340 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

Where is this coming from? This point utterly baffles me. It's been said that the Minish come to Hyrule every 100 years. If they'd only come once before The Minish Cap, how could anyone possibly know how often they come?.

That they still hold annual festivals commemorating the event after 100 years is remarkable enough. It becomes more remarkable as you add more 100-year intervals.
The same applies to the fact that the tales of the Minish are as popular and well-known as they are.

[Chaltab]

That they still hold annual festivals commemorating the event after 100 years is remarkable enough. It becomes more remarkable as you add more 100-year intervals.
The same applies to the fact that the tales of the Minish are as popular and well-known as they are.

People still celebrate things that happened hunreds or thousands of years ago in the real world, though. Most of these thigns happened only once in history! The idea that a culture would celebrate the coming of magical beings that made the world better isn't remarkable at all. (Magic beings themselves, obviously, would be remarkable.)

Edited by Chaltab, 11 April 2007 - 12:25 PM.

[LionHarted]

People still celebrate things that happened hunreds or thousands of years ago in the real world, though.

I'm pretty sure I don't celebrate anything to do with the Seven Years' War.
Most of the things I see celebrated in the real world are related to religious custom, like the Passover, or recent events, like 9/11 (or, to be fair, the American Revolution and other independence days).
Since after even only a couple centuries the zeal for such celebrations is gone in large part, I find it difficult to believe that Hyrule would be any different.

[Duke Serkol]

Ever heard about Christmas? Or Easter maybe?

[LionHarted]

Random spoiler-y fact:

I'm confident to the point of arrogance that the Four Sword will be featured in PH, based on a piece of official art in a recent article about PH. (Will PM URLs by request.)

Edited by LionHarted, 11 April 2007 - 01:21 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Well, it's unnecessary for Anju to have met Kafei before Majora's Mask (despite their upcoming wedding). It's unnecessary for Link's Grandmother to have ever made soup before TWW (despite the fact it's Link's favourite). It's unnecessary for Ganon to have ever played the organ before you climb the stairs to meet him in OoT (despite the hours of practice he's clearly put in).

2. seems a very "easter egg"y explanation for a computer game staple. Nearly all computer games have random hidden items; I'm sure they just thought that the Minish as originators would be a fun explanation, and didn't look for any kind of timeline significance. Even if the items hidden in Minish Cap were from the Minish, we couldn't prove that hidden items in other games came from them as there could be multiple reasons they got there. Still, if you want to insist on the Minish hiding everything, it's probably quite hard to prove otherwise.

That is not for us to decide. If you are allowed to say that this or that sounds like it is an Easter egg, then the next person would do it, and then someone else, etc., etc. The point is that we do not know creator's intent. It is canon, unless we have reasonable doubt.

No, it is not unneccisary for those events to happen because it it indirecty stated through implied evidence that Anju met Kafei before MM, Link's grandma made soup, and Ganon was playing the organ. It is not, however, implied in any way that the Minish had come before TMC's backstory. That is unneccisary.

*A bunch of stuff*

I see the error of them coming only twice. I was wrong. Anyway, my arguement is now that the Minish never came before TMC's backstory.

What exactly is a monster? Vaati certainly qualifies as an "evil being" before ever releasing the Bound Chest, so we can presume that others like him might have been able to appear, and recruited "monsters" to their cause. We see a rogue Business Scrub before the Bound Chest is ever released, and, in a majority of the games in which they've appeared, the Deku have been depicted as enemy monsters.

A monster in this sense are the common monsters in other games, like Octoroks, Ropes, Peahats, Tekkittes, Moblins, Keese, ChuChus, etc. Basically, all of the monsters that take little effort to kill. It is possible that someone came before Vaati and recruited monsters, but it is not factual.

As for the Deku Scrubs, are the automatically bad guys just because they were bad in OoT? Before OoT, the Zoras were bad guys, too. The Gorons are somewhat Link's enemy in TP. Yes, there were probably Scrubs in Hyrule before the chest was opened. Big deal.

I understand that the Scrub was were shooting at Link. Just because there are no monsters, it doesn't mean that there are no douchebags.

