340 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

What matters is when the Minish first came through the door.

Not really. The game could go anywhere, whether the Minish came through the door at a certain point or at another. Of course, we can't prove that the Minish were ever not in Hyrule to begin with, since they "came from the sky."

Edited by LionHarted, 15 April 2007 - 10:01 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Just shut up, already, this arguement's ridiculous. Why does it MATTER how many times they come through the door? It doesn't.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Okay, slight change:

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 Minish coming to Hyrule is the first moment in history we know for a fact that the Minish were in Hyrule. The difference between saying the Minish arrive at the first point in known history they 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 we have no way of guessing how long the Minish have been around. Still, we don't assume that Ganondorf is as young as possible, so I don't see why we should assume Minish have been in Hyrule as briefly as possible.

I wish you'd quit nitpicking on the difference between the door being open and the Minish going through it. We know they must have been in Hyrule during The Minish Cap's backstory, in other words that is the latest point they could have first arrived. The latest point the Gorons could have arrived is either just before The Minish Cap or during that story about the Goron hero that defeated Volvagia, depending which one you place first. Is that when the Gorons first arrived? Were the Kokiri first created shortly before Ocarina of Time started? What sets the Gorons and Kokiri apart from the Minish? The Gorons could potentially be around since the beginning, but we know for a fact that the Kokiri weren't.

[The Missing Link]

Vertiboy, I'm having a little trouble here.

Back on page five, you said this:

[A]n explaination without unneccisary fan fiction is more likely to be true than an explaination with unneccisary fan fiction.

And just recently, you said this:

Yes, it is an unreasonable explaination. Doesn't Hyrule exist in an unreasonable universe to begin with?

Tell me now... aren't these two statements effective opposites? In the first statement, you keep going on about how fact is king and that adding any unneeded explanation is counter to our prime directive in finding the truth. But in the second, you then admit to believing a rather absurd idea, despite the fact that its very explanation is unneeded since there is a simpler idea to be had.

Granted, I understand that the second was (gasp!) written by the people who made Minish Cap (and so, therefore, must be true beyond all shadow of a doubt! Obviously!), never mind that it was probably Capcom and not Nintendo, but seriously, this sounds a lot like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

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.

Just shut up, already, this arguement's ridiculous. Why does it MATTER how many times they come through the door? It doesn't.

Hate to tell ya, but I tried that route already. Didn't work. Kudos though.

Edited by The Missing Link, 16 April 2007 - 01:27 AM.

[Vertiboy]

Tell me now... aren't these two statements effective opposites? In the first statement, you keep going on about how fact is king and that adding any unneeded explanation is counter to our prime directive in finding the truth. But in the second, you then admit to believing a rather absurd idea, despite the fact that its very explanation is unneeded since there is a simpler idea to be had.

I said that the idea that the Minish, a tiny race, could have millions of rupees and hearts, then have the strength to place them all around Hyrule is unreasonable, as far as believability goes. However, I also went on to say that the Zelda universe is unreasonable to begin with. If Zelda was a little more realistic, then the Minish explaination would be a little farfetched, but since we are talking about a land in which the number one threat to national security is a magical pig, the Minish are a perfectly reasonable explaination.

To rephrase: Real World = Minish are unreasonable
Zelda World = Minish are reasonable

Granted, I understand that the second was (gasp!) written by the people who made Minish Cap (and so, therefore, must be true beyond all shadow of a doubt! Obviously!), never mind that it was probably Capcom and not Nintendo, but seriously, this sounds a lot like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Saying that it isn't canon because Capcom wrote it is like saying that any Spider-Man comic isn't canon unless it is written by Stan Lee. Zelda is a franchise written by multiple people. If something Capcom wrote contradicted something in a Nintendo-only game, then I would disregard the Capcom game, unless the two explainations can work together. Obviously, the Armos idea is a great example. Some Armos were built by the Minish, others by other races. The same applies to the Minish and the dropping explaination. Some rupees and hearts can be dropped, but in other hard to reach places, the Minish place items in the grass and under rocks.

Plus, if you are just going to ignore that, you might as well ignore all of TMC, as well as all of it's games. Just don't bother debating about OoA, OoS, FS, FSA, or TMC because they don't count. If you are going to disregard this explaination just because it is in a Capcom game, then why are you even debating about this? TMC doesn't count, remember? It's placement doesn't matter.

