Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

Evidence For and Against Pre-Ocarina TMC


  • Please log in to reply
340 replies to this topic

#1 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 01 April 2007 - 06:19 PM

I want to get a list of the evidence that suggest that The Minish Cap comes pre-OoT and a list of the evidence that suggest it is post-OoT. No matter how small you think that the evidence might be, post it, and we can put it on the list and make this mystery a little clearer to us.

Pre-OoT
1. According to the Armos statue, they were built by the Minish.
2. According to one of the Minish statues, it is that race that places rupees and items in grass, under rocks, etc.

Post-OoT
1. The books in the library have Hylian from TWW on them, and that form of Hylian supposedly wasn't around before OoT.

I'm pretty sure there is more that I have forgot. Go ahead and post them.

#2 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

  • Members
  • 13,386 posts
  • Location:Gloucester
  • Gender:Male
  • England

Posted 01 April 2007 - 06:51 PM

Of course, during the original LoZ Armos were soldiers who had been turned to stone. So there are different origins for different Armos in the series, and that point is weakened.

And the other point doesn't say anything about the games placement - the Minish could have been doing that since the beginning, but this game could come anywhere.

The contents of the books might just be an easter egg, but they refer to the Oracles games - and I think it's Nayru's figurine that says she's descended from a line of priestesses, or something, implying another Oracles connection.

#3 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 01 April 2007 - 07:40 PM

The topic is about evidence, not proof, and as evidence the points mentioned count. Creator comments and all that stuff about Link's first hat probably count as evidence as well despite the fact they prove nothing.

#4 Hero of Slime

Hero of Slime

    Zol

  • Members
  • 1,778 posts
  • Location:Seattle
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 April 2007 - 07:44 PM

It might be implied that TMC is the origin of Link's hat, which he has in OoT. The hat given to Link could have started the tradition of heros in that line wearing the green hat.

#5 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 01 April 2007 - 07:49 PM

Could have, but I don't see why it has to be. It's just an origin for A hat, not for every hat to come, surely? Why does everyone think the hat is so important? Does it say somewhere that this is the first hat worn by any Link ever?

And yes, I know the 'Link' in the backstory is shown without a hat. That doesn't mean that later Links all have to wear hats, though.

Edited by Fyxe, 01 April 2007 - 07:50 PM.


#6 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 01 April 2007 - 08:25 PM

I'm with Fyxe. The hat argument is trite and stupid. End of story.

And the hiding rupees and such in the grass, that's silly too. Yes, Minish are able to manufacture and push big heavy rupees all over Hyrule. Right.

#7 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 01 April 2007 - 09:31 PM

Of course, during the original LoZ Armos were soldiers who had been turned to stone. So there are different origins for different Armos in the series, and that point is weakened.


Retcon. I'd believe a game released about 3 years ago over a game released over 20 years ago. The new information overtakes the old. Plus, that information was never in TLoZ. It was in the TLoZ instruction manual. The Minish building them was an in-game explaination. I don't know if you share the same view, but if the information from a game's manual that is over 20 years old conflicts with in-game information from a game released about 3 years ago, the newer, in-game information wins hand down. That is just my opinion, though.

And the other point doesn't say anything about the games placement - the Minish could have been doing that since the beginning, but this game could come anywhere.

Untrue. We are told in TMC that the Minish came 100 years prior to TMC. We are not told whether or not they came before that, though. We can't prove that they came before TMC's backstory, so saying that they did would be an unneccisary assumption. Occam says no.

The contents of the books might just be an easter egg, but they refer to the Oracles games - and I think it's Nayru's figurine that says she's descended from a line of priestesses, or something, implying another Oracles connection.


That's what I think, but I don't want to rule anything out.

Could have, but I don't see why it has to be. It's just an origin for A hat, not for every hat to come, surely? Why does everyone think the hat is so important? Does it say somewhere that this is the first hat worn by any Link ever?


I am not a writer of TMC, so I can't say this for sure, but it may just be symbolic evidence as opposed to literal evidence. It could be like foreshadowing.