Possibly. Although this seems like a fairytale explanation, which I suppose is basically the entire premise of the game. We can't certify its accuracy as we could with the other stories of the Picori, although there's no reason to believe it's not true at present. It's most accurate to say that hidden items in TMC are hidden by the Minish.

It is accurate. The game says that it is. Why are we even bringing that into question? It is implied that the Minish have been around since the beginning of the series. The fact that they are tiny seems to make this retcon a little more believable within the Zelda universe; we couldn't see them in any other games because they are very small.

I doubt this highly.

What good does highly doubting do? None. A lot of people highly doubted the split timeline. A lot of people highly doubted multiple Links. The fact of the matter is that TMC's backstory is the first recorded instance of the Minish coming to Hyrule. While it is possible for them to come before that, it cannot be proven and it is not needed for TMC's story to work or for TMC to fit into the timeline, therefore, it is unneccisary to say that they came before.

Edited by Vertiboy, 11 April 2007 - 04:32 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

As for the Deku Scrubs, are the automatically bad guys just because they were bad in OoT?

The same can be said of all monsters in the game. There might be nice, civilized versions of most of the monsters somewhere, and even if not, they strike me as beasts instead of bad guys. I don't think it'd be a good idea to seal away 80% or so of the country's ecosystem to protect humans.

[LionHarted]

It is accurate. The game says that it is. Why are we even bringing that into question?

So it's accurate.

Does it apply to the hidden items in every game? Do the Minish climb into tiny boats and travel all around the Great Sea, hiding Rupees under rocks and grass?

[Duke Serkol]

Does it apply to the hidden items in every game? Do the Minish climb into tiny boats and travel all around the Great Sea, hiding Rupees under rocks and grass?

They just might! Or maybe since they are so small and light they fly on the backs of seagulls or clinging to dandalions.

[provehito]

First, I want to give a hello to everyone on the board. I've been keeping an eye on discussions here for sometime, and the more I read them the more I want to join in, so I took the step and registered.

So, yeah, hi

Anyway, from what I've seen in this debate so far, people are arguing over something that no one can really prove. All that we can really take with all of this is, however, is little phrases revealed within the game itself, and the personal opinions of Aonuma.

On one hand, I wouldn't say it's unfathomable for this game to actually be an origin point for the series. We are introduced to a race that is given reasoning for placing items within grass and other environments, which has been a staple of the series. We see the origin of the Picori Blade, which has later iterations in several games as the White Sword and the Four Sword. We are introduced to something known as the "light force," though we are never told what this could be. Then, of course, the touchy subject of the hat itself, and whether or not it's a metaphorical start for the series or just a nod to veteran players.

We also have to keep in mind the other translations of the ending in this game, however, which seem to give a nod to future Links and Zeldas, but pay no respects to past ones.

Another thing to remember is Aonuma's placement of Four Swords at the beginning of the timeline. Though creator quotes in this series tend to be more flexible than other series, I believe that as long as nothing is directly conflicting with his statement on the placement of Four Swords being at the beginning of the timeline when it was made, it's possible that this game, as a prequel to Four Swords, could be the first game in the timeline.

Do we really have evidence against it? The only evidence that I've seen against Four Swords being pre-Ocarina of Time is that some people claim it to be a direct prequel to Four Swords Adventures, though I myself don't see it as a "direct" prequel because of several reasons.

As such, I don't see how it's farfetched for this game, giving how it points to the origins of many mainstay entries in this series, coupled with the statements that Aonuma has made regarding Four Swords and, through chain reaction, the Minish Cap, to be at the beginning of the timeline. It doesn't contradict anything by having the Minish Cap at this point in time. The only thing affected is the appearance of newer Hylian Text, though, honestly, Hylian has changed so much between games, just as geography has.

However, this isn't set in stone. It's a possibility, and one that I endorse, but I feel the argument of the Minish having only visited Hyrule at one point in history is unneeded. While there is no proof of them appearing more than twice, there is no indication that it has only been once, either. The only way to really come to terms on this subject would be to have the Japanese version of the Minish Cap, and look at how sentences involving the "every hundred years" are set up grammatically.

