZ
AoL

And how did you consider the single timeline to be? Because I know you must've thought its time to be changable. I do not say that the dual timeline is wrong and single right. But I do not know of any reason that makes a single timeline impossible if time cannot be changed. It's not difficult.

This for both Dual and Single Timeline theorists.
No, FSA takes place hundreds of years after FS because the creators stated that FS was first in the timeline(Before MC's release, now MC is first in the timeline) FSA states that Ganondorf was either reincarnated(Both Timeline theorists) or the same Ganondorf from OoT(some Dual timeline theorists). Ganondorf stole the Trident of Power which turned him into a blue pig-like creature/warrior that he is in FSA, ALttP, OoS, OoA, and LoZ. A lot of people think OoS and OoA Link are the same Link from AlttP but if you do some studying and look at the official art you'll see that in the Oracle games that it was Link's first time meeting Zelda. And that the Link in ALttP is in fact older than the Link in the Oracle games. And I relised that I forgot to put the Oracle Games in my timeline. Well I put OoS and OoA hundreds of years after AoL for no reason, you can put them almost anywhere in the Timeline if you think about it. I'm done ranting... for now, muahahhaha!

I cannot say anything about FS's position in the timeline, for I have not played it. I do know that FSA seems to be very close to FS in the timeline, because of its intro. If it really would've been ages after FS, FS's story would not have been told the way it has been in FSA's intro. But it remains only guessing.

But for someone who considers the creator's words so important, I find it funny you put TLOZ and TAOL after ALTTP. For Miyamoto once said it was OOT, TLOZ, TAOL and then ALTTP.  :)

And when was that he said that... oh yeah, before MM came out, like seven years ago. :D

Quote from: M-Warrior on October 29, 2006, 11:21:57 AM
This for both Dual and Single Timeline theorists.
No, FSA takes place hundreds of years after FS because the creators stated that FS was first in the timeline(Before MC's release, now MC is first in the timeline) FSA states that Ganondorf was either reincarnated(Both Timeline theorists) or the same Ganondorf from OoT(some Dual timeline theorists). Ganondorf stole the Trident of Power which turned him into a blue pig-like creature/warrior that he is in FSA, ALttP, OoS, OoA, and LoZ. A lot of people think OoS and OoA Link are the same Link from AlttP but if you do some studying and look at the official art you'll see that in the Oracle games that it was Link's first time meeting Zelda. And that the Link in ALttP is in fact older than the Link in the Oracle games. And I relised that I forgot to put the Oracle Games in my timeline. Well I put OoS and OoA hundreds of years after AoL for no reason, you can put them almost anywhere in the Timeline if you think about it. I'm done ranting... for now, muahahhaha!

But I thought that in MC, no one had any idea who Vaati was, just that he won the tournament. But then when he broke the Picori Blade and cursed all those people, he became a villain. The Link deafeated him and sealed him away. After a few hundres years, in FS Vaati broke free and kinapped Princess Zelda, he was defeated again, sealed away, then got free in FSA when Link drew the Four Sword.

Quote from: Vaati on October 30, 2006, 05:15:43 AM

Quote from: M-Warrior on October 29, 2006, 11:21:57 AM
This for both Dual and Single Timeline theorists.
No, FSA takes place hundreds of years after FS because the creators stated that FS was first in the timeline(Before MC's release, now MC is first in the timeline) FSA states that Ganondorf was either reincarnated(Both Timeline theorists) or the same Ganondorf from OoT(some Dual timeline theorists). Ganondorf stole the Trident of Power which turned him into a blue pig-like creature/warrior that he is in FSA, ALttP, OoS, OoA, and LoZ. A lot of people think OoS and OoA Link are the same Link from AlttP but if you do some studying and look at the official art you'll see that in the Oracle games that it was Link's first time meeting Zelda. And that the Link in ALttP is in fact older than the Link in the Oracle games. And I relised that I forgot to put the Oracle Games in my timeline. Well I put OoS and OoA hundreds of years after AoL for no reason, you can put them almost anywhere in the Timeline if you think about it. I'm done ranting... for now, muahahhaha!

But I thought that in MC, no one had any idea who Vaati was, just that he won the tournament. But then when he broke the Picori Blade and cursed all those people, he became a villain. The Link deafeated him and sealed him away. After a few hundres years, in FS Vaati broke free and kinapped Princess Zelda, he was defeated again, sealed away, then got free in FSA when Link drew the Four Sword.

You thought right.

Exactly!  :)

To LadyNintendo: What about OoA? That game proves that time isn't unchangeable in Zelda. :-*

QuoteNo, FSA takes place hundreds of years after FS because the creators stated that FS was first in the timeline

That's not physically possible. The intro to FSA claims that it's right after FS.

I believe I said this already, but I can be wrong.

Yes, time may be changeable in the tloz-universe, but not by the instruments used in OOT. The Master Sword is not capable of changing time, the Ocarina isn't capable of that and Zelda...well, she might be. But why didn't she change time in other ways if that's the case? Preventing Ganondorf from entering the Sacred Realm? She may be wise, but in the end, she's still only Hylian. The Oracles on the other hand either are directly connected to the gods (goddesses) or are their mortal reincarnations (seems to be suggested by TWW). I wouldn't be surprised if Nayru's harp is capable of changing time and that that's the difference between the Oracle and the Sage.

Together, the Master Sword and Ocarina of Time is capable to change time, I believe. Sheik, at least, tells Link that so long as he hold the Master Sword and the Ocarina of Time he holds Time itself in his hand.

On the other side, this proves my point:

QuotePreventing Ganondorf from entering the Sacred Realm? She may be wise, but in the end, she's still only Hylian.

That statement somewhat argues with the SINGLE timeline. What if the reason Zelda sent Link back to his own time and didn't just change the past is that she couldn't change the past? It's official that Link returns to his own time, so either Time is unchangeable and it created a split timeline or Time is changeable and it changed the future.

Now, to argue with what I said above (I don't want to contradict myself, y'know :-*), he may not have meant that it can change Time. In fact, I believe that creating a split timeline isn't something Zelda thought up in the last second, but something she was planning for years. It may have been that the Master Sword and the Ocarina of Time are, together, the key to create a split timeline.

I still think time is changeable in Hyrule (MM and OoA makes it hard to think otherwise), but it could be that because of her Wisdom she realized the dangers of playing with Time.

Or, as you said, she may not be powerful enough. In MM it was the Goddess of Time (Nayru?) that aided Link, and in OoA the Oracle Nayru.

I hope my post doesn't... confuse anyone. :-X

The oracle of time one is 100% true, and most likely the MM one, too.

Did you mean Ocarina of Time?

Oops, I meant Oracle of Ages.

Quote
I hope my post doesn't... confuse anyone. :-X

I got confused somewhere after "SINGLE timeline". ^^ But I re-read it, so don't worry.