The same could be said about the very end of TMC, which says that this won't be the end of Link's and Zelda's adventures as long as the light force shines throughout the ages. That could be considered symbolic evidence. Again, maybe forshadowing.

Basically, BourgeoisJerry was right when he said that we are only looking for evidence, not neccisarily undeniable proof.

EDIT: I am not actually worried about the Armos problem. Both origins for Armos can be right. Here is why.

Look at this official art of an Armos from TLoZ:

Posted Image

He looks more like a human than the Armos later in the series.

ALttP Armos (Small Picture):

Posted Image

Clearly they are statues and not soldiers turned into stone.

OoT and MM Armos:

Posted Image

Again, clearly they have never been human.

TWW Armos:

Posted Image

TWW Armos Knight:

Posted Image

Never human.

This isn't a good picture, but TP Armos:

http://www.thehylia....e...=338&pos=23

Never human.

The only Armos that could have been human at one point are the ones in TLoZ. All others look like statues, so they were probably built by the Minish. That means that the TMC Armos description could still be evidence that TMC is before OoT.

Edited by Vertiboy, 02 April 2007 - 12:36 AM.


#8 Hero of Slime

Hero of Slime

    Zol

  • Members
  • 1,778 posts
  • Location:Seattle
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 April 2007 - 02:13 AM

The Armos in OoT and MM have the goron symbol on them, they were probably built by the gorons.

#9 Duke Serkol

Duke Serkol

    Famicom

  • ZL Staff
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 05:14 AM

The LoZ artwork may look human like, but the statues in the game had a single eye, looking very much like those in LA, Oracles and MC.

...and I never noticed TWW's Armos Knights looked like Wario until now.

#10 Arturo

Arturo

    I swear this game is Adults Only!

  • ZL Staff
  • 3,356 posts
  • Location:Un lugar de la Mancha
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 April 2007 - 06:12 AM

Read my article. NOW:

Since ZL is down and I don't have the definitive one so you will have to read this one.


But read it. Just now. It contains everything I could find. And there was very little I couldn't find out.

Attached Files



#11 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 April 2007 - 08:12 AM

Retcon. I'd believe a game released about 3 years ago over a game released over 20 years ago. The new information overtakes the old. Plus, that information was never in TLoZ. It was in the TLoZ instruction manual. The Minish building them was an in-game explaination. I don't know if you share the same view, but if the information from a game's manual that is over 20 years old conflicts with in-game information from a game released about 3 years ago, the newer, in-game information wins hand down. That is just my opinion, though.

The thing is, each game has it's own continuity. The original Zelda games contained a lot of this information in the manuals, simply because they couldn't put it in the actual game. The Armos in OoT were made by the Gorons, that appears to be the intention. The Armos in TMC were made by the Minish. The Armos in other games are soldiers turned to stone.

As I've noted elsewhere, enemy designs change. Helmsaurs have gone from being reptiles, to being insects, to being birds, to being pigs.

Untrue. We are told in TMC that the Minish came 100 years prior to TMC. We are not told whether or not they came before that, though. We can't prove that they came before TMC's backstory, so saying that they did would be an unneccisary assumption. Occam says no.

It's said they appear every 100 years, I thought. Ockham therefore says yes, because otherwise the 'every' is unnecessary.

I am not a writer of TMC, so I can't say this for sure, but it may just be symbolic evidence as opposed to literal evidence. It could be like foreshadowing.

Or just a homage.

The same could be said about the very end of TMC, which says that this won't be the end of Link's and Zelda's adventures as long as the light force shines throughout the ages. That could be considered symbolic evidence. Again, maybe forshadowing.

Well, that line is interesting, because if you place TMC at the start, it implies that the Light Force is (or at least part of) the Triforce.

But again, it says nothing about the beginning of their adventures.

The only Armos that could have been human at one point are the ones in TLoZ. All others look like statues, so they were probably built by the Minish. That means that the TMC Armos description could still be evidence that TMC is before OoT.