Anyways, that's my two cents.

Again, hello everybody

[Fyxe]

The only evidence that I've seen against Four Swords being pre-Ocarina of Time is that some people claim it to be a direct prequel to Four Swords Adventures, though I myself don't see it as a "direct" prequel because of several reasons.

Considering that Link and Zelda in Hyrulean Adventure are exactly the same Link and Zelda from Four Swords, I'd say you'd be hard pressed not to make it a direct prequel.

That's my way of saying hello. ¬.¬

I should also point out that the 'White Sword' is just that... A white sword. It's just a name. The Noble Sword in the Oracle games is also the White Sword in the Japanese version (well, apparently), and heck, that turned out to be the Master Sword.

[provehito]

Considering that Link and Zelda in Hyrulean Adventure are exactly the same Link and Zelda from Four Swords, I'd say you'd be hard pressed not to make it a direct prequel.

That's my way of saying hello. ¬.¬

Is there specific proof, such as in-game text, that confirms this? I haven't played Four Swords Adventures in a while, so my memories a little hazy. Anyway, if that's true, I'm not sure. The whole idea of the the Four Sword series feels to me like spin-off series that isn't even part of canon. All of the stuff was changed so drastically between the iterations. Well, if memory serves, Four Swords Adventures was split into three episodes. Could it be possible for us to allow each episode to take place in a different area of the timeline? Or is it concrete that it's one Link through them all?

This is kinda getting off-topic, though, so a somewhat short answer would be appropriate, I suppose.

I guess that's my way of saying hello back.

should also point out that the 'White Sword' is just that... A white sword. It's just a name. The Noble Sword in the Oracle games is also the White Sword in the Japanese version (well, apparently), and heck, that turned out to be the Master Sword.

Well, is the White Sword just a white sword, really? Its history goes all the way back to the very first Legend of Zelda game.

Which brings something else. If the White Sword was in the first game of the series (with it being split among the fans whether or not this was the Master Sword or not) and used as both a dumbed down version of the Master Sword and the Four Sword, could it be possible that these are all the same sword? Not really asking for facts, but if anyone else could see the possibility.

And what does that do to people who hold a Link to the Past's "and the Master Sword sleeps... FOREVER" line that some people hold as tightly as the Bible in forming their timelines? That could actually bring us full-circle back to Miyamoto's original timeline, which would be ludacris.

[Fyxe]

Is there specific proof, such as in-game text, that confirms this? I haven't played Four Swords Adventures in a while, so my memories a little hazy.

I'm fairly sure the intro makes it painfully obvious, and I think the manual pretty much confirms it. One of the two. Also, the official FSA website states they're the same. Plus there's the whole thing about Link knowing what'll happen when he draws the sword.

Anyway, if that's true, I'm not sure. The whole idea of the the Four Sword series feels to me like spin-off series that isn't even part of canon. All of the stuff was changed so drastically between the iterations. Well, if memory serves, Four Swords Adventures was split into three episodes. Could it be possible for us to allow each episode to take place in a different area of the timeline? Or is it concrete that it's one Link through them all?

FSA is split into three games, but one wasn't released outside of Japan, Tetra's Trackers. That was essentially a Wind Waker spin-off. Shadow Battle is nothing more than Shadow Links fighting each other, as a spin-off to Hyrulean Adventure. Hyrulean Adventure is the one with the main plot, which is a sequel to Four Swords, using the same Link from that game.

Well, is the White Sword just a white sword, really? Its history goes all the way back to the very first Legend of Zelda game.

So has the Wooden Sword, does that mean that every Wooden Sword is the same one? Of course not. Names are reused, such as the Mirror Shield. It's just a name, it's just a sword, and one of them was another name for the Picori Blade/Four Sword, one of them was another name for the Master Sword, and one of them is just a white sword.

Which brings something else. If the White Sword was in the first game of the series (with it being split among the fans whether or not this was the Master Sword or not) and used as both a dumbed down version of the Master Sword and the Four Sword, could it be possible that these are all the same sword? Not really asking for facts, but if anyone else could see the possibility.

It's an amusing concept but it's really logically impossible.