Don't pull the "it's Capcom and it doesn't count" card. If you truly believed that, you would have said that in your first post, and you would have been done with the debate. Yes, the Minish explaination is true because it is in a game. We are not playing the "let's pick what we like and say it is canon, and then disregard what we don't like" game. We are in a debate. Besides, that arguement is equal to, "TMC is a part of the timeline, but none of the evidence in the game counts."

...this sounds a lot like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Sounds like you are doing the same, saying that TMC is part of the timeline, then saying that the evidence in it doesn't count toward it's timeline placement since it was made by Capcom. The problem is that when you said that to me, you just misunderstood what I said. I can't say the same for you, though.

I wish you'd quit nitpicking on the difference between the door being open and the Minish going through it. We know they must have been in Hyrule during The Minish Cap's backstory, in other words that is the latest point they could have first arrived. The latest point the Gorons could have arrived is either just before The Minish Cap or during that story about the Goron hero that defeated Volvagia, depending which one you place first. Is that when the Gorons first arrived? Were the Kokiri first created shortly before Ocarina of Time started? What sets the Gorons and Kokiri apart from the Minish? The Gorons could potentially be around since the beginning, but we know for a fact that the Kokiri weren't.

The difference is, though, we are never told specifically how the other tribes besides the Hylia got into Hyrule. Nothing in OoT, or any other game for that matter, says that they have been in Hyrule since its creation. Actually, the Gorons had to be around long enough before TMC to move from Mt. Cerenal. The Kokiri had to exist at least long enough before OoT for Link's mother to take him into the forest.

The difference is, however, that it doesn't affect the timeline if the Gorons or Kokiri are in Hyrule at a certain point of time or not. With the Minish, it does matter. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot (and yes, I mean that) because I have stressed the importance of when the Minish came to Hyrule multiple times. I am tired of people (not neccesarily you) saying, "!7 d03$n7 m@773r wh3n 73h m!n!$h c4m3, n008!!!!111!!!" when I have explained over and over again that it does matter. Anyone who says anything else is apparently impervious to facts. The Minish are the best explaination for how rupees and hearts get around Hyrule, and it just so happens that rupees and hearts are in all other games. That means that the Minish must be present in those games. I am also tired of the people saying that it is an explaination that isn't to be taken too seriously, yet they don't present a reason why. They are picking and choosing the Zelda canon, which is something that they cannot do if they want to be taken seriously.

Sorry to rant. That wasn't directed at you, LionHarted, so no hard feelings.

Anyway, I don't see how the analogy isn't relevant. That is how an analogy works. I know that you are aware of that. One person, place, thing, or idea can represent another person, place, thing, or idea. In this analogy, the first chronological Ganondorf is represented by the first chronological travel of the Minish to Hyrule. WTF is this birthday crap? I am sorry that I have an idea representing a person. I am sorry that I did not realize that my analogy has to have an idea representing an idea to be valid. To quote an old favorite of everyone on the board, "Exuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, princess!" (No, I do not think that I am clever for that. I am actually ashamed.)

One can say that there were multiple Ganons before OoT in order to make FSA->OoT possible.

One can say that the Minish came multiple times before TMC's backstory in order to make Other Zelda Games->TMC possible.

What is it that is so hard to believe that the Minish came through the door for the first time just around the time that monsters started to attack Hyrule? I see no reason why that shouldn't be the default assumption. Again, if you will accept the apparently 'irrelevant' analogy of a person representing an idea, assuming that the Minish came before TMC's backstory should be against the default assumption.

Just shut up, already, this arguement's ridiculous. Why does it MATTER how many times they come through the door? It doesn't.

Why does the Zelda timeline matter at all? Why do you even come to Legends Alliance to debate the timeline? After all, you only debate about things that matter. God forbid that other people have fun by debating about topics that interest them, even if they don't matter. Maybe this is a sign. Maybe you should start a bigger, and better forum that only discusses topics that matter, like politics and world hunger, or maybe the meaning of life.

Honestly, anyone who debates about the Zelda timeline, then turns around and says that a particular debate is pointless needs to remove their head from a particular area below the belt. Listen to me closely...

Debating about the Zelda timeline is pointless!!! We do it for fun!!! If you do not like fun, then go away!!! If you like fun, STFU and let people debate who are concerned with this particular topic!!!