Don't forget though, the Armos in the original Zelda, Link's Awakening, Four Swords and TMC are clearly based around the same visual style (two legs, shield, spear and one 'eye'), while the ones in other games are based on another style, and there's some crossovers in style here and there. Like I've said before, I think it's fairly clear that the origins of certain things is subject to change depending on the game. 'Armos' is just a generic name for a type of golem. In TLoZ, they are soldiers turned to stone. In ALttP, they are more statue like, and their origin is unknown. In OoT, they are made by Gorons. In TWW, they were made by whoever also made Gohdan and designed the Tower of the Gods. In TP, they were made by whoever designed the Temple of Time (ancient sages with Oocca involvement, presumably). In TMC, they were made by the Minish.

Much like Beamos, Eyegore and other related enemies, Armos are simply a form of magic and technology (or Magitek, if you want to get FFVI about it).

Edited by Fyxe, 02 April 2007 - 08:14 AM.


#12 Arturo

Arturo

    I swear this game is Adults Only!

  • ZL Staff
  • 3,356 posts
  • Location:Un lugar de la Mancha
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 April 2007 - 08:22 AM

Fyxe, in other versions of TMC (If my memory serves, the Spanish is one of them) it says that it was Link's first adventure in Hyrule. And it seems that all the European versions were translated from Japanese, directly.

#13 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 April 2007 - 08:30 AM

Wasn't it released in Europe first? There's a few little errors here and there in the European release.

And I'd like to see where this text is in the game, anyway. o.o

#14 Mgoblue201

Mgoblue201

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 10:19 AM

If the hat means nothing, then why did they put it in there? The hat alone does not mean much. However, it's an origin story. Think of it like a Greek myth on why there's dew on the ground. Might not mean much by itself, but if there's no dew before, and then there is dew, it has to come before all of these other stories that do have dew. The question is whether it actually is an origin story. But this is the only game where not one but two separate heroes have a tunic but no hat until Ezlo comes around. That to me speaks of intention. Unless you have another viable explanation.

But I do think that the point about the Hylian is kind of trite. It clearly has to do with development arcs, not period arcs in Hyrule.

#15 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 April 2007 - 10:52 AM

Link has a lack of hat at the start of TWW and TP. It seems to be a running theme, not a proper origin story.

Yes, in this case, he didn't wear the hat because a previous hero did. But in that case, where did the tunic come from?

I don't see how the hat alone is enough to prove it's an origin story. It's an origin story for the Four Sword, and it's an origin story for the Light Force, whatever it may be, and it's an origin story for Vaati. But I don't see how it's an origin story for Link and Zelda.

I'd have to see definite in-game text to say that no hero ever wore a hat like that before this Link, and all heroes after wear a hat like Elzo.

#16 The Missing Link

The Missing Link

    Monk

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 10:58 AM

If the hat means nothing, then why did they put it in there?

Because Link needed to NOT have a hat when he found Ezlo? Duh?

Honestly, the great leaps of logic the hat argument claims to make can be better be described as (1) plot device so that Link will eventually pick up the Minish Cap in the story and (2) an inside joke to veteran gamers in the scene at the end of the game so that veteran gamers will snicker over him having a hat now.

The hat alone does not mean much. However, it's an origin story. Think of it like a Greek myth on why there's dew on the ground. Might not mean much by itself, but if there's no dew before, and then there is dew, it has to come before all of these other stories that do have dew. The question is whether it actually is an origin story.

Bull*navi* it's an "origin story". Why? Because what's it the origin of? THAT dang cap, not ALL dang caps. If you could miraculously prove that there was ONLY one green cap throughout the entire history of the Zelda series, then it is an origin story because the cap was created... and every other game depends upon it. However, just because X is created doesn't mean it's an origin story when there can (much less, there likely are) multiply copies or creations of similar or substitutive Xs.

The explanation is still quite dumb.

#17 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 April 2007 - 11:08 AM

plot device so that Link will eventually pick up the Minish Cap in the story

I agree with everything you said, but just to be pedantic, Vaati is the one with 'The Minish Cap'.