And what does that do to people who hold a Link to the Past's "and the Master Sword sleeps... FOREVER" line that some people hold as tightly as the Bible in forming their timelines? That could actually bring us full-circle back to Miyamoto's original timeline, which would be ludacris.

God knows why, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it wasn't literal in the slightest. It's very odd that people concentrate so much on that line.

[provehito]

I'm fairly sure the intro makes it painfully obvious, and I think the manual pretty much confirms it. One of the two. Also, the official FSA website states they're the same. Plus there's the whole thing about Link knowing what'll happen when he draws the sword.

I'll have to try and get a hold of that game again. I never owned it, just played it with my friend. I remember reading the manual and felt it was a little vague, however, and I thought how the beginning was set up didn't lead me into feeling that it was really the same Link. Again, I'll have to check into it again.

FSA is split into three games, but one wasn't released outside of Japan, Tetra's Trackers. That was essentially a Wind Waker spin-off. Shadow Battle is nothing more than Shadow Links fighting each other, as a spin-off to Hyrulean Adventure. Hyrulean Adventure is the one with the main plot, which is a sequel to Four Swords, using the same Link from that game.

I remember playing Hyrulean Adventure, but I don't remember feeling as if I was playing the same Link. I should really give that game another run-through at some point.

So has the Wooden Sword, does that mean that every Wooden Sword is the same one? Of course not. Names are reused, such as the Mirror Shield. It's just a name, it's just a sword, and one of them was another name for the Picori Blade/Four Sword, one of them was another name for the Master Sword, and one of them is just a white sword.

Indeed, it could just be a regular, white sword. I just find that it's interesting that it's always a sword that seemingly upgrades into the best sword of its respectable game.

It's an amusing concept but it's really logically impossible.

Indeed, I was just throwing around a lot of what-ifs that the White Sword being the same in every game could bring about.

God knows why, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it wasn't literal in the slightest. It's very odd that people concentrate so much on that line.

I agree. I felt that it was just a cliche to make it seem like you really saved Hyrule the need of ever using that sword again.

[Fyxe]

I'll have to try and get a hold of that game again. I never owned it, just played it with my friend. I remember reading the manual and felt it was a little vague, however, and I thought how the beginning was set up didn't lead me into feeling that it was really the same Link. Again, I'll have to check into it again.

Well, among other things, a major point to bring up is that the story speaks of the previous sealing of Vaati in the Four Sword as being done by Link. It refers to him by name, and then immediately speaks about how Link and Zelda are going to check up on the seal. In fact, I think it even gives a timeframe, like, a year later or something like that. Whether it does or not is irrelevant though, it would be extremely, extremely odd to refer to the previous hero as Link (this has never, ever occured in the series unless it IS the same Link), and especially odd if they made no distinction between that Link and the one you're playing as if they had intended them to be seperate heroes.

[provehito]

Well, among other things, a major point to bring up is that the story speaks of the previous sealing of Vaati in the Four Sword as being done by Link. It refers to him by name, and then immediately speaks about how Link and Zelda are going to check up on the seal. In fact, I think it even gives a timeframe, like, a year later or something like that. Whether it does or not is irrelevant though, it would be extremely, extremely odd to refer to the previous hero as Link (this has never, ever occured in the series unless it IS the same Link), and especially odd if they made no distinction between that Link and the one you're playing as if they had intended them to be seperate heroes.

I agree. I concede here. My knowledge on the Four Swords Adventures is rather rusty.

[Showsni]

I agree. I concede here. My knowledge on the Four Swords Adventures is rather rusty.

The script is here:
http://www.gamefaqs....le/914976/47212

That includes relevant information from the box and manual. It never does make it explicit that it's the same Link, but it seems implied.

[Vertiboy]

The same can be said of all monsters in the game. There might be nice, civilized versions of most of the monsters somewhere, and even if not, they strike me as beasts instead of bad guys. I don't think it'd be a good idea to seal away 80% or so of the country's ecosystem to protect humans.

You mean, what if there might be nice, civilized versions of the monsters? I thought we were beyond this. Yes, it is possible, but it is not factual.

