340 replies to this topic

[Fyxe]

Vertiboy, that's an insulting analogy, and it doesn't apply to the issue at hand. At all.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Why do we even assume there is a first time the door opened? We're told that it opens every hundred years, we're not told it has opened every hundred years since a certain point. Saying that the first time they came was in the backstory is adding unnecessary fanfiction.

Not that it matters, since you're incredibly unlikely to ever use the argument against any timeline. You're arguing against a pretty solid theory if that deal with it being unnecessary for the Picori to show up before the game's background is the best argument you have against it.

[Vertiboy]

Fyxe, on Apr 13 2007, 06:20 PM, said:

Vertiboy, that's an insulting analogy, and it doesn't apply to the issue at hand. At all.

Hey, wow! Great way to tell me I'm wrong and then not support it at all!

How does it not apply to the issue at hand? You seem so eager to disagree, but so reluctant to tell me why.

If it is insulting, it is because it is true. If you say that the Minish came before TMC's backstory, you are as bad as someone who believes that Ganon escaped the Dark World for a short time and ate Zelda's head, or someone who believes that the games are Tingle's dreams. Period. Sometimes it takes an insulting analogy like that to make someone to look at their beliefs differently. I am sorry that the truth is insulting.

Quote

Why do we even assume there is a first time the door opened? We're told that it opens every hundred years, we're not told it has opened every hundred years since a certain point. Saying that the first time they came was in the backstory is adding unnecessary fanfiction.

Not that it matters, since you're incredibly unlikely to ever use the argument against any timeline. You're arguing against a pretty solid theory if that deal with it being unnecessary for the Picori to show up before the game's background is the best argument you have against it.

It has nothing to do with when the door opened. It has to do with the first time that the Minish went through the open door. Do you go through every door just because it's there? Do the Minish have to go through the door to Hyrule just because it's open?

Plus, why are we saying that the door has always opened every 100 years? Are we saying that the door has no origin? Are we saying that it is, has been, and will always be in existence? Are you saying that it's some kind of God-like door? OMFG!!! FAN FICTION!!!

As I have said, we make assumptions more than you would think. I would assume that the door between Hyrule and the Minish Realm has only been around as long as Hyrule has been in existence (or the MR, whichever was created last). Even if it is some door that has no beginning and no end, as I have said, it doesn't matter. What matters is the first time that the Minish went through the open door.

Edited by Vertiboy, 13 April 2007 - 08:33 PM.

[Fyxe]

Hoo boy, you know why I didn't support it?

Because I can't be bothered. You're just being insanely arrogant now. Get off your bloody high horse. You haven't backed down even once. This isn't a debate, this is a situation where you want to get your way no matter what argument is presented to you. It's childish and pointless, and you fail to see the gaping holes in your hypocritical logic.

The truth is insulting? No, you're insulting, STOP ACTING LIKE YOUR WORD IS GOSPEL.

Rediculous.

[The Missing Link]

Vertiboy, on Apr 13 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

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.

Alright, so here's a pressing question: Does it bloody matter? Does it matter if Vaati escaped or not? He gets sealed in Four Swords and then he's there in Four Swords Adventures. Yippie-kai-ay. If he stayed sealed, so be it. If he escaped and just reappeared, so be it. You speak of this as if it's a make or break for any theory... and as I see it, you're treating every last penny as if it's worth a million dollars.

Vertiboy, on Apr 13 2007, 04:17 PM, said:

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.

I quote myself:

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.

Notice the bold text. Giga Ganon, no matter HOW you slice the dice, isn't not a nuance of a difference; it isn't relatively similar to anything sane. This is precisely the Rube Goldberg device I was referring to in my previous post.

And the worst part of the whole thing is... YOU KNOW IT. You knew full well that the above idea is a stupid idea chock full of asshattery and blatant disregard for the topic... and you went ahead and attempted to apply it to my call to sanity. Thank you, Picasso, for completely ruining my artwork by moving all the parts of the face all over the canvas all willy-nilly.

Thanks to you, I've gotten the inspiration to make a new stamp to apply to this situation:

[Vertiboy]

Fyxe, on Apr 13 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

Hoo boy, you know why I didn't support it?

Because I can't be bothered. You're just being insanely arrogant now. Get off your bloody high horse. You haven't backed down even once. This isn't a debate, this is a situation where you want to get your way no matter what argument is presented to you. It's childish and pointless, and you fail to see the gaping holes in your hypocritical logic.