#18 Mgoblue201

Mgoblue201

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 11:28 AM

TP and WW aren't the same since he gets the hat at the same time he gets the tunic. Obviously that's supposed to be the origin of that particular tunic and hat. The fact that Ezlo draws attention to it means it's more than a simple reference. I guess I cannot unequivocally prove that it's an origin story, just like you cannot unequivocally prove that it was meant to be an inside joke, despite how adament you are about it, however, I am simply trying to prove creator intention. Going by Aonuma, he says that Four Swords is the earliest title. After TMC was released, he said it was a prequel to Four Swords. Therefore, TMC was the earliest use of the hat that we know of, and he got the hat in that game, so it seems probable that it was meant to be an origin story by the creators. I don't care if you don't personally believe that. I don't care if you don't personally believe anything the creators say. I am simply trying to prove what it was intended to be, and I think a lot of evidence points that way.

EDIT: I am not saying it has to make sense to the rest of the series either. It makes no sense that all other heroes would coincidentally wear a hat after that moment. I think the creators were of the mindset of "hey, this is supposed to be the first game of the series, let's throw in this cool thing about his hat". In other words, the two are linked. Because it's the first in the series, supposedly, they put the hat reference in. It's merely an intention for TMC to come first.

Edited by Mgoblue201, 02 April 2007 - 11:31 AM.


#19 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 April 2007 - 12:32 PM

Going by Aonuma, he says that Four Swords is the earliest title.

He said that ages ago, before FSA was released, and presumably well before any real progress had occured with TMC. And if you read the interview, he was pretty vague about it anyway.

I don't care if you don't personally believe anything the creators say. I am simply trying to prove what it was intended to be, and I think a lot of evidence points that way.

I do care about what the creators say, but what they say is fluid, especially in the design and promotion phases of a project, which is when the interview was given.

I think the creators were of the mindset of "hey, this is supposed to be the first game of the series, let's throw in this cool thing about his hat". In other words, the two are linked. Because it's the first in the series, supposedly, they put the hat reference in. It's merely an intention for TMC to come first.

He said Four Swords came first, and clearly it doesn't, because it has a prequel. Also, I think he actually said it about FSA, although I might be wrong, and as far as I know it's pretty much impossible for that game to be first in the series anyway. Heck, it's a sequel to Four Swords. But even then, it requires Ganon to exist beforehand at some point. So obviously the idea changed during the design process somewhere.

I think interviews are much more insightful once a game is finished. The one he gave was well before completion of the game, and before the trilogy of Four Swords games was anywhere near finished.

It really annoys me when people don't actually read these interviews and look at their context.

Edited by Fyxe, 02 April 2007 - 12:33 PM.


#20 Mgoblue201

Mgoblue201

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 12:50 PM

He said it May of 2004, after FSA was already released in Japan and like a month before it was released in the US, so saying they changed the story isn't a viable option. I have read the interview many times. This was before TMC was released, so obviously it would be the oldest tale at that time. The question was about FSA's place chronologically. He said that Four Swords was the oldest tale and that FSA was a "sequel" to that. I put sequel in quotes because it was in context of chronology.

Now obviously perhaps he wasn't too sure, perhaps he'll change it, etc. But perhaps the timeline isn't meant to be connected together perfectly. Who knows. What I do know is what he said. I haven't played FSA, so I don't know what's in the game that makes it impossible to come earlier. I don't see how it would be hard to imagine that Ganon existed even earlier than we thought. But really, the logistics of it I don't care about. I'm not trying to argue for it to make sense. I am talking creator intention. If Aonuma really meant for TMC to come first, then that might explain why they chose to explain the hat origin. That's all I'm trying to say. That there was intention there to do it. It might not make complete sense (FSA is out of place anywhere you put it regardless). I don't even have the Four Swords games in my timeline since I haven't played either.

#21 D~N

D~N

    just a humble polymath

  • Members
  • 3,200 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 April 2007 - 12:52 PM

So obviously the idea changed during the design process somewhere.

Just as something to throw into the mix, and I'm not entirely sure if this is true, but I remember hearing somewhere that yes, infact, the FSA plot was scraped entirely because Miyamoto was not satisfied with it, and they started over completely. Of course, that would make all developer's coments on this game something to take with a grain of salt.