Beast, monsters, baddies, or w/etf you want to call them, were threatening Hyrule in TMC's backstory, and they were threatening Hyrule again in TMC.

Obviously, not every single being that might be considered to be any level of threatening was in the chest. As you have pointed out, the Business Scrub was present in Hyrule. That is why I have been saying most of the time that little to no monsters were in Hyrule between TMC and its backstory.

Edited by Vertiboy, 12 April 2007 - 11:55 AM.

[LionHarted]

Hmm.

I have a highly speculative, probably-not-correct, fanficcy beyond belief idea as to how PH, TMC, and TWW might all be linked in such a way as to create a situation in which:

1) There are three timelines
2) TMC (or at least the Light Force story) is "first"
3) OoT is the SW

Remember, this is entirely hypothetical, highly unlikely, and just an interesting, "If Nintendo did this, a lot of problems would be solved" scenario.

PH features something called the "Phantom Hourglass", which, of course, heavily implies time travel. I'm fairly certain it is confirmed that it will be used to this effect.

There is a sword in a piece of PH official art that looks eerily like the Four Sword.

Let's pose the hypothetical. Let's say PH Link, unsatisfied with the flooded world, wanted to undo the flood forever. He has a magical time-traveling hourglass. Gee, I wonder, how might he go about doing this?

He goes back in time to stop it from happening, naturally.

This takes us to the TMC backstory. "When the world was about to be enveloped by shadow" fairly clearly describes the pre-TWW, pre-Flood scenario. Let's say for a minute that monsters began to stir before Ganon actually escaped his OoT seal, similar to the situation in ALttP. PH Link, the hero, appears in the past, at this time when the hero did not appear, and, with his sword and the Light Force given to him by the Picori (maybe even given in the future), he drives away the darkness. This creates ANOTHER split timeline, one leading into TWW, one leading into TMC.

And, effectively, the rest of the series.

Ganon is sealed in the Sacred Realm, allowing for OoT to be the IW, as originally intended, making ALttP much less complicated to deal with (can take place before or after TMC). The Master Sword is in all likelihood still in its original resting place, where it is in ALttP. The only real problem is the Triforce in ALttP, but that was obviously overlooked in making OoT the IW in the first place.

Now, I know this almost definitely won't happen, but wouldn't it be nice?

Edited by LionHarted, 12 April 2007 - 11:59 AM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Eh, I don't really like the idea. As nice as it would be for the timeline to make more sense, that story doesn't sound like it'd make for a very good game. If they really want to tie in the original Zelda games cleanly they can just raise Hyrule, resurrect Ganondorf and play out the parts of the Sealing War that didn't happen in Ocarina of Time (including Ganondorf getting the whole Triforce, since he's already reunited it) while having some characters mention certain things that did. This one is also very unlikely, as raising Hyrule would go against the king's wish (somebody would have to kill him somehow,) and Ganondorf has nobody to revive him unless he revived Koume and Kotake before the great flood. Like yours, it would take care of a lot of inconsistencies, but... uh, what was the point I was trying to make again? Oh, right, I was saying that there are plenty of things they can do to "fix" the timeline, but... well, you kinda already admitted that there was pretty much no chance of your theory happening, so I guess I don't really have a point.

[MikePetersSucks]

You mean, what if there might be nice, civilized versions of the monsters? I thought we were beyond this. Yes, it is possible, but it is not factual.

Well DUH! What the hell did you think I meant by "Might"? "What if there might" is unnessessarily redundant.

Let's pose the hypothetical. Let's say PH Link, unsatisfied with the flooded world, wanted to undo the flood forever. He has a magical time-traveling hourglass. Gee, I wonder, how might he go about doing this?

He goes back in time to stop it from happening, naturally.

This takes us to the TMC backstory. "When the world was about to be enveloped by shadow" fairly clearly describes the pre-TWW, pre-Flood scenario. Let's say for a minute that monsters began to stir before Ganon actually escaped his OoT seal, similar to the situation in ALttP. PH Link, the hero, appears in the past, at this time when the hero did not appear, and, with his sword and the Light Force given to him by the Picori (maybe even given in the future), he drives away the darkness. This creates ANOTHER split timeline, one leading into TWW, one leading into TMC.