@ everyone:
Now, then. If we are trying to place TMC in the timeline, Capcom game or not, it is only fair that we use the evidence within the game to do so. TMC implies that the Minish have been around in every game, placing rupees and hearts around Hyrule. Nothing contradicts that, so there is no reason to believe that it is not true, unless you are ignorant and feel like you have the authority to pick and choose the Zelda canon. The first canon travel of the Minish to Hyrule was in TMC's backstory, and if we apply a consistent rule of default assumption to it, then that is the first time that the Minish have come to Hyrule. I see no reason for objections unless you are absolutely bent on TMC coming after OoT.

Edited by Vertiboy, 16 April 2007 - 06:07 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

The Minish first coming to Hyrule only happens once, so the Ganondorf analogy doesn't match up. Ganondorf must have been born before Ocarina of Time, and the Minish must have first arrived before The Minish Cap's backstory. A completely different Ganondorf being born before the one in Ocarina of Time is not the same as the Minish coming to Hyrule earlier than they have to. You saying that the Minish first came to Hyrule at the first point they are mentioned is like saying Ganondorf was first born at the first point he is mentioned, only the former doesn't seem as completely ridiculous as the latter because Ganondorf shows signs of physical age.

If I had a theory that required a Kokiri to do something at some point before Ocarina of Time's backstory (even though the only mention of Kokiri made is that Link was raised as a Kokiri,) For example let's say my theory required a Kokiri to be the Sage of Wind when the Master Sword was created, I wouldn't get laughed at because I assumed the Kokiri actually existed before the last possible point in time the Deku Tree could have created them. I might get laughed at for assuming they did something that's incredibly out of character for them, but we already know that one Sage of Wind was Kokiri, so is it so bad to assume the Sage of Wind has always been a Kokiri?

Of course, there's always the fact that if somebody comes up with a theory that requires the Minish to be in Hyrule before The Minish Cap's backstory, and if you can't come up with any better argument against their theory than that we don't absolutely know that the Minish were in Hyrule before they created the Picori Blade, you're the one that's going to get laughed at.

[Vertiboy]

The Minish first coming to Hyrule only happens once, so the Ganondorf analogy doesn't match up.

There is also only one first Ganondorf, which as of right now, is OoT Ganondorf, so it does match up.

Also, why are you mentioning the other tribes of Hyrule? When they came to Hyrule doesn't matter. Maybe it was centuries before OoT, or maybe it was months before OoT. Who cares? As long as it doesn't alter the story, that doesn't matter.

No one else seems to have difficulty applying the analogy to the Minish situation. I am ending my involvement in this particular dead part of the debate. I cannot make you see the hypocracy in saying that the Minish first coming during TMC's backstory should not be the default assumption. You either get it or you do not.

[BourgeoisJerry]

There is also only one first Ganondorf, which as of right now, is OoT Ganondorf, so it does match up.

Saying that there was a Ganondorf before the one in Ocarina of Time means the one before can not be the one in Ocarina of Time. Saying the first time the Minish came to Hyrule was before The Minish Cap's backstory does not prevent the Minish from being in Hyrule during The Minish Cap's backstory. Ganondorf being born another time before Ocarina of Time creates two Ganondorfs, the Minish coming before The Minish Cap's backstory does nothing of the sort. Again, it's more comparable to saying Ganondorf is older than he has to be than saying there was a completely different Ganondorf before him.

Also, why are you mentioning the other tribes of Hyrule? When they came to Hyrule doesn't matter. Maybe it was centuries before OoT, or maybe it was months before OoT. Who cares? As long as it doesn't alter the story, that doesn't matter.

But what if it did matter? Would a theory be wrong because it required the Kokiri to be around before Link was born?

No one else seems to have difficulty applying the analogy to the Minish situation. I am ending my involvement in this particular dead part of the debate. I cannot make you see the hypocracy in saying that the Minish first coming during TMC's backstory should not be the default assumption. You either get it or you do not.

"No one else" thinks the analogy is incorrect? Is that true guys?

[Vertiboy]

Instead of telling you my opinion and going in circles again, I have a question for you, BourgeoisJerry. If you do not think that the default assumption is that the Minish came to Hyrule first during TMC's backstory, then what do you think that the default assumption should be? I like to know others' opinions, as well.