But that's just what I think I heard from some unreliable source. As you can see, take what I say with a handfull of salt as well. >.<

#22 Mgoblue201

Mgoblue201

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 12:57 PM

It is true, but again, the Aonuma interview was conducted months after the game released in Japan. It could mean that FSA really makes no sense anywhere and was not done with the rest of the series in mind, so it was put as an earlier game so it wouldn't interfere with the rest of the series. Who knows. I don't have a problem if it doesn't really connect in any way.

#23 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 April 2007 - 01:11 PM

He said it May of 2004, after FSA was already released in Japan and like a month before it was released in the US,

Are you certain on this? Oh well, maybe I misread or something.

Still, he was very vague about it, no avoiding that fact.

I don't even have the Four Swords games in my timeline since I haven't played either.

No offense, but I think it's very important to play a game fully before you argue it's placement in the timeline, but at least you haven't placed them in your own timeline. But FSA doesn't *feel* like an origin story at all. It feels rather like the Oracle games... Placed somewhere in the midst of an already active timeline. It relies on many things already existing previously... Vaati, the Dark World, Ganon, the Four Sword, the Palace of Winds, possibly even the Great Sea. It offers no origins, and it isn't until TMC that we get the origins for Vaati, the Palace of Winds and the Four Sword, but still no origins for the other things involved in FSA.

I have played every single Zelda game to the end, with the exception of the unofficial Cd-i games. This is only vaguely relevant, but I thought I'd throw that out there in case anybody was wondering.

#24 Mgoblue201

Mgoblue201

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 01:26 PM

The interview was conducted May 17th, 2004. According to IGN, FSA was released in March in Japan and June in the US.

I actually know a lot about FSA's story. I've had it relayed to me, plus I've read up on it on Wikipedia. I keep telling myself to buy it, but it'll cut into my college funds. I'm not saying Aonuma is correct or anything. For all I know he just made something up on the spot. But it's the only definitive thing we have into the creator's minds. If I had to harbor a guess, I'd say that it seems like it's in the middle of the timeline because they reused so many familiar Zelda staples. In fact, they admitted not only that the game uses a LTTP art style because so many members from the LTTP team worked on this one, but they intentionally reused familiar things from past Zelda games so fans would recognize them. So perhaps nothing in the game has timeline significance. Perhaps they'll just let FSA hang out near the beginning and never touch it again. That would be my guess anyway. And FSA isn't supposed to be an origin story. It's supposed to be the culmination of the Four Swords saga.

#25 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 April 2007 - 01:53 PM

FSA involves Ganon and the Dark World. If it's before OoT, that's a rather major rewrite of the entire series.

It also requires Ganon to exist before FSA at some point, and Ganon shows recognition of Zelda, as if he's met her before.

#26 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 02:38 PM

Well, that line is interesting, because if you place TMC at the start, it implies that the Light Force is (or at least part of) the Triforce.


Not neccisarily. It could just imply that the light force is what keeps all of the Links and Zeldas safe after TMC. We are not the writers, though, so we have no idea what the definitive meaning of that quote is.

But again, it says nothing about the beginning of their adventures.

Thus Link's quest did come to an end.
But surely, this is not the end of Zelda and Link's adventures in Hyrule.
The legend will continue...
...as long as the power of the light force echoes throughout the ages.


"...this is not the end..." and "The legend will continue" = The beginning of their adventures

Also, about the Minish. Assuming that they came to Hyrule more than twice is not neccisary in order for TMC's story to work. Basically, they come to Hyrule 100 years prior to TMC. They give the hero of men the Picori Blade. Many of them stay behind and start placing items in grass, under rocks, etc., and the door closes. 100 years later, the door opens again, and TMC begins. Occam's Razor does not encourage unneccisary excess, and saying that they came more than twice is doing just that. I am going somewhere with this, so hold on.

There were no monsters in Hyrule in the period between TMC's backstory and TMC. Assuming that there were will violate Occam. If there are no monsters in the 100 year period between TMC's backstory and TMC (it must be 100 years to please Occam), then no games with monsters can take place between them. That is every Zelda game. No current games can come between TMC's backstory and TMC. That includes OoT.

