Is it remotely possible for MC to be first?

[Vaati]

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.

[LadyNintendo]

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.

[Vaati]

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.  :)

[wiizard]

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.

[bgrugby]

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.

[wiizard]

totally agreed.

[Evilslayer]

The Song of Storms kills the split timeline.XD

[bgrugby]

The Song of Storms kills the split timeline.XD

Ok, how is that?

[M-Warrior]

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

[Evilslayer]

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'. :-*

[bgrugby]

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.

[Commodore Axilon]

Linky linky.

[Evilslayer]

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.

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. :-*

[bgrugby]

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.

[darkphantomime]

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...