[Fyxe]

We're dealing with facts not given to us. The default assumption should be the one considered most likely.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Well, I generally go for the simplest answer, which is that they've been in Hyrule ever since the door started opening, which may as well be at the beginning of the worlds. We can say the door opens later for the first time, but if we do that we need to give the door an origin. We can say the Minish first came through the door later, but that begs the question of why they never went through the door before then. The game's backstory doesn't imply that the Minish first arrived in Hyrule at that time, so I just assume that they were already there.

Personally, I put The Minish Cap before Ocarina of Time, so I don't really care when the Minish arrived as long as they were there before the game's backstory, but if I had to guess when they arrived I'd say that they likely at least checked Hyrule out the first time the door opened, and if none of them permanently moved into Hyrule that time they probably did one or two centuries later. I wouldn't go around preaching this as gospel if somebody's theory required the Minish to be absent from Hyrule for a period of time, of course, but it'd be my official stance on the subject.

[Vertiboy]

We're dealing with facts not given to us. The default assumption should be the one considered most likely.

With OoT, the default assumption is that OoT Ganon is the first, even though it is possible that Ganons came before him.

With TMC, my default assumption is that the Minish first came during TMC's backstory, even though it is possible that they came before that.

In both instances, the other assumption (multiple Ganons before OoT, multiple visits before TMC's backstory) would add events to the timeline that are not neccesary in order for the story to work. That is just my opinion, though. If we don't add unneccesary Ganons to the timeline before OoT, then I don't understand why we would add unneccesary visits to Hyrule before TMC's backstory.

Well, I generally go for the simplest answer, which is that they've been in Hyrule ever since the door started opening, which may as well be at the beginning of the worlds. We can say the door opens later for the first time, but if we do that we need to give the door an origin. We can say the Minish first came through the door later, but that begs the question of why they never went through the door before then. The game's backstory doesn't imply that the Minish first arrived in Hyrule at that time, so I just assume that they were already there.

Personally, I put The Minish Cap before Ocarina of Time, so I don't really care when the Minish arrived as long as they were there before the game's backstory, but if I had to guess when they arrived I'd say that they likely at least checked Hyrule out the first time the door opened, and if none of them permanently moved into Hyrule that time they probably did one or two centuries later. I wouldn't go around preaching this as gospel if somebody's theory required the Minish to be absent from Hyrule for a period of time, of course, but it'd be my official stance on the subject.

That isn't the simplest answer because there is no evidence for it. The first chronological canon appearance of the Minish is TMC's backstory. The door's origin is not important. Here is an explaination for why they didn't come through the door before TMC's backstory: does one go through a door simply because it is open? No. Do the Minish have to go through the door just because it is open? No.

You are correct that the game does not imply that the Minish first arrived in Hyrule during TMC's backstory, but it also does not imply that they came before then. That is the purpose of the default assumption.

OoT Ganon can either be the first Ganon or he cannot because no evidence suggest either way.

TMC's backstory can either be the Minish's first visit to Hyrule or it cannot because no evidence suggest either way.

The only purpose of assuming that OoT Ganon is not the first would be to place FSA before OoT.

The only purpose of assuming that TMC's backstory is not the first visit of the Minish would be to place TMC after OoT, among other games.

It is not neccesary for multiple Ganons to come before OoT in order for the story to work.

It is not neccesary for the Minish to visit before TMC's backstory.

FSA needs at least one Ganon before in order for the story to work ("ancient demon reborn").

All of the other games need the Minish in Hyrule to work.

It is unneccesary to add excess Ganons to the timeline when the order of OoT->FSA works just fine.

It is unneccesary to add excess Minish visits to the timeline when the order of TMC->OoT works just fine.

FSA->OoT adds unneccesary Ganons because the order of OoT->FSA works without said unneccesary Ganons.

OoT->TMC adds unneccesary Minish visits because the order of TMC->OoT works without said unneccesary Minish visits.

Therefore, the default assumption is that OoT Ganon is the first, since the timeline can work without adding unneccesary Ganons who are not mentioned by the canon.

Therefore, the default assumption should be that TMC's backstory is the first Minish visit, since the timeline can work without adding unneccesary Minish visits that are not mentioned by the canon.

However, if you already place TMC first, then it doesn't matter too much. I am just trying to convince everyone else who doesn't believe in pre-OoT TMC that it is true.

Edited by Vertiboy, 16 April 2007 - 08:08 PM.

[LionHarted]

OoT Ganon can either be the first Ganon or he cannot because no evidence suggest either way.
TMC's backstory can either be the Minish's first visit to Hyrule or it cannot because no evidence suggest either way.
Agreed.