Anyway, it doesn't contradict with the single timeline theory. In fact, if it did, then it would also contradict with teh dual timeline theory. Like I said, I don't think the Sage Of Time is capable of changing the events of the past. IF Link would've had the Harp Of Ages (that's what that thing is called, right?), he may have been capable to change events in such a way that the future/present got altered too. However, he didn't have it. I think the Harp Of Ages is a far more powerful device than the Master Sword and Ocarina Of Time. Detail, the MS and OOT change Link's age to what he should be at that time (possibly preventing him to go further back or forth in time than the years of his birth and death) showing that whatever they are capable of, time stays very close to what it has always been. The HOA however, allows Link to stay the same age and travel through much bigger segments of time. It IS different and most likely, far more powerful if it allows people to break through the circumstances of a certain moment. If anything could cause a split timeline, it's the Harp Of Ages.

hmmm, just a question, was the HOA capable of bringing items from the present/future to the past?

Well, I don't know *that*, but I know that you lose your items and rupees that you've colected when you play the Song of Time in MM.

It was capable of bringing stuff back and forth through time...

but when one considers it, it doesn't create much of a paradox. because the HOA has a span of Four hundred years exactly. No more or less. So he can't go back an instant before he did something and 'reverse' that something. The thing is it's about fate. We have various going on's. Things that make it alright to go back and forth through time so fabric of space isn't ripped.

But in OoT's case, there are circumstancces which allow time to be changed in numerous ways through paradoxes. in suxch cases, time can be ripped apart... But, the thing is so theoritical and so abstract, it's difficult to approach directly. That's generally why there are so many theories about the timeline....

HEY! Is it just me  or have we gotten track off of the topic? I mean, this is more about MC being first than the timeline and theories involving thereto.

I also think that if MC was first, (which I sort of doubt it is) there probably would be a story behind the Picori Blade. What I'm saying is, notice how in the beginning of WW there's a story of the past, in MC there's a story of the past, but not in OoT, it just starts off as the Deku Tree talking about the Kokiri.

I'll go back ontopic after this:

HOA vs. MS and OOT
HOA is capable of bringing stuff from the future to the past.
HOA allows one to keep his own age.
MS and OOT cannot do those things. So which party seems to be more capable of truly affecting time? Not to mention the first one is the possession of an Oracle (or Goddess) and the second ones of a Sage, a guardian.
Guard vs. Spokeswoman of a god, who will probably have more power?
I'd also like to point out that by going to the past in OOA, you could clearly affect the future. In OOT however, not once was the future changed because of the past. In fact, the future (as seen at first), only existed because Link went back to the past.

Back ontopic.  :)

I repeat myself once more  ;): There have been centuries, millenia possibly, before OOT. The MS is already legendary (so probably used at least once) and Ganon(dorf) appears to have reincarnated in OOT. There's enough reason to assume there's also a story before OOT. Just because MC at least honestly admits having a pre-story, doesn't mean OOT hasn't got one and thus is first.

Yeah, I was thinking Ganon re-encarnated somewhere along the line, because in OoT and WW, he's a Gerudo, and he looks like one too. But in the first two Zelda games that came out back in the 80's, he looked like some kind of wart hog. But that could be becuase they weren't sure what species they were going to make him yet. Like in FS and FSA, there's no telling what kind of species Vaati is, but then in MC, when it's revealed that he's a Minish, things just make sense.  :)

the other day I saw this video youtube.com/watch?v=RXN1BF65WjI
(if the link doesn't work just enter youtube search the words zelda and click in the video that is called like zelda retrospective 6)
This supports the split timeline theory and that MC was first, just see it and you will notice lot's of details why MC was first.

I believe that it is very possible for MC to be the first title. You could also say it is very possible for any Zelda game (with the exception of a few) could be the first game in the series. I believe that MC is first mostly because of the "hat argument", as MC started off with Link without a hat, the first time it happened (TP of course was the same but when Link was given his usual green costume the hat was included) and in the end of the game he was given his trademark hat.

And saying a Split Timeline in Zelda is impossible is ridiculous. Anything is possible in the Zelda universe and I find it easier going by a split timeline then a straight timeline.

totally agreed.

The Song of Storms kills the split timeline.XD

Quote from: Evilslayer on February 19, 2007, 12:50:19 PM
The Song of Storms kills the split timeline.XD

Ok, how is that?

You read that article on Zelda Blog, didn't you? But there are other ways to counter the Song of Storms theory.

Like saying that it could have been someone else? Sorry, but if you talk to the windmill guy after learning the song he'll recognise you for being the 'mean kid'. :-*

Anyone have a link for this article, cause I would like to even see what you guys are talking about. I find it a little hard that a song would 100% disprove any timeline.

Linky linky. (http://www.zeldablog.com/2007/01/20/in-communist-hylia-song-of-storms-plays-you/)

QuoteAnyone have a link for this article, cause I would like to even see what you guys are talking about. I find it a little hard that a song would 100% disprove any timeline.

Well, honestly it mostly proves that if you're going to take every little bit the games throw at you as canon then you can just forget about making a timeline theory. :-*

Hmm that was a very interesting piece. But yes even with what the author said, this all holds true if you believe every piece of canon in the game. But if you do that there is going to be no timeline at all in Zelda. OoT was the 5th Zelda game made and there have been 8 since. While the developers were making the newer games I am sure they looked back at OoT (and previous games as well) but they did not look at every quote from the games. Even as Miyamoto said, there is a timeline and each game fits into it some how but they do not put too much of an effort on the whole timeline. So I am sure the Song of Storms is simply something they overlooked.

On that article, take a look at some of my comments. They'll probably make your head hurt though. I was the one trying to resolve the whole paradox created by the song of storms.

I'm Dark Mime Gogo by the way...

Hehe yeah it did make my head hurt. You made some good points but so did the author of the article. I just really believe that the developers do not think of every piece of dialouge in previous games when they come up with new games. I did like your debate with The Missing Link though  ;D

Quote from: Evilslayer on February 19, 2007, 01:05:06 PM
Like saying that it could have been someone else? Sorry, but if you talk to the windmill guy after learning the song he'll recognise you for being the 'mean kid'. :-*

No, I may be thirteen but that doesn't mean I'm stupid. Other theories might say that when Zelda return Link back to his original time she sent him back right after Link played the Song of Time, which is before Link teaches Guru-Guru the Song of Storms. Besides, I don't really care about the Song of Storms so I just ignore it.

She sent him back until AFTER Ganon entered the Golden Land.

Evidence 1: The Door of Time is open.

Evidence 2: Link has the Triforce of Courage.

That's what I said in another way but I don't really care much about the timeline anymore. But you know, you seem awfully rude sometimes.