In OoT, there are items in the grass, under rocks, etc. That means that the Minish placed items there. That means TMC's backstory must come before OoT. That, in turn, must mean that TMC must come before OoT.

Of course, though, that's only if you apply Occam to TMC, and plus, there is also the Middle Hylian on the books, and since I didn't make TMC, I am not going to assure everyone that it is just an Easter egg when I don't know that for sure. That's kind of the reason that I wanted to get evidence for pre-OoT and post-OoT TMC. If we can find an unbalance of evidence for one side, then maybe we can see what Capcom intended.

It's hard, though, because we don't know what is solid evidence and what could simply be a homage (possibly like the hat).

Speaking of the hat, even though TWW and TP Link didn't start out with the hat, either, they also didn't start out with the green tunic. As soon as they got the tunic, they had the hat. TMC Link is the only Link to start with the tunic but not the hat, which could possibly mean that it was the origin of the hat for all Links. Who knows for sure but Capcom, though.

#27 Chaltab

Chaltab

    Bright Lord of the Sith

  • Members
  • 1,031 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 03:05 PM

...as long as the power of the light force echoes throughout the ages.


I think that phrase right there is the key. "Throughout the ages" to me implies that the writers or translaters were trying to infer that Minish Cap is a prequel to the entire series.

Also, a few peices of in-game evidence; all of these are based on inference, of course.

Geography - Hyrule itself is a fairly small island, indicating it takes place either early in the universe or shortly after the Flood. However:

Lon Lon Ranch - Malon and Talon themselves aren't proof, because we know that reincarnation is common in Hyrule; however the ranch itself indicates that it takes place before the Flood. It puts it in the vicinity of Ocarina of Time rather than the distant future.

Mt. Crenel - The Gorons say they used to live there. Death Mountain doesn't seem to exist at all, and Crenel doesn't exist in any other Zelda game. From this I infer that Capcom meant that they left mount Crenel and evnetually settled on Death Mountain.

Hyrule Castle - It's in the northern most point on TMC's map in a similar position to where it is in Ocarina of Time. Again, it indicates it happens in the same era as Ocarina. However, Lake Hylia's location and the lack of a desert in the west indicate that considerable time passes either before or after Ocarina of Time. And since the desert exists in Twilight Princess and ALTTP, the survey says "before".

#28 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 02 April 2007 - 03:22 PM

Not neccisarily. It could just imply that the light force is what keeps all of the Links and Zeldas safe after TMC.

The Light Force is not mentioned in any other game.

"...this is not the end..." and "The legend will continue" = The beginning of their adventures

Um...

Y'know what?

No. It doesn't.

Occam's Razor does not encourage unneccisary excess, and saying that they came more than twice is doing just that.

Not if it's implied to be a regular thing. I don't think you understand how Ockham's Razor works.

There were no monsters in Hyrule in the period between TMC's backstory and TMC.

Um, again, since when? There might be monsters, just not very many. Is it ever said that no monsters exist whatsoever? It's against Ockham to assume no monsters exist whatsoever, when we know that monsters are regular things in Hyrule and are often a part of the natural order.

Assuming that there were will violate Occam. If there are no monsters in the 100 year period between TMC's backstory and TMC (it must be 100 years to please Occam), then no games with monsters can take place between them. That is every Zelda game. No current games can come between TMC's backstory and TMC. That includes OoT.

But they can come before TMC's backstory. So who the fook cares.

In OoT, there are items in the grass, under rocks, etc. That means that the Minish placed items there.

No it doesn't.

That means TMC's backstory must come before OoT.

No it doesn't.

Of course, though, that's only if you apply Occam to TMC, and plus, there is also the Middle Hylian on the books,

Hold it. 'Middle Hylian'? Tell me you're joking.

Speaking of the hat, even though TWW and TP Link didn't start out with the hat, either, they also didn't start out with the green tunic. As soon as they got the tunic, they had the hat. TMC Link is the only Link to start with the tunic but not the hat, which could possibly mean that it was the origin of the hat for all Links. Who knows for sure but Capcom, though.

IT'S JUST A HAT. Other people wear hats like that too in the series, y'know! Who you ask? Bah, you work it out, I can think of three already.