The only purpose of assuming that OoT Ganon is not the first would be to place FSA before OoT.
The only purpose of assuming that TMC's backstory is not the first visit of the Minish would be to place TMC after OoT, among other games.
When the first visit of the Minish happened relative to TMC doesn't necessarily change based on TMC's timeline placement.

It is not neccesary for multiple Ganons to come before OoT in order for the story to work.
It is not neccesary for the Minish to visit before TMC's backstory.
Correct.

FSA needs at least one Ganon before in order for the story to work ("ancient demon reborn").
All of the other games need the Minish in Hyrule to work.
I agree with neither of these. We do not know if the ancient demon is Ganon nor do we know if the Minish are responsible for the hidden items in every game.

FSA->OoT adds unneccesary Ganons because the order of OoT->FSA works without said unneccesary Ganons.
OoT->TMC adds unneccesary Minish visits because the order of TMC->OoT works without said unneccesary Minish visits.
See above.

Edited by LionHarted, 16 April 2007 - 08:09 PM.

[Vertiboy]

When the first visit of the Minish happened relative to TMC doesn't necessarily change based on TMC's timeline placement.

If TMC's backstory is the first time that the Minish came, then it must come before OoT. If no current games can come between TMC and its backstory (because of the monsters), then TMC must also come before OoT.

If the Minish came before TMC's backstory, then TMC doesn't have to come before OoT. The order could be First Minish Visit->OoT->TMC's backstory->TMC.

It does affect TMC's timeline placement.

I agree with neither of these. We do not know if the ancient demon is Ganon nor do we know if the Minish are responsible for the hidden items in every game.

Ganon... This beast was once
of the Gerudo... Once human.
He was called Ganondorf!

King of Darkness, ancient
demon reborn. The wielder
of the trident!!

Common sense. Zelda calls Ganon an ancient demon reborn. That is what ancient demon it is. The ancient demon Ganon. It is implied. You are the only person I have ever met who has questioned that. We know that the ancient demon reborn is Ganon because Zelda says he is. I don't know how much more they could have simplified it. Why are we even debating about this?

As for the Minish, how is that not true? The game says that it is true, therefore, it is true. The only other explaination is that people drop items, but that only goes as far, as it doesn't explain how the items get under the grass and rocks so fast or so frequently. Of course, I am talking about explainations within the Zelda universe. I am aware that the real world explaination is that it is just a video game. TMC has provided us an explaination within the Zelda universe, however.

No, the Minish trophy doesn't say, "The Minish hide crap everywhere in every Zelda game in the series/just in TMC," and it shouldn't have to. Capcom expects people to use common sense. If the game says that the Minish hides crap, then they hide crap. ALttP, OoT, and TP say that Hyrule was created by the golden goddesses. Saying that the Minish explaination only applies to TMC is like saying that the story of Hyrule's creation is only true in those games. Plus, if the writers have to spell everything out, the games wouldn't be as fun. The Minish explaination applies to all of the games, and there is no reason to question that. How exactly would the writers address the issue of the explaination only applying to TMC? I would like you to show me what that trophy description would say, without breaking the fourth wall. The odds are that the explaination is overelaborate, when the description given is good enough.

As I have said, there is a certain level of common sense (no offense) that must be applied. MM never says that Link was looking for Navi, but we know he is because we have common sense. We hear her ding, and we know that he is looking for her. TP never says that Link has the Triforce of Courage, but we know he does because we use common sense. The crest of the goddess is heavily implied to be the ToC. TMC never says that the Minish hide crap in every single game, but we should know they do because of common sense. The writers sacrifice being very elaborate so nobody can question their intent in favor of dialogue that doesn't seem forced.

Not visible to the eyes of adults, they delight in making humans happy by hiding helpful items and Rupees under grass and rocks all over the world.

If what you say is true, then it applies to other games. Facts stated in other games only apply to those games, and no others.

I can't make you believe that was what the writers implied, but I know for a fact that you are just splitting hairs in a desperate attempt now. The Minish are the explaination for the items around the world in Hyrule's universe, and you either believe that it is implied or you do not.

Edited by Vertiboy, 16 April 2007 - 08:36 PM.

[LionHarted]

Some Dalai Lama Buddhists think that each Dalai Lama is the previous Dalai Lama reborn.
Ganon is the king of darkness, an ancient demon reborn.