No, it is absolutely not possible, because the FSA map was made to revolve around the LTTP map. Most people think that LTTP is post-flood. Also, if MC was first, than the unmoved Four Sword would be under the ocean.

Quote from: Akatsuki on February 23, 2007, 02:44:25 PM
No, it is absolutely not possible, because the FSA map was made to revolve around the LTTP map. Most people think that LTTP is post-flood. Also, if MC was first, than the unmoved Four Sword would be under the ocean.

Unless you put FS, FSA, and ALttP before WW.

Well, as I said, most poeple put LTTP after TWW. Plus, Masashi puts it after LOZ/AOL, which are probably post Flood eras.

For all we know, these are different Hyrules we're talking about. LttP and FSA would probably go together as the same... I'm thinking they would take place after either A) the new hyrule is found or B) the restoration of Hyrule takes place...

QuoteWell, as I said, most poeple put LTTP after TWW. Plus, Masashi puts it after LOZ/AOL, which are probably post Flood eras.

Putting it after would be a timeline-killer, in my opinion. At least after TP, where the ruins of the Temple of Time is in the woods and through that connects OoT to ALttP. If you want to create a connecting timeline theory you should look at what connects the games, not destroy those connections.

I would feel more comfortable about putting LoZ and AoL after the Flood. But if one fan puts it after TWW in his/her timeline doesn't mean anything. All timeline theories can be argued.

http://www.thehylia.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1173298152&archive=&start_from=&ucat=19&
Split Timeline confirmed, Twilight Princess takes place in Child Timeline confirmed by Mr. Aunouma himself! This is cold hard evidence here! Don't try to deny it! (Even though some of you will deny it anyway)

He also apparently thinks TP/TWW takes place around a hundred years after OoT. So sorry if I don't take what he says seriously.

That was a mistranslation. :-*

QuoteSplit Timeline confirmed, Twilight Princess takes place in Child Timeline confirmed by Mr. Aunouma himself! This is cold hard evidence here! Don't try to deny it! (Even though some of you will deny it anyway)

*tries to deny it*

*fails*

Well, whatever. It's an acceptable timeline to me.

QuoteBut you know, you seem awfully rude sometimes.

I know. :'(

Quote from: Evilslayer on March 09, 2007, 11:05:26 AM
That was a mistranslation. :-*

Proof?

You know, sometimes I get the feeling that you'll just blindly believe anything Nintendo related without actually thinking about it.

Edit: Offending section removed on better judgement, Akatsuki. :)

Wow, that was insulting. Not enough for a warning, but insulting.   :o

It WAS a mistranslation.

Although I too get that feeling about him, I highly doubt that he would believe that. The interview he read that said TWW was first was WAY before release. And it was now confirmed TWW is AFTER Adult Link OOT.

Seriously, Evilslayer, how could you not notice the date above the interview? That was clearly enough time to change their minds.

I was referring to the article M-Warrior posted. Unless you're saying that's a mistranslation too.

I thought you were talking about something else entirely.  :-*

At the begining of MC it shows a picture of the hero who killed Vaati. This hero HAS NO HAT! Meaning that it could not be link. And if it was link then he would not be using the master sword he would be using the minish blade. And our hero link doesn't get his signiture green hat until the end of the game. Meaning that the Link generation didn't start wearing a hat until after MC. But all of the links wear green hats except for the link in MC. So that would prove that MC is first, in my oppinon.

Quote from: Takun on March 12, 2007, 04:18:24 PM
At the begining of MC it shows a picture of the hero who killed Vaati. This hero HAS NO HAT! Meaning that it could not be link. And if it was link then he would not be using the master sword he would be using the minish blade. And our hero link doesn't get his signiture green hat until the end of the game. Meaning that the Link generation didn't start wearing a hat until after MC. But all of the links wear green hats except for the link in MC. So that would prove that MC is first, in my oppinon.

The Hero of Men did not kill Vaati, he sealed off a bunch of monsters, which Vaati released. And MC Link wasn't the only one who didn't wear a hat at the begginning of the game.(WW Link and TP Link didn't wear a hat at the begginning either) But the rest I agree with.

lol it haz 2 be the 1st link cuz he dosnt hav a hat!!!1111!11!!

That's some fantastic logic right there. I'd really like somebody to tell why this line of reasoning makes any sense whatsoever.

Minish Cap.........
If you ask me, it is the first in the timeline for the simple reasoning that there are alot of elements pointing towards it.Such as no hat at the begining of MC. As for WW and TP, they both start out with normal hats that symbolize heroes of the past. Making more sense now?
The second reason being that if Minish Cap was ne other place on the timeline, that means one game in the series was played with a hat the entire time and instead of Link it was Gustaf.
And the final and third reason being that it is the only game in the series that doesnt mention Ganon.

QuoteIf you ask me, it is the first in the timeline for the simple reasoning that there are alot of elements pointing towards it.Such as no hat at the begining of MC. As for WW and TP, they both start out with normal hats that symbolize heroes of the past. Making more sense now?

No it doesn't make sense. Because there's no reason to assume every Link has to have a floppy green hat. And he does have Ezlo, which I think would fit the bill anyway.

And you also assume each Link (or whoever gave him the clothes) would have some prior knowledge of the previous Links. And the fact that Links outfit isn't exactly very "outstanding" in Hyrule also hurts this theory. Are you saying only Links can dress like that?

QuoteThe second reason being that if Minish Cap was ne other place on the timeline, that means one game in the series was played with a hat the entire time and instead of Link it was Gustaf.

wat (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/Commodore_Axilon/Forum%20Crap/psyduck.gif)

You're going to have to elaborate on this point.

QuoteAnd the final and third reason being that it is the only game in the series that doesnt mention Ganon.

Firs of all, no it's not (Majora's Mask, Four Swords). Second of all, so what? Why should this matter at all? Explain to me why every game after TMC should have Ganon. Or why his absence would mean anything.

And just because Ganon wasn't in the game, doesn't mean he didn't exist at all. He could have been sealed away in the Master Sword for all we know. And Takun, in the beginning of Minish Cap, the boy who didn't have the hat (probably Link) didn't kill Vaati. In the very beginning, no one knew that Vaati was a villain, and so no one hated him or wanted to kill him. So how could Link kill him before he even did anything? All it said was that monsters started appearing around Hyrule and that the hero killed them off. And the monsters didn't look anything like Vaati. More like moblins. Also, just because the hero didn't have a hat, doesn't mean it couldn't be Link. I'm sure he wasn't born with the hat on.

OK,
If you have played WW you know that all boys dress like because they are expecting the return of the hero, or something like that..

Gustaf was the Hero of Men who was cap less. The MC speaks of him defeating evil. I'm not saying that this means that every Link wore a cap, but it just seems like that is the more assumable garb.And if it involves fighting evil there most likely has already been a Zelda game about it, but in this case there hasn't.