The truth is insulting? No, you're insulting, STOP ACTING LIKE YOUR WORD IS GOSPEL.

Rediculous.

You are just mad that you're wrong. It's okay. You don't have to admit it...

...Unless you have a response. I will ask you nicely. Will you please tell me why you do not believe that the analogies are relevant?

The Missing Link said

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.

You are the judge of what is relatively similar? That's news to me.

Here is a similar analogy: Ganondorf in OoT. What if I want to say that there were 50 Ganons before OoT? You can't disprove that. The problem is, though, that nothing in OoT can disprove that. Most people assume that OoT Ganon is the first (and maybe even the only) one, even though nothing supports that idea. They do not add unneccesary Ganons to the timeline.

What if you want to say that the Minish came to Hyrule 50 times before TMC's backstory? I can't disprove that. The problems is, though, that nothing in OoT can disprove that. Most people should assume that the Minish first came in TMC's backstory, even though nothing supports that idea. They should not add unneccesary visits to the timeline.

Quote

Notice the bold text. Giga Ganon, no matter HOW you slice the dice, isn't not a nuance of a difference; it isn't relatively similar to anything sane.

Who are you to decide what is and is not a sane idea? Someone out there might see the logic in saying that all of the games are Tingle's dreams. It would help to explain the loose continuity and how some of the earlier games have little to no connection to the newer ones. Tingle loves fairies, and they are all over the Zelda universe. He has a weird affection for Link, and he just happens to be the main character. Yet if I started a thread saying that was what I believed, you would think that I was the idiot.

Edited by Vertiboy, 13 April 2007 - 09:12 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Quote

You are just mad that you're wrong. It's okay. You don't have to admit it...

You can stop being a total douchebag now. God, not even I'm that much of an asshole, and i'm pretty bad.

[Chaltab]

Quote

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.

Not to nitpick, but... the Hero of Men had a beard.

Quote

You are just mad that you're wrong. It's okay. You don't have to admit it...

Dude, back off. You're coming across as an arrogant jackass. You're analogy made no sense, and there's nothing in the game that says the Minish came only once.

[Hero of Slime]

The hero of men could just be an older version of PH's Link.

Edited by The Zol, 13 April 2007 - 10:24 PM.

[The Missing Link]

Vertiboy, on Apr 13 2007, 06:57 PM, said:

You are the judge of what is relatively similar? That's news to me.

Well, I'd have to say my definition of similarity looks to be more on track than yours. The way you're going on, next you'll be spouting that Joseph Stalin is "relatively similar" to Tinky Winky from the Teletubbies.

[Chaltab]

The Zol, on Apr 14 2007, 03:24 AM, said:

The hero of men could just be an older version of PH's Link.

True. Now there's a circle-jerk for you if you think TMC was the first game. The Hero of Men brought the Light Force, but the Light Force is what guides the entire series.

Then again, it's really just a larger scale version of The Song of Storms.

[LionHarted]

Chaltab, on Apr 13 2007, 11:13 PM, said:

The Hero of Men brought the Light Force, but the Light Force is what guides the entire series.

The Light Force never appears outside of TMC.
You can hardly say that it "guides the whole series", when it wasn't even featured in the only game to be released after TMC.

[Chaltab]

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2007, 04:18 AM, said:

The Light Force never appears outside of TMC.
You can hardly say that it "guides the whole series", when it wasn't even featured in the only game to be released after TMC.

TMC implies that it guides the whole series, though. And obviously it doesn't do it in literal terms. Miyamoto and Aonuma are literally the guides of the series. I'm talking about within the context of the story.

Okay, let's put it this way. Christian doctrine states that the Holy Spirit guides all believers and helps them know when they are doing wrong, or lending them strength when times are hard, even if the Spirit isn't being consciously acknowledged.

That is my best analogy on how I think the Light Force works in the Zeldaverse. It doesn't have to be seen to be there. It's like the invisible hand of the market place. (If that analogy works better for you.)

Edited by Chaltab, 13 April 2007 - 11:26 PM.

[LionHarted]

Chaltab, on Apr 13 2007, 11:25 PM, said:

Christian doctrine states that the Holy Spirit guides all believers and helps them know when they are doing wrong, or lending them strength when times are hard, even if the Spirit isn't being consciously acknowledged.