That would kick unimaginable amounts of ass.

[Vertiboy]

So it's accurate.

Does it apply to the hidden items in every game? Do the Minish climb into tiny boats and travel all around the Great Sea, hiding Rupees under rocks and grass?

Actually, the Minish can be used as an explaination for how all of the uninhabited islands have rupees, hearts, etc. in their grass, under their rocks, etc. They don't need to sail around. They are Minish. The smallest island on the game is more than enough land for them.

@ everyone in general:
Anyway, I think that we have established that few to no monsters were present between TMC and its backstory, at least not as many monsters as their were in Hyrule in the other games. I see no legitmit reason to deny it.

Now, I am hoping that everyone accepts it as a fact (since in-game information says it) that the Minish place all of the items around Hyrule. I hope that everyone believes that it applies to more than just TMC. The trophy does say, after all, says that they put items around Hyrule, not they put items around Hyrule, but just in TMC. After all, if TMC can break the fourth wall to tell us that Octoroks have been in every Zelda game from TLoZ to TMC, then they would surely let us know if the hiding of items only applied to TMC.

We need to decide when it is acceptable to say that the Minish officially first arrived. Was TMC's backstory the first time that the Minish traveled to Hyrule, or can we prove that it is neccisary for them to come before that? Here is how I believe we determine whether or not it is neccisary: if there is evidence in TMC that would definitely place it after OoT, then it would be neccisary for the Minish to come before TMC's backstory. If not, then it is unneccisary to say that they came to Hyrule before TMC's backstory, and TMC would come before OoT.

Edited by Vertiboy, 12 April 2007 - 05:13 PM.

[Fyxe]

Now, I am hoping that everyone accepts it as a fact (since in-game information says it) that the Minish place all of the items around Hyrule.

It's not fact. The key thing is that you used the word 'all'. This is not a fact.

Also, please drop the whole 'necessary' (that's how it's spelt) argument, it's not acceptable proof of anything. It's an assumption either way, you have to work out which assumption is more LIKELY, not more necessary.

[LionHarted]

Okay.
Let's say the Minish place all the items beneath grass and rocks in Hyrule.
What about in Holodrum and Labrynna?

Seriously, this argument is dumb and pointless. It's a minor point, used most likely as a fable to explain something that otherwise seems rather silly.

[Vertiboy]

It's not fact. The key thing is that you used the word 'all'. This is not a fact.

Also, please drop the whole 'necessary' (that's how it's spelt) argument, it's not acceptable proof of anything. It's an assumption either way, you have to work out which assumption is more LIKELY, not more necessary.

Sometimes, a debate comes down to what is more likely, if an official explaination has not yet been made known or has not yet been made. The whole idea of eliminating events that are not necessary (thanks, btw) is to eliminate as much fan fiction as possible. You are right that they both are assumptions. The difference is, however, that one assumption doesn't add any events to the timeline.

Let's look at the first two Four Swords games, FS and FSA. In FS, Vaati escapes the FS and captures Zelda. In the end, Link traps him in the FS again and places it back in the shrine. In FSA, the maidens are kidnapped, and Dark Link tricks Link into drawing the FS, freeing Vaati. Near the end, Vaati is seemingly killed.

Though FS doesn't really suggest either way, it is possible that Vaati escaped the FS between FS and FSA. It is unnecessary to say that Vaati escapes, as it is not a needed step in order to connect the two games. Most people agree, however, that Vaati is in the FS from the end of FS to the beginning of FSA. That is the most likely of the two events to be true, simply because nothing supports Vaati escaping the FS between the two games. If something were to support that, though, then it would become necessary for Vaati to escape between the two games.

The same applies to TMC. Though TMC doesn't really suggest either way, it is possible that the Minish came before TMC's backstory. It is unnecessary to say that they came before then, as it is not a needed step in order to connect TMC to the timeline. If what was said about the events between FS and FSA is true (that Vaati didn't escape), then most people should be agreeing that the Minish didn't come before TMC's backstory. That should be the most likely of the two explainations to be true, simply because nothing supports the Minish coming to Hyrule before TMC's backstory. If something were to support that, though, like the need for TMC to come after OoT, then it would become necessary for the Minish to come before TMC's backstory.