Vaati was Ganon's (or Ganondorf) puppet master. Ganon was possible using him to unvail evil unto the world and destroy any resistence before making his move onto the Triforce (Ocarina).

Gustaf is merely an ancient King of Hyrule. There's nothing in the game that even hints that he may have been the ancient hero.

Geez, I'm seriously starting to dislike GameTrailers more and more. :'(

QuoteAnd the monsters didn't look anything like Vaati. More like moblins.

And who's the big boss of the Moblins? Yup, Ganon. :-*

Actually, Vaati had little to do with Ganon until FSA. And yes, FSA completely disproves your theory he wasn't mentioned, FSA is the second sequel to MC.

I don't believe in GameTrailers for that reason, Evilslayer.

Same with him not being hero guy dude.

Link from OOT got his clothes from Kokiri tradition, and TWW they where the clothes in honor of OOT Link. TP is after OOT, so of course OOT Link's clothes. LOZ and AOL Link was from outside of Hyrule, and I doubt other nations would follow another's traditions. The manga reveals that Oracle Link from a family of farmers, unknown for game. LTTP is probably random clothing.

Seriously, the only games stating importance in the clothes are TWW and TP, because of the Hero of Time.

In ALttP there's actually a boy who resembles Link. Somewhat. So yes, I agree it's random in that game. It may be a coincidence, it may be fate. Or maybe the Legendary Hero is his idol? :-*

Probably, that's probably the same reason why that one Goron in OoT when you're an adult is named after you. Lots of people look up to Link, it seems.

i hate this.....
can someone please explain to me in a very factual way why MC couldnt be first??

Have you even been reading the thread? I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Well, I think people only think it's first because no evidence is against it. Problem is, no evidence points to it besides 'this and that aren't in it'.

Far more evidence points to OOT being first. More evidence points to the TWW being first, which isn't first at all!

ok, i see now....

I also don't think MC is first because Vaati is the main villain and, personally, I believe that if MC was the first game, Ganon would be the main villain because he's much stronger than Vaati. (I apologize about that, Vaati.  :( )

I don't see how that makes any sense. If TMC came first, Ganondorf wouldn't be in it anyway. You know, seeing as how he wasn't even born yet.

And using strength as an indicator of...firstiness (?!) doesn't make sense to me either.

Well, Ganon's obviously older than Vaati, but when they're selaed away in the Four Sword or Master Sword or whatever, they probably don't age. So, I'm thinking in OoT, which I think came first, Vaati wouldn't have even been born yet.

If TMC comes first then that obviously means it comes before OoT. Now Ganondorf is about 30-50 years old in OoT, right? The changes in society, blah blah, whatever, et cetera, ad nauseum would realistically put TMC around a couple hundred years before OoT. Ergo, Ganon could not have realistically appeared in TMC without some serious paradoxical sh*t happening.

Note: I don't actually believe TMC comes first. I'm just saying that using Ganon's absence as evidence for it is silly.

Two words approve that MC comes first: The SouthWest

I don't know what that means!

*edited to make more dramatic*

Play MC, replay OoT, and check what area is in the southwest.

Uh, the Wind Ruins?

Note: I don't actually have TMC, so I'm just going by this (http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/dkerkhove_minishcap.jpg) map. If there's something wrong with it, somebody please tell me.

Okay, well, I think Ocarina of Time was first.

I'm not a theorist, at least, not a timeline theorist, but... Ganon shows up in Ocarina of Time, and people would've said something about him looking like a previous villian if it weren't the first.

I personally think it's the same Ganon in every game, and there's no reincarnation business going on. >> But that's just me. I'm not really one to say these things, but I really do think Ocarina came first.

And what does Link having a hat have to do with anything? XD I mean, yeah, he almost always has his hat, but it's just an article of clothing. They always say the hero wore green clothes and stuff, but I beat OoT in my Zora tunic, and TP in my Zora Armour... Those are both blue, and not green, but he's still the hero, yes yes?

But if TMC came first, it would explain his hat, I guess.

(By the way, in the Southwest in TMC is Castor Wilds (that swamp place) and in OoT it's Lake Hylia/Gerudo Desert.)

Exacly! The Swamp and Desert. Notice the small difference between them! Castor Wilds(In my theory) dried up into a the desert we see in OoT, TP, FSA, and AlttP. I recall there are no other games with a swamp in the southwest(Except for ALttP in which the desert's Dark World version is a swamp but that's not important)

Oh dear god, hre we go all over again. I made a post way way back earlier in this  topic about how it may have been possible that the desert and lake PRECEDED the swamp. It is nothing definite. And besides, how long would it take for either to happen? a hundred years? a thousand? It's even possible that MC takes place a few centuries after WW. There simply is no conclusive evidence towards that term. Geography can change a LOT over a long time, but it can change in ways that you really wouldn't expect. Maybe The lake and the desert change into a swamp, or Vice versa.

And basing this on geography when your storyline theories have been defeated is a rather weak argument.

QuoteIf TMC comes first then that obviously means it comes before OoT. Now Ganondorf is about 30-50 years old in OoT, right? The changes in society, blah blah, whatever, et cetera, ad nauseum would realistically put TMC around a couple hundred years before OoT. Ergo, Ganon could not have realistically appeared in TMC without some serious paradoxical sh*t happening.

1. FSA kills your argument.
2. It's NEVER stated in OoT that Ganon was recently borne. He could have been resurrected.
3. FSA kills your argument.
4. You know what? He might have lived before. As a DAEMON!
5. Oh yeah, and FSA kills your argument. Completely.

*cough*reincarnation*cough*

QuoteExacly! The Swamp and Desert. Notice the small difference between them! Castor Wilds(In my theory) dried up into a the desert we see in OoT, TP, FSA, and AlttP. I recall there are no other games with a swamp in the southwest(Except for ALttP in which the desert's Dark World version is a swamp but that's not important)

Congradulations, you completely failed geography class!  ;D

Seriously, the desert is NORTHWEST. I don't know how you can even mistake the two directions.

Mount Crenel is where the Gerudo Desert is; Hyrule Castle where the Market and Hyrule Castle are; Veil Falls where Kakariko and Death Mountain are; Lake Hylia the Zora River; Minish Woods the Kokiri Forest; Southern and Northern Hyrule Field and Castle Town with the exception of the center where Lon Lon Ranch would be Lon Lon Ranch, Eastern Hills, and Western Wood would be Hyrule Field; Tribly Highlands the Gerudo Valley.

Castor Wilds and the Wind Ruins are where a very big cloud is. Lake Hylia (OOT) would be south of Link's House. Royal Valley is the cloud in between the Gerudo Desert and Hyrule Castle/Market.

Really, you're geography is the worst I've ever seen. You NEED to work on it.

MC isn't first.