That is my best analogy on how I think the Light Force works in the Zeldaverse. It doesn't have to be seen to be there. It's like the invisible hand of the market place. (If that analogy works better for you.)

Except the Holy Spirit has existed since time immemorial, and the Light Force has not. The Light Force arose during one specific event, which is "very old", but then again, how much more nondescript can you get? It's the fracking legend of Zelda series. "Very old" can describe basically every single backstory of every single game.

And in your second paragraph, you seem to be describing the place the Triforce already occupies, sir.

Edited by LionHarted, 14 April 2007 - 12:50 AM.

[Arturo]

Because that is one odf the proofs used by the Light Force =Triforce theory.

And Vertiboy, stop acting in an arrogant way, as if your word was Gospel. It's annoying for everyone that reads it.

[Chaltab]

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2007, 05:48 AM, said:

Except the Holy Spirit has existed since time immemorial, and the Light Force has not. The Light Force arose during one specific event, which is "very old", but then again, how much more nondescript can you get? It's the fracking legend of Zelda series. "Very old" can describe basically every single backstory of every single game.

And in your second paragraph, you seem to be describing the place the Triforce already occupies, sir.

The Triforce motivates evil men like Ganon to try and take it, and it empowers Zelda and Link to fight him, but the Triforce and the Light Force behave in an entirely different manner. One's passed through genetics, the other is a solid object that can become energy within a person in certain circusmstanes.

But I wasn't even TRYING to debate the nature of the Light Force with you. I'm simplying saying that if, as whoever it was earlier suggested, the Light Force was given to the world by the Hero of Winds going back in time, it creates a time-loop pattern. And IF you have TMC as the start of your timeline, it creates another Song of Storms paradox on a massive scale.

[LionHarted]

Chaltab, on Apr 14 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

I'm simplying saying that if, as whoever it was earlier suggested, the Light Force was given to the world by the Hero of Winds going back in time, it creates a time-loop pattern. And IF you have TMC as the start of your timeline, it creates another Song of Storms paradox on a massive scale.

Why? There was no Light Force in TWW.

It would be adding something that wasn't there before, thus creating a third split.

Edited by LionHarted, 14 April 2007 - 11:53 AM.

[Chaltab]

LionHarted, on Apr 14 2007, 04:53 PM, said:

Why? There was no Light Force in TWW.

It would be adding something that wasn't there before, thus creating a third split.

Well, it was just speculation based on the idea that the Phantom Hourglass is a time-travel device. It's more likely NOT a time-travel device, so this was just, as a I said, speculation.

And there can be no 'third' split if there was no first or second split; this randomness either assumes that only Ocarina created a split, or, ideally, that the timeline never split at all.

Edited by Chaltab, 14 April 2007 - 12:03 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Okay, the arrogance gone, hopefully for a while.

The Missing Link, on Apr 13 2007, 11:04 PM, said:

Well, I'd have to say my definition of similarity looks to be more on track than yours. The way you're going on, next you'll be spouting that Joseph Stalin is "relatively similar" to Tinky Winky from the Teletubbies.

Let me show you how similar the Minish idea is to the 50 Ganons idea, without trying to be a jerk. I am going to color the phrases that are similar, just to make the comparisons a little more noticeable.

The point of convincing me that the Minish came before TMC's backstory is to show me that TMC does not have to come first in the timeline.

The point of convincing one that multiple Ganons came before OoT is to show another that games like FSA could come before OoT.

Nothing disproves that the Minish came before TMC's backstory, and nothing supports it.

Nothing disproves that there were multiple Ganons before OoT, and nothing supports it.

Most people assume that OoT Ganon is the first one, and they do not add any events to the timeline just to make a certain order of games possible.

Most people, then, should assume that the Minish first came during TMC's backstory, and they should not add any events to the timeline just to make a certain order of games possible.

In other words, there could be multiple Ganons before OoT, but since we can't prove it, we assume that OoT Ganon was the first.

In other words, the Minish could have come before TMC's backstory, but since we can't prove it, we should assume that the Minish first came during TMC's backstory.

Hopefully, I made the comparison without being rude.

Edited by Vertiboy, 14 April 2007 - 01:54 PM.

[The Missing Link]

Vertiboy, on Apr 14 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

The point of convincing me that the Minish came before TMC's backstory is to show me that TMC does not have to come first in the timeline.