It is the same priciple for both situations. If a specific event cannot be proven, like Vaati escaping the FS between FS and FSA or the Minish coming before TMC's backstory, then people will usually not even acknowledge that the theoretical event is possible.

Right now it is necessary for TMC to come before OoT because we cannot take a chance and add the event in which the Minish came before TMC's backstory. If we don't need them to come before then, and if a simpler timeline can be achieved by placing TMC first, then that is the most likely explaination.

If you think that it is okay to assume that they came before TMC's backstory and add extra events to the timeline when placing TMC first works better because it adds no extra events, then that is fine with me. I just thought that we were above adding extra events if we don't need to.

Okay.
Let's say the Minish place all the items beneath grass and rocks in Hyrule.
What about in Holodrum and Labrynna?

Seriously, this argument is dumb and pointless. It's a minor point, used most likely as a fable to explain something that otherwise seems rather silly.

Debating about the Zelda timeline is pointless, as well. Why don't you just stop that, too? Obviously you are above wasting your time debating about topics that don't matter. Why else would you be so quick to express that you think this debate, of all of the other pointless debates on this forum, is meaningless? It is all pointless! We debate about topics like this for fun! I can at least say that I debate for fun. I can't speak for everyone else. Just because it is for fun, though, that doesn't mean that there can't be a winner. Isn't winning fun? Even if you lose, can't simply discussing one of the most influential video game series be fun? If you don't like pointless debates, then go start your own forum about the problems of global warming or the starving people around the world.

As far as the debate is concerned, you are no one to decide whether or not the Minish is a minor point. It is in the game, and there is no reason to think that it isn't canon. Since when have so many Zelda fans think that it is okay to throw out parts of the Zelda canon just because the parts don't fit their beliefs?

Edited by Vertiboy, 12 April 2007 - 06:54 PM.

[Showsni]

Okay.
Let's say the Minish place all the items beneath grass and rocks in Hyrule.
What about in Holodrum and Labrynna?

Seriously, this argument is dumb and pointless. It's a minor point, used most likely as a fable to explain something that otherwise seems rather silly.

Forget about Holodrum and Labrynna, what about Termina? What about Koholint? Are there Terminian Minish analogues, and dream Minish?

[LionHarted]

Well, it can't be ruled out, actually. I guess my point is that if they meant it to be sweeping, they damn well should have made it sweeping.

Which they didn't.

Edited by LionHarted, 12 April 2007 - 08:28 PM.

[The Missing Link]

Sometimes, a debate comes down to what is more likely, if an official explaination has not yet been made known or has not yet been made. The whole idea of eliminating events that are not necessary (thanks, btw) is to eliminate as much fan fiction as possible. You are right that they both are assumptions. The difference is, however, that one assumption doesn't add any events to the timeline.

A few notes:

(1) Fanfiction is not a synonym for slightly elaborate explanation, as I've come to find out. If certain things X and Y are true (where X precedes Y) but are slightly incongruent with one another, one is required to invent some explanation Z that takes place between the two to stitch the two together. You can call Z fanfiction if you want, but just because some explanation Z' is slightly more succinct than Z doesn't inherently make it the mack daddy theory. Fanfiction, on the other hand is the proverbial Rube Goldberg machine.

(2) You keep bringing up this idea of theories that are "better" than one another because one makes less assumptions. Excuse me for getting in the way here, but this presumes one major fact: that we have any semblance of control over how the future of the series unfolds. Two theories that are relatively similar should not be deemed better than one another (except perhaps in terms of nuanced differences) until one theory is grounded much more strongly than the other in canon.

(3) As several wise people have said before, the precise implementation of how events are constructed is much less important than whether or not a theory is able to connect the dots. As such, you need to be very careful not to make mountains out of molehills in these cases.

Edited by The Missing Link, 13 April 2007 - 03:58 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Forget about Holodrum and Labrynna, what about Termina? What about Koholint? Are there Terminian Minish analogues, and dream Minish?