#29 BourgeoisJerry

BourgeoisJerry

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 06:21 PM

I think we've learned a valuable lesson with this topic. It is not possible to create a topic to just gather evidence for and against something, as such a topic will quickly degenerate to arguments about how evidence brought up isn't proof. Oh well, such is life.

#30 Vertiboy

Vertiboy

    Crusader

  • Members
  • 405 posts

Posted 02 April 2007 - 06:32 PM

Not to be a jerk, Fyxe, but I like how for most of the replies to my post, you just said, "No, it doesn't," but you didn't elaborate on why you disagree with me. Far be it from me to tell me that you must have a reason to disagree, but I have seen you debate before, and I know that you are above arguements that are basically equal to "Nuh-uh!!! :P" I am not trying to insult you. I am saying that I know for a fact that you can do better than that.

The Light Force is not mentioned in any other game.


It has to me mentioned to be present? Maybe I misunderstand the definition of retcon.

Hahahah! I just remembered the perfect example for this. Near the end of season 5 of the TV series Scrubs, the main character J.D. meets Dr. Kim Briggs. She has supposedly been at Sacred Heart Hospital (the series' main setting) since before the show even began (back in 2001), but she makes her first appearance in this episode. Turk (J.D.'s best friend) points out to J.D. that even though Dr. Briggs has never been seen or mentioned up until this point in the series, she has been at the hospital all along. The episodes shows several flashbacks to previous episodes, and Dr. Briggs is superimposed into old snippets of episodes from the past (as a joke, of course).

The light force is Dr. Kim Briggs. It has been there all along in the Zelda universe, even though the idea is relatively new in the real world (TMC came out in 2004).

To answer your question, no the light force has never been mentioned before TMC, but that definitely doesn't mean that it couldn't have just been there all along.

Not if it's implied to be a regular thing. I don't think you understand how Ockham's Razor works.

Where does TMC imply that TMC's backstory isn't the first time that the Minish have come to Hyrule?

Um, again, since when? There might be monsters, just not very many. Is it ever said that no monsters exist whatsoever? It's against Ockham to assume no monsters exist whatsoever, when we know that monsters are regular things in Hyrule and are often a part of the natural order.

Then why are the people like "OMFG MONSTERS!!!" whenever the chest is opened at the beginning of the game and monsters are all over Hyrule? There is a man or woman in Hyrule Town that says Hyrule has become more dangerous lately.

Yes, a few monsters probably existed, like the Armos, but the Ropes, Keese, Octoroks, Keatons, etc. that we see come out of the chest were not present between TMC's backstory and TMC. The only reason I can see anyone saying anything differently would be because they don't like the facts and want to make some of their own.

But they can come before TMC's backstory. So who the fook cares.

Yes, and all of the games can just be Tingle's dream, too, but you don't see me assuming that it happened just because it can happen, do you?

No it doesn't.

Go on...

You can't just deny the facts given by TMC (that the Minish are the source of the rupees, hearts, etc. around Hyrule) and then not give a reason for it. I know that you are above that.

No it doesn't.

If we are to use as little fan fiction/assumptions/w/etf you want to call it as possible, then the Minish only came to Hyrule twice. That means that TMC and it's backstory must come before OoT. I am just making as few assumptions and leaps of faith as possible. According to that, TMC must come before OoT (just according to that, though, as there is contradicting evidence that suggest TMC is post-OoT).

Hold it. 'Middle Hylian'? Tell me you're joking.

I just called it that because I thought that was the fan-given nickname for it. Whatever the Hylian is called that appears in TWW also appears on the books in the library in TMC.

IT'S JUST A HAT. Other people wear hats like that too in the series, y'know! Who you ask? Bah, you work it out, I can think of three already.

You are missing the idea that every single piece of evidence wasn't neccisarily meant to be literal. It might just be the writers way of symbolically starting the green hat trend. The key word is might, though, since we are not the writers and do not know for sure what the purpose of Ezlo giving Link the green hat was. I am just saying not to claim that you know it wasn't supposed to mean anything since you were not a writer for TMC, either.




Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name