The point of convincing one that multiple Ganons came before OoT is to show another that games like FSA could come before OoT.

The first statement, when false, does not equal that TMC must not be first.
The second statement, when false, does equal that OoT must not be first.

The significant difference here is quite apparent. The Minish do not appear in any other game; Ganondorf does. Therefore, adding 50 Ganondorfs adds huge dependencies on other titles to fill the extraneous Ganondorf roles; on the other hand adding 50 times the Minish appear before the backstory does not because nothing need fill those roles. They can dangle out in pre-history and life is perfectly fine... whereas Ganondorf cannot.

Also, as an added caveat, I do not believe it has been claimed nor proven that the TMC backstory must come before OoT. The 100-year cycle could have theoretically started after Ocarina, thus making the whole argument moot to begin with. If I'm wrong on this small point, I'll concede the point, but I haven't seen anywhere that this point has been shown true... provided you ignore the interview where TMC is the earliest game to begin with, of course... (which of course would make this whole topic useless if we assumed it!).

Vertiboy, on Apr 14 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

Nothing disproves that the Minish came before TMC's backstory, and nothing supports it.

Nothing disproves that there were multiple Ganons before OoT, and nothing supports it.

Despite the fact that Shiggy directly told us a long while back that OoT was first and that most (if not all) of the Ganondorf-including games occur afterwards, I'd say there's significant credible evidence against the second.

(Not to mention that we don't have 50 games to distribute 50 Ganondorfs over, but this argument would work for a "N Ganons" approach.)

Vertiboy, on Apr 14 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

Most people assume that OoT Ganon is the first one, and they do not add any events to the timeline just to make a certain order of games possible.

Most people, then, should assume that the Minish first came during TMC's backstory, and they should not add any events to the timeline just to make a certain order of games possible.

Again, see point red.

Vertiboy, on Apr 14 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

In other words, there could be multiple Ganons before OoT, but since we can't prove it, we assume that OoT Ganon was the first.

In other words, the Minish could have come before TMC's backstory, but since we can't prove it, we should assume that the Minish first came during TMC's backstory.

Again, see point red and orange.

Vertiboy, on Apr 14 2007, 11:51 AM, said:

Hopefully, I made the comparison without being rude.

Hopefully, I've shown you why the comparison is silly.

Edited by The Missing Link, 14 April 2007 - 02:14 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Okay, I'm a little annoyed so I'm going to use a bit of sarcasm and such in this post. Don't take it personally, I don't mean most of the insulting stuff I say.

Vertiboy said

It has nothing to do with when the door opened. It has to do with the first time that the Minish went through the open door. Do you go through every door just because it's there? Do the Minish have to go through the door to Hyrule just because it's open?

So you're suggesting that the first time they went through the door just happened to be "when the world was on the verge of being swallowed by shadow..." while I'm suggesting that they may have already been there and decided to help out. What caused them to go through the door that first time if they'd never gone through before? Sure, there does have to be a first time they go through, but would it really have to be right when the world needed them? Sure, that's possible, as the Goddesses could have opened the door (or convinced them to go through it) that first time when the world needed them, but that would be... FAN FICTION!!! I'm not saying that absolutely isn't the first time they came to Hyrule, what I'm saying is that we absolutely shouldn't assume that it's the first time they came to Hyrule.

Vertiboy said

Plus, why are we saying that the door has always opened every 100 years? Are we saying that the door has no origin? Are we saying that it is, has been, and will always be in existence? Are you saying that it's some kind of God-like door? OMFG!!! FAN FICTION!!!

As I have said, we make assumptions more than you would think. I would assume that the door between Hyrule and the Minish Realm has only been around as long as Hyrule has been in existence (or the MR, whichever was created last). Even if it is some door that has no beginning and no end, as I have said, it doesn't matter. What matters is the first time that the Minish went through the open door.

Yay for purposefully ignoring intent so you can pretend the idea is dumber than it is. When I suggested that the door could have pretty much always been opening, I meant that it had been opening since the Goddesses created the two worlds. I just didn't specify because you keep telling us that you don't need Nintendo to spell things out for you (thus I assumed that you didn't need me to spell things out for you either.) If the door hasn't basically always b -- er, hasn't been there since the Goddesses created both worlds -- then it needs an origin. Did the Goddesses create it because the world needed the Minish at that point in history or was the door already there?