That's not canon, and geography can't be used as evidence. Using geography as evidence is just as bad as the one-Link theory was in its time. Eventually there will just be too many Hyrule-based games. At best it can be used as hints.

But in my Split Timeline theory TMC, as well as the Legend of the Picori, is after the Great Flood and TWW.

Quote from: Evilslayer on March 27, 2007, 10:10:38 AM
1. FSA kills your argument.

Only if you already believe it comes before OoT. That's circular logic, right there.

Quote2. It's NEVER stated in OoT that Ganon was recently borne. He could have been resurrected.

And this completely unsupported statement is supposed to destroy my argument?

Quote3. FSA kills your argument.

Only if you already believe it comes before OoT.

Quote4. You know what? He might have lived before. As a DAEMON!

Another completely unsupported statement.

Quote5. Oh yeah, and FSA kills your argument. Completely.

Only if you already believe it comes before OoT.

Quote*cough*reincarnation*cough*

Which I'm sure you have proof for.

Oh, and why exactly can't we use geography as evidence? Because it doesn't work with your theories, right?

Quote from: Kannochi on March 27, 2007, 10:26:58 AM

QuoteExacly! The Swamp and Desert. Notice the small difference between them! Castor Wilds(In my theory) dried up into a the desert we see in OoT, TP, FSA, and AlttP. I recall there are no other games with a swamp in the southwest(Except for ALttP in which the desert's Dark World version is a swamp but that's not important)

Congradulations, you completely failed geography class!  ;D

Seriously, the desert is NORTHWEST. I don't know how you can even mistake the two directions.

Mount Crenel is where the Gerudo Desert is; Hyrule Castle where the Market and Hyrule Castle are; Veil Falls where Kakariko and Death Mountain are; Lake Hylia the Zora River; Minish Woods the Kokiri Forest; Southern and Northern Hyrule Field and Castle Town with the exception of the center where Lon Lon Ranch would be Lon Lon Ranch, Eastern Hills, and Western Wood would be Hyrule Field; Tribly Highlands the Gerudo Valley.

Castor Wilds and the Wind Ruins are where a very big cloud is. Lake Hylia (OOT) would be south of Link's House. Royal Valley is the cloud in between the Gerudo Desert and Hyrule Castle/Market.

Really, you're geography is the worst I've ever seen. You NEED to work on it.

MC isn't first.

Uhhh... how does getting one location wrong make me fail?
And... this might give a convincing arguement(This was made in 2005 so ignore what he says about TP)
http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=920769&topic=24434804

It proves you wrong because the desert couldn't be a dried up swamp because THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME PLACE!!!!!!!!

Also, you don't need to quote the entire post, you can just quote the stuff you need to. Just highlight what you need to, right click, and left click Copy. Then just, when you're posting, click the button that has a comic balloon (the thingfs they use to speak) on it, which will make these things:

Quote

Then just paste what you need in between them, like so:

QuoteThen just paste what you need in between them, like so:

Also, you're not making a timeline for yourself, you're just believing what another person tells you because this person just said it's true. They even just took the stuff from other people's timelines. Unless Nintendo themselves has said this (WHICH THEY DIDN'T) it's just another fan-made timeline.

They forgot FS and FSA are together, the way Zelda knows Link in both games and the way she looks (no other Zelda looked that way) are kinda proof. MM didn't happen three months after OOT, Zelda, in an MM flashback, said she knew Link for a year. They didn't put the Oracles there. After I read the timeline I got tired of reading.

I also don't think Minish Cap would be first because Ganon seems to be like the main MAIN villain. Whenever I hear Legend of Zelda's main villain, I think of Ganon. And in Minish Cap Ganon is no where to be seen in the game. He's not even a mini boss or anything.

The Legend of the Picori would still have to be before TMC, and Ganon seems to be the main villain there. :-*

QuoteOnly if you already believe it comes before OoT. That's circular logic, right there.

FSA outright STATES that he has been REINCARNATED.

QuoteAnd this completely unsupported statement is supposed to destroy my argument?

What about this? Twinrova is his SURROGATE mother. Or do you think they created him? By the way, it's stated by Navi. That they're his surrogate mothers, I mean.

QuoteAnother completely unsupported statement.

Never played FSA?

QuoteWhich I'm sure you have proof for.

Just play FSA.

QuoteFSA outright STATES that he has been REINCARNATED.

And guess what? Ganon(dorf) was killed at the end of TWW, TP, ALttP, TLoZ, and the Oracles. Like I said that's only proof if you believe FSA already comes earlier, which is, of course, circular logic.

QuoteWhat about this? Twinrova is his SURROGATE mother. Or do you think they created him? By the way, it's stated by Navi. That they're his surrogate mothers, I mean.

"Surrogate" just means somebody who acts in another's duty. Look it up.

Ganondorf was killed in the Oracles, too!  :)

In TWW, he was turned to stone, which isn't neccesarily dying. His spirit could still exist. It was NEVER shown Ganon existed as a living solid being in LTTP, but rather something in some form of possession using Agahnim to take over Hyrule. LOZ is before LTTP, so this actually helps prove this. TP is Child Link's world, and I believe that all other games are in Adult Link's world.

Also, Evilslayer is a very intelligent person and I doubt he didn't know that.

The thing is, FSA is not a very reliable source, seeing as how some parts of it contradict other parts of the canon...

Quote from: Kannochi on April 03, 2007, 01:59:30 PM
In TWW, he was turned to stone, which isn't neccesarily dying. His spirit could still exist.

Well, of course his spirit is still going to exist. Unless you think it's a different Ganon(dorf) in each game (HA!), or that TWW comes last (HA HA!). I think everybody can agree that destroying his physical body counts as a kill.

QuoteIt was NEVER shown Ganon existed as a living solid being in LTTP, but rather something in some form of possession using Agahnim to take over Hyrule.

Then how the heck did you kill him? You can't kill a spirit with swords and arrows last I checked.

QuoteLOZ is before LTTP, so this actually helps prove this.

Or, you know...he was actually alive in ALttP.

QuoteTP is Child Link's world, and I believe that all other games are in Adult Link's world.

All hail the omniscient Aonuma!

QuoteAlso, Evilslayer is a very intelligent person and I doubt he didn't know that.

Well, he apparently didn't, or else I don't see why he'd say it.

QuoteThe thing is, FSA is not a very reliable source, seeing as how some parts of it contradict other parts of the canon...

Not that I disagree with you, but I haven't actually played FSA, so I wouldn't know what these contradictions were. Would you care to point them out?

Actually, according to his post, Evilslayer DID know that.  :P

Quote2. It's NEVER stated in OoT that Ganon was recently borne. He could have been resurrected.

QuoteWhat about this? Twinrova is his SURROGATE mother. Or do you think they created him? By the way, it's stated by Navi. That they're his surrogate mothers, I mean.