Well, to nitpick, there doesn't have to be dream Minish even if the Minish are responsible for everywhere else. Link is familiar with hidden rupees and hearts and such, and the dream is as much his as the Wind Fish, so he might have conjured them there himself.

[Vertiboy]

Fanfiction is not a synonym for slightly elaborate explanation, as I've come to find out. If certain things X and Y are true (where X precedes Y) but are slightly incongruent with one another, one is required to invent some explanation Z that takes place between the two to stitch the two together. You can call Z fanfiction if you want, but just because some explanation Z' is slightly more succinct than Z doesn't inherently make it the mack daddy theory. Fanfiction, on the other hand is the proverbial Rube Goldberg machine.

Noted.

You keep bringing up this idea of theories that are "better" than one another because one makes less assumptions. Excuse me for getting in the way here, but this presumes one major fact: that we have any semblance of control over how the future of the series unfolds. Two theories that are relatively similar should not be deemed better than one another (except perhaps in terms of nuanced differences) until one theory is grounded much more strongly than the other in canon.

Did you completely ignore my FS/FSA example? If what you say is true, then the idea that Vaati escapes the FS between FS and FSA is just as valid as the idea that he remains in the FS. Both of those ideas make assumptions because neither idea can be proven. One assumes that Vaati escaped, and the other assumes that he remained. Most people will say that Vaati remained in the FS. Most people will agree that is the better idea.

How is this case any different? Both of the ideas make assumptions because neither can be proven. One assumes that the Minish first came to Hyrule during TMC's backstory, and the other assumes that they came before. If what applies to the FS/FSA example applies here, then most people should say that the Minish first came in TMC's backstory. Most people should agree that is the better idea.

We make assumptions more often than we realize in the Zelda series. What if all of the games are just Tingle's dreams? Maybe we are just all assuming that they aren't his dreams, and we are all oblivious to the truth!!!

Picture this scenario. In OoT, after the Sages seal Ganondorf in the Dark World, Zelda and Link talk, and she sends him back to his childhood. Right? Wrong! Ganondorf breaks out of the DW and turns into Giga Ganon, and eats Zelda's head! Link says, "ZOMG!!!" then he pulls out the Master Sword, puts it in the Fairy Bow, and shoots it at Giga Ganon's head! Giga Ganon says, "AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!" but he doesn't die, and he gets the Sword out. Ganon paralizes Link, and gathers the Triforce. Before he makes a wish, Tingle flies in from Termina and makes a wish that Ganon was sealed back in the DW. Before Ganon is sealed, he takes the Triforce of Power from Tingle, and then he is sucked into the DW. Tingle takes the Triforce of Wisdom and gives it to the last descendant of the royal family in the adult timeline. The Triforce of Courage splits into pieces and goes across Hyrule. Link picks up the Ocarina of Time from Zelda's headless corpse, plays the Song of Time, and returns to his childhood. End scene.

You see what I did? I made a bunch of stuff up. The sad truth is, though, it can't be disproven. People just assume that Zelda sent Link back to his childhood right away. Nothing says, "Link was sent back to his childhood by Zelda, and that's it. Nothing else happened." We can't disprove that story I told above. People usually just assume that when Link went up into the blue light, he went back to his time. They don't assume that Ganon escaped and ate Zelda's head.

Also, if you want to really get into assumptions, we assume that most of the characters are telling the truth. Zelda doesn't say, "Link, I am going to tell you how Hyrule came to be. Keep in mind that I am not lying." It is assumed to be true.

That is how 99.9% of the Zelda community assumes when making a Zelda timeline. There is no evidence that Vaati didn't escape the FS between FS and FSA, but we assume that he remained in the FS. There is no evidence that Ganon escaped the DW shortly after being imprisoned and ate Zelda's head, but we assume that he did not. There is absolutely no reason why that unspoken rule shouldn't apply to TMC's backstory. There is no evidence that the Minish didn't come before TMC's backstory, but we should assume that TMC's backstory was the first time that they came.

Edited by Vertiboy, 13 April 2007 - 06:18 PM.