[Vertiboy]

The Missing Link said

The first statement, when false, does not equal that TMC must not be first.
The second statement, when false, does equal that OoT must not be first.

The significant difference here is quite apparent. The Minish do not appear in any other game; Ganondorf does. Therefore, adding 50 Ganondorfs adds huge dependencies on other titles to fill the extraneous Ganondorf roles; on the other hand adding 50 times the Minish appear before the backstory does not because nothing need fill those roles. They can dangle out in pre-history and life is perfectly fine... whereas Ganondorf cannot.

Also, as an added caveat, I do not believe it has been claimed nor proven that the TMC backstory must come before OoT. The 100-year cycle could have theoretically started after Ocarina, thus making the whole argument moot to begin with. If I'm wrong on this small point, I'll concede the point, but I haven't seen anywhere that this point has been shown true... provided you ignore the interview where TMC is the earliest game to begin with, of course... (which of course would make this whole topic useless if we assumed it!).

I believe that Capcom intended for the Minish to be an explaination for how hearts, rupees, etc. end up in grass, under rocks, etc. in all of the Zelda games. I believe that the Minish trophy is implying that the Minish have been in Hyrule all along, even though their first mention was in TMC. I think that it is a believable retcon. After all, if they are small, then they are not easy to see with the naked eye. Think about Hyrule Town in TMC. When Link is normal-sized, he cannot see the Minish. When he becomes Minish-sized and walks around, he can see Minish, even outside of the houses. It also helps to explain how the seemingly uninhabited island on TWW can be filled with rupees, etc.

This is the chain of logic that I follow. If it is true that the Minish placed items in the grass and under the rocks of Hyrule in all of the Zelda games, then they must be present, even in OoT. If they must be present in OoT, then they must have came to Hyrule before OoT. If our pattern of assumption is consistent with previous patters, then TMC's backstory is the first time that the Minish came to Hyrule. If no current games can come between TMC and its backstory, then TMC must be the first game in the timeline.

That is just my interpretation of the evidence, though. This is where the debate becomes about interpretation and if there is a correct interpretation. Do you think that Capcom intended for the Minish to be an explaination for all of the rupees, hearts, etc. under rocks, in grass, etc. in all of the Zelda games?

The only other explaination I can think of for items in grass would be what some man on Outset said in TWW. He says that sometimes people drop things in the grass. Still, that doesn't explain the uninhabited islands, and it doesn't explain how items get there so fast if you cut down some grass, go inside a building, then go back out again. Before TMC, the explaination was that it is just a video game, and we should go with it. Now that we have TMC, we have been given an explaination in the Zelda universe itself for the fast and frequent appearance of hearts and rupees.

I don't remember the interview where it was stated that TMC is the first game. I remember the one about FS, but to be fair, Aonuma wasn't that involved with FS, so he may not know when it takes place in the timeline. I didn't want to point that out earlier because I know that the reliability of that interview is in question.

BourgeoisJerry said

I'm not saying that absolutely isn't the first time they came to Hyrule, what I'm saying is that we absolutely shouldn't assume that it's the first time they came to Hyrule.

Why not? Most of us assume that OoT Ganon was the first one, even though nothing can prove that he was. Why shouldn't we assume that the Minish first came in TMC's backstory, even though nothing can prove that they came before.

Edited by Vertiboy, 14 April 2007 - 07:20 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Vertiboy said

Why not? Most of us assume that OoT Ganon was the first one, even though nothing can prove that he was. Why shouldn't we assume that the Minish first came in TMC's backstory, even though nothing can prove that they came before.

Oh, I'm sorry for not answering that question before. Here, let me tell you why we can't assume that TMC's background isn't the first time the Minish came to Hyrule:

BourgeoisJerry said

So you're suggesting that the first time they went through the door just happened to be "when the world was on the verge of being swallowed by shadow..." while I'm suggesting that they may have already been there and decided to help out. What caused them to go through the door that first time if they'd never gone through before? Sure, there does have to be a first time they go through, but would it really have to be right when the world needed them? Sure, that's possible, as the Goddesses could have opened the door (or convinced them to go through it) that first time when the world needed them, but that would be... FAN FICTION!!! If the door hasn't basically always been open, then it needs an origin. Did the Goddesses create it because the world needed the Minish at that point in history or was the door already there?