It looks to me like he's saying that Twinrova resurrected him, which is what I replied to. If you see something in either of his posts which says otherwise, please point it out for me.

Actually, he uses this in the term they reincarnated him by rebirthing him through some ritual or something. Because they caused this creation, then this makes Twinrova his surrogate mothers. (Two of them)

Edit: Oh, now I see. But my point still stands that that's not necessarily what it means.

Actually, Twinrova is acting in the duty of Ganon's real parents by taking care of him and rasing him.

Yeah, that's what I think too.

The thing is there is no tangent evidence that Ganondorf was reincarnated in OoT. In OoT, we find out how he gets his power to begin with, by getting the triforce of power, which makes that the first time he ever found such great power so as to keep him immortal.

If he were reincarnated, by what powers would his spirit remain immortal? It's already been seen that the triforce of power is the source of his continued existence. Even the His last lines in OoT make point to this.

Well, kinda. It's a bit confusing considering his EXACT words, though.

QuoteAnd guess what? Ganon(dorf) was killed at the end of TWW, TP, ALttP, TLoZ, and the Oracles. Like I said that's only proof if you believe FSA already comes earlier, which is, of course, circular logic.

I think it's pretty damn good evidence that FSA comes after at least one of those games.<_< Or at least one game with Ganon. It also shows that Ganon has been REINCARNATED at least once, which is exactly my point.

QuoteThe thing is there is no tangent evidence that Ganondorf was reincarnated in OoT. In OoT, we find out how he gets his power to begin with, by getting the triforce of power, which makes that the first time he ever found such great power so as to keep him immortal.

Ask yourself this. Why exactly did the Sages suddenly decide to build the Temple of Time? Could it be that something happened that made them realize they needed to protect the gates to the Golden Land? Tell me where it is stated that OoT is the first time Ganon gets his hands on the Triforce.

QuoteIf he were reincarnated, by what powers would his spirit remain immortal? It's already been seen that the triforce of power is the source of his continued existence. Even the His last lines in OoT make point to this.

There's no evidence that even suggests that the Triforce of Power is the source of Ganon's immortality.

Quote from: Evilslayer on April 10, 2007, 12:45:50 PM
I think it's pretty damn good evidence that FSA comes after at least one of those games.<_< Or at least one game with Ganon. It also shows that Ganon has been REINCARNATED at least once, which is exactly my point.

Yes, and all those games come after OoT. That was my point.

QuoteAsk yourself this. Why exactly did the Sages suddenly decide to build the Temple of Time? Could it be that something happened that made them realize they needed to protect the gates to the Golden Land? Tell me where it is stated that OoT is the first time Ganon gets his hands on the Triforce.

Ask yourself this. Why exactly do you think it had anything to do with Ganon? That's just a completely baseless assumption. There could've been a million other things that caused the ToT to be built. There's no reason to assume it had anything to do with Ganon.

QuoteThere's no evidence that even suggests that the Triforce of Power is the source of Ganon's immortality.

So why do you think he's managed to live so long?

Personally, I think The Minish Cap is one of the first games set in New Hyrule, and definitely not first in the timeline. But just to chime in on this...

Quote from: Commodore Axilon on April 10, 2007, 04:15:33 PM

Quote from: Evilslayer on April 10, 2007, 12:45:50 PMquote]Ask yourself this. Why exactly did the Sages suddenly decide to build the Temple of Time? Could it be that something happened that made them realize they needed to protect the gates to the Golden Land? Tell me where it is stated that OoT is the first time Ganon gets his hands on the Triforce.

Ask yourself this. Why exactly do you think it had anything to do with Ganon? That's just a completely baseless assumption. There could've been a million other things that caused the ToT to be built. There's no reason to assume it had anything to do with Ganon.

One could conclude the "fierce war" of Link's infancy was over dominion of the Sacred Realm; the entrance is at the heart of the Hylian territory before unification, and the Hylians may have tried to "protect it", but the other races may have wanted access, and we have a very messy war. The Temple of Time could have easily been built around the entrance to the Sacred Realm, independent of the war, with the opening mechanism put in place after unification.

Exactly, that's as good a theory as any. I don't see why everyone has to assume some great evil has to have been caused by Ganon. I don't remember any rule stating he's the only ne'er-do-well in the Zelda-verse. Vaati, anyone? Majora? Two of possibly hundreds of people who've caused trouble in Hyrule over the years.

I, quite frankly, am sick and tired of all the Ganon worship. That's not to say I don't like Ganon, I think he's one of the best villains in video gaming. But to say he's behind every single bad thing that happens in Hyrule, is, in my opinion, giving him far too much credit.

...Especially before he was even born. ;D

There's no proof that Ganon could have lived before OOT, but no proof against it either. Except the following timelines which are collected from quotes made by game designers, we have no idea the order:

OOT/MM --> LOZ/AOL --> LTTP

        l --> Adult --> TWW/PH
        l
OOT -->
         l
         l --> Child/MM --> TP

And also, Commodore, please FOR ONCE give us proof to back up your theory about reincarnation. You've only been giving us proof against your idea.

I'm not gonna try to prove a negative, Whocares, because it's impossible. There's just no evidence for Ganon having lived before OoT, so I see no reason to assume he did. Especially when it's used as evidence for TMC/FS/FSA taking place first (see Evilslayer's argument) because that's just one giant mess of circular logic.

Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As Whocares on April 03, 2007, 01:59:30 PM
Ganondorf was killed in the Oracles, too!  :)

Let's face it, Ganon is invincable! Everytime you kill him, he comes back to life! I don't even know why Link and Zelda try.  8)

Actually, only his spirit will survive, his body will die again, and again, and again. (LOZ; LTTP (twice, even); Oracles; TWW; FSA; TP)(Defeated but not destroyed in OOT)

QuoteYes, and all those games come after OoT. That was my point.

How much energy does it take to understand my point? IF HE CAN BE REINCARNATED AS A GERUDO ONCE IT CAN HAPPEN MORE THAN ONCE!

QuoteAsk yourself this. Why exactly do you think it had anything to do with Ganon? That's just a completely baseless assumption. There could've been a million other things that caused the ToT to be built. There's no reason to assume it had anything to do with Ganon.

Why did the SAGES build the Temple, and not just the Hylian people in general? Besides, Ganon is the arch nemesis of Hyrule. Although there have been other villains trying to conquer Hyrule the Sages always seem to appear ONLY when Ganon have been up to no good.

QuoteSo why do you think he's managed to live so long?

Black magic? You forget the times he lives that long WITHOUT the Triforce of Power. In the first game he invades Hyrule and takes the Triforce of Power, and in ALttP he lives for generations in the Dark World without it.