The current Dalai Lama is not literally the previous Dalai Lama.
Ganon may not literally be the ancient demon.

Additionally, this is the figurine text: "Not visible to the eyes of adults, they delight in making humans happy by hiding helpful items and Rupees under grass and rocks all over the world."

They delight in making humans happy by doing so. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're the only reason why items and Rupees are hidden in grass and under rocks. Additionally, even if that was the intention other games do not have to take this into account. Even within OoT, which says that Bomb Flowers only grow on Death Mountain, we see Bomb Flowers in other places, namely the Shadow Temple.

These are both tidbits to make the game more interesting, not ultimatums. Just like basically anything you hear in any of the games that isn't actually related to the story itself.

Edited by LionHarted, 16 April 2007 - 08:47 PM.

[BourgeoisJerry]

In both instances, the other assumption (multiple Ganons before OoT, multiple visits before TMC's backstory) would add events to the timeline that are not neccesary in order for the story to work. That is just my opinion, though. If we don't add unneccesary Ganons to the timeline before OoT, then I don't understand why we would add unneccesary visits to Hyrule before TMC's backstory.

Man, all this time trying to tell you this and you still don't get it. Saying that the Minish arrived before the latest possible moment they could have arrived is not adding unnecessary events to the timeline, it's simply putting an event earlier than it absolutely cannot be any later than!!! Saying that the default assumption should be that they arrived at the latest possible moment is like saying that Ganondorf must be as young as he possibly can.

As for that stuff about not going through doors just because it's there, I've gotta ask you why they decided to go through the door if they never have before. The only way they'd know that there was trouble in Hyrule would be if they were in Hyrule or somebody that knew what was going on in Hyrule informed them. The only non-Minish beings we know of that could possibly inform the Minish of the trouble in Hyrule are the Goddesses, but there's no need to drag the Goddesses into things if at least a few Minish were curious enough to step through the door. Are you saying that absolutely no Minish could have possibly been curious enough to see what's on the other side of that door until a time the people of Hyrule just happened to need their help?

[Hero of Slime]

The creators said that the Minish put stuff in the grass, they did imply this was the reason in all the other games. But it does not mean that the game creators meant to use this as a timeline hint. It is probably just a small allusion with not timeline relevance.

[Vertiboy]

They delight in making humans happy by doing so. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're the only reason why items and Rupees are hidden in grass and under rocks. Additionally, even if that was the intention other games do not have to take this into account. Even within OoT, which says that Bomb Flowers only grow on Death Mountain, we see Bomb Flowers in other places, namely the Shadow Temple.

Do you have a better explaination that is canon? Nope.

Saying that the Minish arrived before the latest possible moment they could have arrived is not adding unnecessary events to the timeline, it's simply putting an event earlier than it absolutely cannot be any later than!!! Saying that the default assumption should be that they arrived at the latest possible moment is like saying that Ganondorf must be as young as he possibly can.

Whatever you say. The Missing Link said that he got the analogy, and you are the only one who doesn't.

The creators said that the Minish put stuff in the grass, they did imply this was the reason in all the other games. But it does not mean that the game creators meant to use this as a timeline hint. It is probably just a small allusion with not timeline relevance.

What have I been saying about the dangers of probably? That is not our decision to make. It is in the game, therefore, it is canon. "I think that it sounds like it wasn't meant to be serious," is not a reasonable explaination to say that something is not canon. Anyone debating on this board should know better than that by now. We cannot pick and choose the canon. No one has presented a reasonable explaination for why the Minish explaination is not valid. All of the reasons presented have been equivelant to opinion, that people think that it doesn't sound canon. You did not write TMC. Stop claiming that you know for a fact that it is not canon.

Edited by Vertiboy, 16 April 2007 - 09:57 PM.

[LionHarted]

Do you have a better explaination that is canon?

Sure I do.

Thieving rats steal people's stuff. Where did you think all the stuff came from?

It is in the game, therefore, it is canon.

That items being hidden in the grass being attributed to the Minish is not necessarily said to be true in all of the games, nor is it a one-time event. Therefore, there's no reason why it has to be true for all games.

[Hero of Slime]

Sure it's in the game but that does not mean that it has relevance to the timeline. The thing about the minish hidding stuff is an allusion to other games, but I don't belive it was put there to be tied in with the time the minish cam through the portal. When you consider the minish hidding stuff as a stand alone fact it fits with putting TMC both before and after OoT.