Take a few instances where I talk about the door being open and expand them to include the Minish actually going through the door and you've got your answer. Obviously my logic doesn't disprove the Minish first showing up in the game's backstory, but the assumption that the game's backstory was the first time they showed up in Hyrule is not as safe an assumption as you think it is. It's far simpler to just say that they were there and decided to help the humans when they needed help than to say that some outside force (the Goddesses?) caused the Minish to show up in Hyrule at that point.

[Vertiboy]

BourgeoisJerry, on Apr 14 2007, 05:46 PM, said:

Take a few instances where I talk about the door being open and expand them to include the Minish actually going through the door and you've got your answer. Obviously my logic doesn't disprove the Minish first showing up in the game's backstory, but the assumption that the game's backstory was the first time they showed up in Hyrule is not as safe an assumption as you think it is. It's far simpler to just say that they were there and decided to help the humans when they needed help than to say that some outside force (the Goddesses?) caused the Minish to show up in Hyrule at that point.

True, or the door could have opened, and then the monsters came. This is a video game we are talking about. There can be weird coincidences within the Zelda universe.

Take TWW for example. It just so happened that a mix-up between Tetra and Aryll was what would jumpstart the quest to save his sister, only to lead to an even bigger quest, his destiny, to defeat Ganondorf.

There is also the original TLoZ. Link was a wanderer, and he just happened to meet and save Impa, who in turn asked him to save Zelda and Hyrule.

FS's backstory is similar. Vaati kidnapped maidens and defeated many brave men, but it just so happens that a wanderer with the very sword that could defeat Vaati showed up, and he sealed Vaati in the FS.

I see nothing wrong with the Minish conveniently coming right before or right after trouble begins. It seems to happen a lot in the Zelda universe.

Edited by Vertiboy, 14 April 2007 - 07:09 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Vertiboy, on Apr 14 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

True, or the door could have opened, and then the monsters came. This is a video game we are talking about. There can be weird coincidences within the Zelda universe.

Take TWW for example. It just so happened that a mix-up between Tetra and Aryll was what would jumpstart the quest to save his sister, only to lead to an even bigger quest, his destiny, to defeat Ganondorf.

There is also the original TLoZ. Link was a wanderer, and he just happened to meet and save Impa, who in turn asked him to save Zelda and Hyrule.

FS's backstory is similar. Vaati kidnapped maidens and defeated many brave men, but it just so happens that a wanderer with the very sword that could defeat Vaati showed up, and he sealed Vaati in the FS.

I see nothing wrong with the Minish conveniently coming right before or right after trouble begins. It seems to happen a lot in the Zelda universe.

Yes, that's very true, but I'm not arguing that the Minish couldn't show up at the right time, I'm arguing against that being the assumption that we should make by default. A theory that relies on the Minish being in Hyrule before they created the Picori Blade isn't going to be called a bad theory just because it assumes something that's so easy to assume. And if somebody is actually going to say a theory is bad because of that assumption, it's very easy to point out what I just pointed out. Assuming that they first arrived during the game's background is fine for your own theory, but it's not fine to tell us all we need to make the same assumption.

[The Missing Link]

Vertiboy, on Apr 14 2007, 01:18 PM, said:

I believe that Capcom intended for the Minish to be an explaination for how hearts, rupees, etc. end up in grass, under rocks, etc. in all of the Zelda games. I believe that the Minish trophy is implying that the Minish have been in Hyrule all along, even though their first mention was in TMC. I think that it is a believable retcon. After all, if they are small, then they are not easy to see with the naked eye. Think about Hyrule Town in TMC. When Link is normal-sized, he cannot see the Minish. When he becomes Minish-sized and walks around, he can see Minish, even outside of the houses. It also helps to explain how the seemingly uninhabited island on TWW can be filled with rupees, etc.

It can also be viewed as a very silly explanation. Capcom may have intended such an outlandish explanation to affect the whole series, but even then, this very explanation could easily be considered deus ex machina. (The same goes for all the dropping rupees in the grass in TWW... because the uninhabited islands have them too.) Besides, the rupees and the hearts being in the grass really is more game mechanic than anything else. It's the very same thing why one out of every sixteen Final Fantasy enemies has a Phoenix Down on them.