QuoteOne could conclude the "fierce war" of Link's infancy was over dominion of the Sacred Realm; the entrance is at the heart of the Hylian territory before unification, and the Hylians may have tried to "protect it", but the other races may have wanted access, and we have a very messy war. The Temple of Time could have easily been built around the entrance to the Sacred Realm, independent of the war, with the opening mechanism put in place after unification.

Problem is, the "fierce war" was a decade earlier. The Ancient Sages are... ancient.

QuoteEspecially before he was even born.

And I'd like to see where you've got that evidence.

QuoteI'm not gonna try to prove a negative, Whocares, because it's impossible. There's just no evidence for Ganon having lived before OoT, so I see no reason to assume he did. Especially when it's used as evidence for TMC/FS/FSA taking place first (see Evilslayer's argument) because that's just one giant mess of circular logic.

Ahem...

QuoteI think it's pretty damn good evidence that FSA comes after at least one of those games.<_< Or at least one game with Ganon. It also shows that Ganon has been REINCARNATED at least once, which is exactly my point.

And you quoted that at the top of your post. How did you miss it?

Quote from: Evilslayer on April 29, 2007, 08:56:42 AM
How much energy does it take to understand my point? IF HE CAN BE REINCARNATED AS A GERUDO ONCE IT CAN HAPPEN MORE THAN ONCE!

Because it's just unfounded speculation. And something happening once doesn't necessarily mean it happened before.

QuoteWhy did the SAGES build the Temple, and not just the Hylian people in general? Besides, Ganon is the arch nemesis of Hyrule. Although there have been other villains trying to conquer Hyrule the Sages always seem to appear ONLY when Ganon have been up to no good.

Once again: unfounded speculation. You know I could say they built it because space aliens were invading Hyrule and were after the Triforce, and it would be just as probable as what you're saying. You see you have no evidence, only "ZOMG hes ben reincarnated b4!" Which following your argument to its conclusion, would mean Ganon has existed for all of eternity with no beginning and no end.

He is the alpha and the omega.

QuoteBlack magic? You forget the times he lives that long WITHOUT the Triforce of Power. In the first game he invades Hyrule and takes the Triforce of Power, and in ALttP he lives for generations in the Dark World without it.

Yeah, I concede this point.

QuoteProblem is, the "fierce war" was a decade earlier. The Ancient Sages are... ancient.

You know, there was that whole war mentioned in TP...

QuoteAnd I'd like to see where you've got that evidence.

Fine I admit it, Ganon could've been the reincarnation of some ancient daemon (lol at added "a"), but he also could be Tupac in disguise come from another dimension to hide from his paparazzi pursuers. You see how easy it is to pull stuff out of my *ss with no evidence?

QuoteAhem...

[snip]

And you quoted that at the top of your post. How did you miss it?

Well, then excuse me for being confused as to what the fark we're arguing about. You're telling me that you believe TMC/FS/FSA comes after OoT?

I couldn't find the original start of this thread in the stroyline section and im pretty sure ive read all of this thread. Now can someone remind me where the whole cap thing was resolved. In alot of the games the "uniform" of the hero is green and INCLUDES the cap (even in OoT). However the whole elzo thing suggests that this is where the cap came from. Now in the opening of MC the evil shown overtaking the land is gannon (that is pig form gannon and not gannondorf, meaning that gannon might have existed as a demon before gannondorf was around )

Now... the hero shown in the next couple of frames shows the hero.. clearly WITHOUT the cap. Now.. exactly which hero is this suppost to be showing? The stained glass windows show what appears the be the master sword.. not the white sword you use in the game. Though the picori sword is suppost to be the sword of ledgend, it is clearly purple not blue as in the opening sequence. The only time it is blue is in the 3rd stage.

I think that the minish cap could very well be the 1st in the timeline. and i've always felt that people believe OoT to be first due to something said a good deal of time ago now and because it was the first zelda to expand the story of the creation.

This is getting really pointless.

Commodore, Ganon was reincarnated as a Gerudo in FSA, disproving what you said about it being unfounded.

After seeing TP, I believe the TOT was built after the Twilight Realm thing after the Creation of Hyrule so the Triforce could be protected to a point.

We aren't discussing the cap any more, you know. I have no idea just exactly what we're discussing. Ganon's reincarnations, mabye?

Also, Commodore, if you use anything that could be considered a sensored banned word (like *ss and fawk) it will count as cussing and will get you a warning. You've used it too much to ignore.

Hmmm.... last time i checked the thread was called "is is possible that the minish cap came 1st" and i think that the cap is an important factor in that. If the issues been resolved could someone please tell me what the conclusoin you reached was because it seems alot more relevent than the reincarnation of gannon owing to the fact the gannon only appears in Minish Cap in the opening titles as gannon not gannondorf.

Quote from: The Artist Formerly Known As Whocares on April 29, 2007, 10:35:43 AM
Commodore, Ganon was reincarnated as a Gerudo in FSA, disproving what you said about it being unfounded.

What are you talking about? I said that when I was under the impression he believed he was reincarnated in OoT, not FSA. I'm not gonna disregard actual canon, Whocares. ;D

In fact, I'm not exactly sure what he's arguing anymore. So I'll wait for him to return to clarify.

QuoteAlso, Commodore, if you use anything that could be considered a sensored banned word (like *ss and fawk) it will count as cussing and will get you a warning. You've used it too much to ignore.

Fine, I'll quit the censoring. But I really do us "fark" all the time in real life. Are gonna ban "heck," "darn," and "crap" now because they're substitutes?

Not those, but fawk and *ss are considered censored, and those words are on the ban list, minor substitutes for minor words that can be considered bad, like heck, darn, and crap, don't count.

Quote from: Haritsuke Halloween on April 29, 2007, 12:14:18 PM
Not those, but fawk and *ss are considered censored, and those words are on the ban list, minor substitutes for minor words that can be considered bad, like heck, darn, and crap, don't count.

We already made a point on this, if it's censored to any point, it cannot be warnable.

If you think otherwise, take it up with Gamefreak, Evilslayer or ZV. (I notice that evilslayer swears, but it seems you turn a blind eye)

Since when does he? I've never noticed. And if it was more than a month ago, than it doesn't matter at all.

Also, we NEVER said anything about that, EVER. Unless you can find me proof that has been recent (the past 4 months) then what you're saying isn't true.

Just look on the last page, you'll see that there be a quote of his with a swear word.

And since no one said anything, you rule = moot. We've allowed words to be censored, if only partially before. It's only  you and it's only now that you've gone on this subject. Because no one said anything on this, that means there is no rule in relation to what you pointed out as 'swearing'.

And please, get back on topic. I believe we were debating on the possibility of Ganon reincarnating in OoT or not. The thing is, wouldn't the people notice that Ganondorf bears a similar name to a demon of the past? But they didn't seem to notice and let him thrive on and on...