[BourgeoisJerry]

Whatever you say. The Missing Link said that he got the analogy, and you are the only one who doesn't.

You have got to be kidding me. I repeat myself over and over, changing my wording constantly to argue your point while you keep dodging the points I make, and you say I don't get it? Dude, I get what you're saying and I'm saying that you're WRONG!!! Do you even read my posts or do you just skim them and decide that since I obviously don't agree with you that I'm just ignorant?

Okay, let us go over the facts just one more time.

1. The Minish must have come before The Minish Cap's backstory. This is a necessary event.
2. We are given absolutely no indication or implication that they came during The Minish Cap's backstory. The necessary event can happen at any point before point X without hurting the story in any way.
3. Once the Minish came to Hyrule they set up residence and have been in Hyrule ever since (or that should be our default assumption, at least.) The necessary event happened once and only once.
4. Occam's razor does not support the Minish arriving as late as possible, as it's far simpler to just say that they were already in Hyrule than to assume that some outside force caused them to come to Hyrule at just the right time. Occam's razor supports the necessary event happening well before point X.
5. Ocarina of Time can not happen before the Minish first arrive in Hyrule unless the creators of Ocarina of Time were unaware that the Minish needed to be present to hide things and the creators of The Minish Cap failed to think the entire timeline through. Assuming that the necessary event happened at point X serves no purpose other than to prevent event Y from happening before point X.
6. There is still absolutely no indication or implication that the Minish arrived exactly when they were needed. Your argument against Ocarina of Time coming before The Minish Cap is completely ridiculous.

Feel free to add a fact 7, even 8 or 9 if you like. If you can not find a single fact that supports your statement that the default assumption should be that the Minish first arrived during the game's backstory, you have no right to say that I don't get it.

[MikePetersSucks]

Furthermore, we know for a fact that the Door opens every 100 years. It is fanfiction to assume "The Door opens every 100 years EVER SINCE POINT X" or "The Door opened every 100 years, but the Minish only came through on Points X and Y."

Pwned.

[Hero of Slime]

Since the game creators left the details of the minish's arrival vague, it must mean that whatever they intended has no relevance to the timeline other than explaining TMC's situation.

[The Missing Link]

I said that the idea that the Minish, a tiny race, could have millions of rupees and hearts, then have the strength to place them all around Hyrule is unreasonable, as far as believability goes. However, I also went on to say that the Zelda universe is unreasonable to begin with. If Zelda was a little more realistic, then the Minish explaination would be a little farfetched, but since we are talking about a land in which the number one threat to national security is a magical pig, the Minish are a perfectly reasonable explaination.

To rephrase: Real World = Minish are unreasonable
Zelda World = Minish are reasonable

I will warrant you that the idea is impossible. I never said it wasn't. However, let us be perfectly clear here: An unreasonable idea within an unreasonable world does not immediately make it a reasonable idea within that world. As point, we can go back to your crazy idea of 50 Ganons before Ocarina of Time. It's not impossible; it's not unprovable. But I think you'd be of the same mind that it's still unreasonable despite the fact that Hyrule is an "unreasonable world."

Be that it may, first you've got to consider the point that a "heart" is actually a real object in Hyrule and not just some gimmick in order to make the game go forward... which I don't. Magically heart-shaped things that automatically restore life (not to mention heart containers which extend your life) are purely plot devices and likely don't have any meaning directly outside of that. Thus, when the Minish come to place the hearts in the grass, you're adding a cute little story to something that probably isn't meant to be canonical. While it may be "canonical" in the truest sense of the word, that doesn't mean that it's relevant or significant.

Saying that it isn't canon because Capcom wrote it is like saying that any Spider-Man comic isn't canon unless it is written by Stan Lee.

I agree with your hallucination of what my point is. However, I think you'd also agree that we hold Aonuma to a much higher standard than we would Capcom.

Sounds like you are doing the same, saying that TMC is part of the timeline, then saying that the evidence in it doesn't count toward it's timeline placement since it was made by Capcom. The problem is that when you said that to me, you just misunderstood what I said. I can't say the same for you, though.

Vertiboy, remember who you're speaking to. I'm the winner of the Mr. Liberal Timeliner 2006 pageant. What you say is rather flattering to me. (I could gush with happiness!)