I mean... seriously... why would the Minish have oodles and oodles of rupees laying around? The rupees are ten times their height alone (probably bigger). The hearts are easily JUST plot device. And the other items in the grass... well... it just gets unreasonable. If this was Capcom's intent, I also think it a safe assumption that Capcom intended for us not to think so much about this single point to the point of obsessing over it.

That's the chain of logic that I follow.

And, maybe I'm thinking too much here, but I at least like to think that that's a reasonable enough assumption to at least make all of this hullabaloo only a possibility instead of pure, hard, undeniable canon.

[Chaltab]

I really don't see what the big deal about this is.

The game states that the Minish hide things in grass. This is clearly meant to be a tongue-in-cheek explanation for the fact that rupees, hearts, and ammunition are hidden in the grass. It's just Capcom or localization having fun with the series' conventions.

No matter what, though, it's NOT timeline evidence because the Minish have presumably always existed whether we see them or not.

[Vertiboy]

BourgeoisJerry said

Yes, that's very true, but I'm not arguing that the Minish couldn't show up at the right time, I'm arguing against that being the assumption that we should make by default. A theory that relies on the Minish being in Hyrule before they created the Picori Blade isn't going to be called a bad theory just because it assumes something that's so easy to assume. And if somebody is actually going to say a theory is bad because of that assumption, it's very easy to point out what I just pointed out. Assuming that they first arrived during the game's background is fine for your own theory, but it's not fine to tell us all we need to make the same assumption.

If you are going to believe that, then you might as well believe that there were multiple Ganons before OoT. I made the parellel already.

I can't tell you what the default assumption is. I can just look at the other default assumptions that are made, compare them to this situation, and make a decision as to what should be the default assumption based on that.

Most of us assume that OoT Ganon is the first, even though nothing can support that.

Most of us should assume that TMC's backstory is the first time that the Minish came to Hyrule, even though nothing can support that.

There is an obvious parellel between the two situations.

The Missing Link said

It can also be viewed as a very silly explanation. Capcom may have intended such an outlandish explanation to affect the whole series, but even then, this very explanation could easily be considered deus ex machina. (The same goes for all the dropping rupees in the grass in TWW... because the uninhabited islands have them too.) Besides, the rupees and the hearts being in the grass really is more game mechanic than anything else. It's the very same thing why one out of every sixteen Final Fantasy enemies has a Phoenix Down on them.

I mean... seriously... why would the Minish have oodles and oodles of rupees laying around? The rupees are ten times their height alone (probably bigger). The hearts are easily JUST plot device. And the other items in the grass... well... it just gets unreasonable. If this was Capcom's intent, I also think it a safe assumption that Capcom intended for us not to think so much about this single point to the point of obsessing over it.

That's the chain of logic that I follow.

And, maybe I'm thinking too much here, but I at least like to think that that's a reasonable enough assumption to at least make all of this hullabaloo only a possibility instead of pure, hard, undeniable canon.

I understand that the Minish are not a perfect explaination. I am just as baffled as you are by how a small tribe can carry seemingly millions of times the rupees of a normal Hyrulean. However, it is not our decision to make whether or not it was meant to be an explaination that doesn't have any timeline signficance. Yes, it is an unreasonable explaination. Doesn't Hyrule exist in an unreasonable universe to begin with? When a warlock pig with cloaking powers that was once a demonlike warlord invades a country inhabited by magical old men in search of three mystical triangles, the only person who can stop him is a young boy who is aided by countless fairies, and he must fight through ghost, moving statues, giant bugs, etc. in order to prevent this peaceful land created by three golden goddesses from being thrown into darkness for countless milenia. I'm sorry, but if you look at the Zelda universe, and then say that the Minish are not a reasonable explaination for how rupees and hearts are all over the place, then we definitely have different definitions of what is and is not reasonable. To add to that, if an ant can carry ten times its own weight, then how much more will an ant-sized being be able to carry in a fantasy world?

That is why I believe that, in the Zelda universe, the Minish is a perfectly reasonable and canon explaination of how items end up around Hyrule. I really don't see how it can be viewed as unreasonable in a universe that is unreasonable already.

Chaltab said

I really don't see what the big deal about this is.

The game states that the Minish hide things in grass. This is clearly meant to be a tongue-in-cheek explanation for the fact that rupees, hearts, and ammunition are hidden in the grass. It's just Capcom or localization having fun with the series' conventions.