You mean damn? That doesn't count.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Even if it is considered censored, the exact use of it could pretty much overrule the censor. Overuse of the 'censorship' could also rule out the censorship part. And I've gone on it before, too.

Okay, here my thoughts on this argument: if the words are censored to any degree at all, and clearly unrecognizable as a curse, then its not warnable. Okay. Got it? It isn't a hard concept to grasp. Why is this argument always coming up?

Because there are limits to how much the censorship can be used as an excuse. If you are using it to directly insult someone, like this (Note: I don't really mean it)

QuoteF*ck you *Insert member's name here*!

then it does surpass the limit and is a warning. And the overuse of censorship will eventually get old and count as cussing.

Except he didn't use it to insult anyone, therefore, no warning.

Not directly, but depending on amount of times used it could still count. Take a look at Commodore's last 50 posts, for example. Wait, bad example. All of his posts in April.

And for clarification, I never gave him a warning for that except when he did use it inultingly, at least a week ago.

QuoteBecause it's just unfounded speculation. And something happening once doesn't necessarily mean it happened before.

Alright. My point was that because it's happened at least once using his birth as evidence that OoT is first is unfounded speculation.

QuoteYou know, there was that whole war mentioned in TP...

You know, there is a very large possibility that Ganon was involved in that war. Did you hear his laugh? I think the Shadow Links symbolices a trio of villains. They look the way they do in the cut-scene because they are shrouded in mystery.

A Hero than appeared and defeated their leader, Ganon; hence saving him from being banished to the Twilight Realm together with his minion. The Hero, however, was corrupted by the Fused Shadow and became the new leader of the Interlopers.

QuoteWell, then excuse me for being confused as to what the fark we're arguing about. You're telling me that you believe TMC/FS/FSA comes after OoT?

Actually, I believe they come after TWW. :-*

EDIT: Oh, and about the added a I put in daemon. It's the classic way of typing it. It's like faerie.

Quote from: Evilslayer on May 03, 2007, 10:43:54 AM
Alright. My point was that because it's happened at least once using his birth as evidence that OoT is first is unfounded speculation.

But it actually says he was reincarnated in FSA. There's no such evidence in OoT.

QuoteYou know, there is a very large possibility that Ganon was involved in that war. Did you hear his laugh? I think the Shadow Links symbolices a trio of villains. They look the way they do in the cut-scene because they are shrouded in mystery.

A Hero than appeared and defeated their leader, Ganon; hence saving him from being banished to the Twilight Realm together with his minion. The Hero, however, was corrupted by the Fused Shadow and became the new leader of the Interlopers.

There's really nothing to disprove this theory, I just don't like it. Ganon doesn't have to be behind everything you know.

QuoteActually, I believe they come after TWW. :-*

Ah, I see. But you also believe Ganon existed before OoT, correct? But it just hasn't been shown in any of the games?

QuoteEDIT: Oh, and about the added a I put in daemon. It's the classic way of typing it. It's like faerie.

I know, I just think it's silly. I mean, if we're gonna go that route, why not just go full out? I give you "dæmon." ;D

QuoteBut it actually says he was reincarnated in FSA. There's no such evidence in OoT.

I think you're mixing proof and evidence. There's no proof, but there are evidence that suggest the possibility. :-*

QuoteThere's really nothing to disprove this theory, I just don't like it. Ganon doesn't have to be behind everything you know.

Not everything, yes. I can agree there. But it's my belief that Ganon is the "Morgoth" of Hyrule, not the "Sauron". The legend in TP seems to be Hyrule's "Adam & Eve" myth.

QuoteAh, I see. But you also believe Ganon existed before OoT, correct? But it just hasn't been shown in any of the games?

Yes, that's right. Actually, the reason I argue so strongly for it is all those OoT fanatics who calls OoT Link the "original" Link.

Personally, I think the first game in the Timeline needs to be something much vaster, more epic, etc. And of course, there needs to be lots of lore. Some could expand on lore from other games, and some should be new.

Actually, I'd like one, only one, game to take place before OoT. The Hero in that game should, or at least that's my opinion, be the greatest of all the Links.

Well, for the moment. Nintendo doesn't like limits. :-*

Actually I do think It was first. Because at the end of MC, Ezlo is returned to his normal form. He then gives Link the green hat that all Links have. That might mean that the signiture green hat started after MC. Because it was the first green hat link had gotton that wasn't a magical one. Sorry if Nintendo says differently. They probably only add these details to watch us debate over what is and isn't.

Oh god, the green hat debate all over again. I'm outta here!

You wanted my oppinion. And, in the MC in the intro it shows the hero who got the sword from the minish. In his picture he's not wearing a green hat. And the King is the only one with the minish blade, so I asume that the first hero of hyrule was the king, then Link came along and became the next hero, at the end he gets the hat and there on out all the other Link decendants have green hats.

Give me one good reason why what any of the other Links wear has anything to do with the events of TMC. Do you think somebody goes running around through time telling all the Links "Hey you're gonna be the next Hero™! Every Hero™ has worn this silly green hat, so you better wear it too so everybody knows who you are even though it's been hundreds/thousands of years since the last one!"?

It's just a coincidence. Y'know, like the fact that all the heroes are named Link, the princesses named Zelda, and they both have to fight against a villain named Ganon. That's it, just a coincidence.

Actually none of the things you just stated are coincedance.
1)Only the heir to the original hero can weild the master sword, meaning that only the heir of link can be the hero.
2)They name the princess Zelda because thats the tradition in the royal family.
3)The villian Gannon is the same one that has been in every Zelda game. He is never killed, except in TP, he is only imprisoned.

Quote from: Takun on June 13, 2007, 05:30:48 PM
1)Only the heir to the original hero can weild the master sword, meaning that only the heir of link can be the hero.

Since when? And that still doesn't address the point of them all being named Link.

Quote2)They name the princess Zelda because thats the tradition in the royal family.

I'm sure that naming each and every female born into the royal family in untold millennia will be incredibly easy, and not ridiculously difficult and unnecessarily complicated at all.

Quote3)The villian Gannon is the same one that has been in every Zelda game. He is never killed, except in TP, he is only imprisoned.

Then how do explain him being reincarnated in FSA? Oh, I'm sure that lil' baby Ganon asked for that name. ;D

And that wasn't really my point at all, those were just examples of other coincidences.

If you assume the hat holds any significance to being a hero, then you also assume that each and every Link (or whoever gave him the clothes) had knowledge of the sartorial habits of the past Links. Or you assume the hat holds some special essence crucial to being a hero and without it Link could not possibly succeed in his quest, ergo he wasn't really a hero.

It's just a hat, people. The whole thing is just silly, if you ask me.

Edit: Oh, almost forgot. You've been GANNON-BANNED! (http://gannon-banned.com/)