No matter what, though, it's NOT timeline evidence because the Minish have presumably always existed whether we see them or not.

Again, none of that is our decision to make. What may appear to be tongue-in-cheek to you may be canon to someone else. Take the Legend of the Fairy. Without getting into the split vs. single debate, before Twilight Princess came out, many people just thought that it was an Easter egg reference to Majora's Mask, while others thought that it was the undisputable evidence that disproved the split timeline (as did I at one time).

That is why I am applying the unspoken rule of canon to the Minish explaination: everything is canon unless a reasonable explaination can be presented to clearly believe otherwise. We do not know for sure if the Minish are meant to be timeline evidence, so to be safe and to make sure we do not eliminate any possible canon evidence, we must assume that it is true, until a reasonable explaination can be given to believe otherwise.

Edited by Vertiboy, 15 April 2007 - 09:17 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Vertiboy said

If you are going to believe that, then you might as well believe that there were multiple Ganons before OoT. I made the parellel already.

I can't tell you what the default assumption is. I can just look at the other default assumptions that are made, compare them to this situation, and make a decision as to what should be the default assumption based on that.

Most of us assume that OoT Ganon is the first, even though nothing can support that.

Most of us should assume that TMC's backstory is the first time that the Minish came to Hyrule, even though nothing can support that.

There is an obvious parellel between the two situations.

It's not a good parallel at all. First off, the door opening is more comparable to Ganondorf having a birthday than it is to Ganondorf being born. It opens every hundred years as long as it exists, but it exists the whole time. Even if it doesn't physically exist, it's been set to appear every hundred years. Another difference between Ganondorf and the door is that Ganondorf is most likely mortal while the door will most likely continue to open as long as... well, we're given no indication that it will ever stop opening every hundred years. Basically, you're not saying we should assume that the Ganondorf of Ocarina of Time is the first, you're saying that we should assume that he's as young as possible. You're saying that we should assume that he was born at the last moment in Hyrule's history that he could have possibly been born, which in the case of the door is the first moment in history we know for a fact that the Minish were in Hyrule. The difference between saying the door opens at the first point in known history the Minish were mentioned and saying Ganon was born at the first point in history he is mentioned is that Ganondorf shows physical age which gives us a general idea of how old he is, while the door has likely looked as it did in The Minish Cap for many centuries. Still, we don't assume that Ganondorf is as young as possible, so I don't see why we should assume the door is.

[Vertiboy]

BourgeoisJerry, on Apr 15 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

It's not a good parallel at all. First off, the door opening is more comparable to Ganondorf having a birthday than it is to Ganondorf being born. It opens every hundred years as long as it exists, but it exists the whole time. Even if it doesn't physically exist, it's been set to appear every hundred years. Another difference between Ganondorf and the door is that Ganondorf is most likely mortal while the door will most likely continue to open as long as... well, we're given no indication that it will ever stop opening every hundred years. Basically, you're not saying we should assume that the Ganondorf of Ocarina of Time is the first, you're saying that we should assume that he's as young as possible. You're saying that we should assume that he was born at the last moment in Hyrule's history that he could have possibly been born, which in the case of the door is the first moment in history we know for a fact that the Minish were in Hyrule. The difference between saying the door opens at the first point in known history the Minish were mentioned and saying Ganon was born at the first point in history he is mentioned is that Ganondorf shows physical age which gives us a general idea of how old he is, while the door has likely looked as it did in The Minish Cap for many centuries. Still, we don't assume that Ganondorf is as young as possible, so I don't see why we should assume the door is.

As I have said before, it isn't about the door. It does not matter if it has opened every 100 years since Hyrule was created or if it opened for the first time in TMC's backstory. What matters is when the Minish first came through the door. Just because a door is open, it doesn't mean you go through it, does it? The same applies to the Minish. Just because the door to Hyrule is there, it doesn't mean that they went through it. That is why it is a great parellel. We are comparing the first recorded chronological incarnation of a character to the first recorded chronological migration of a race.

OoT Ganondorf is the earliest recorded Ganondorf. We do not assume that multiple Ganondorfs came before him just because we cannot disprove it.

TMC's backstory is the earliest recorded incident of the Minish being in/coming to Hyrule. We should not assume that they came multiple times before TMC's backstory just because we cannot disprove it.

Edited by Vertiboy, 15 April 2007 - 09:29 PM.