But seriously though, if you want to count the whole game and every line in it, . Because if everything is canon exactly as written, there is no timeline at all, end of story. Instead, my belief has always been what I call the Least Squared Error strategy of timeline theorisation. You can nullify any bit of canon in order to make the storyline go smoother; however, every time you do so you increase your deviation from the canon. The goal, thus, is to come up with the best sounding theory while having the least amount of error from the standard canon. Not an easy tradeoff, mind, but that's the theory. Because in the end, we have to do something like that, and my personal belief is that calling the explanation of something that really is purely a gameplay mechanic won't count for all that much if I choose to disregard that teensy fact.

I am tired of people (not neccesarily you) saying, "!7 d03$n7 m@773r wh3n 73h m!n!$h c4m3, n008!!!!111!!!" when I have explained over and over again that it does matter.

You could take the mature way out and agree to disagree, of course.

Anyone who says anything else is apparently impervious to facts.

I have armour made out of all 50 Ganons that came before Ocarina.

The Minish are the best explaination for how rupees and hearts get around Hyrule,

As if this is a make or break for any theory.

and it just so happens that rupees and hearts are in all other games. That means that the Minish must be present in those games.

Or it's just gameplay mechanic.

I am also tired of the people saying that it is an explaination that isn't to be taken too seriously,

Which is all the more reason to save face by giving in every now and then...

yet they don't present a reason why.

Because it's less important than 50 Ganons.

They are picking and choosing the Zelda canon, which is something that they cannot do if they want to be taken seriously.

Maybe we don't care if you take us seriously when everyone else here does.

Debating about the Zelda timeline is pointless!!! We do it for fun!!! If you do not like fun, then go away!!! If you like fun, STFU and let people debate who are concerned with this particular topic!!!

And you sound like you're having a lot of fun.

The Missing Link said that he got the analogy,

Wasn't I the one pointing out the differences between your analogy and the issue at hand?

Furthermore, we know for a fact that the Door opens every 100 years. It is fanfiction to assume "The Door opens every 100 years EVER SINCE POINT X" or "The Door opened every 100 years, but the Minish only came through on Points X and Y."

Pwned.

For completeness:

The Minish at least appeared no later than the backstory of TMC > The Minish first occurred in the backstory of TMC.

Edited by The Missing Link, 17 April 2007 - 03:20 AM.

[Arturo]

*Is hipnotized*

Way too many colours and big letters.

Please Veriboy, be reasonable and talk in a less (angry?) (dramatical?) (annoying?) way

[Vertiboy]

Whoa, back up. When did it become okay to say that something isn't canon in a debate simply because it doesn't sound canon? That is what noobs debating Zelda do. I assumed that I was debating with people who don't just pick and choose the canon as they please. I assumed that I wasn't debating with noobs.

If anyone else says that the Minish explaination isn't canon just because it doesn't sound canon, I will tell you all I love you
It is horrible when people who usually come up with great arguements use that as their arguement against the Minish explaination. Stop debating like noobs, unless you want me to tell you all how awesome you are

Arturo: Editted the offensive l33t commentaries

Edited by Arturo, 17 April 2007 - 02:22 PM.

[Fyxe]

...Dear lord, Vertiboy, CUT IT THE FUCK OUT. Can you stop using rediculous text sizes, multiple rainbow colours and now 'l337' speak that makes you look like an even bigger 'noob' than the 'noobs' you're supposedly mocking?

Honestly, nobody uses the word 'noob' anymore. We're not in the 90s anymore.

And you're the LAST person who should be complaining about people not debating like adults.

[Arturo]

VERTIBOY, SHUT UP!

You are breaking Rule 1 (Be nice) and Rule 15 (Mod decissions are final).

I have just told you not to act that way, and you just have ignored my post. Next time you post that way, I will DELETE your posts.

[Chaltab]

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.

Except that, as we've been saying from the start, the game's storyline implies that they've come every 100 years for an undetermined number of times. Assuming that there are only two instances of their appearance is the bare minimum, and the in-game text implies that it's happened more often.

[Vertiboy]

...Dear lord, Vertiboy, CUT IT OUT. Can you stop using rediculous text sizes, multiple rainbow colours and now 'l337' speak that makes you look like an even bigger 'noob' than the 'noobs' you're supposedly mocking?

Honestly, nobody uses the word 'noob' anymore. We're not in the 90s anymore.

And you're the LAST person who should be complaining about people not debating like adults.

I am simply saying that we cannot say that the Minish description isn't canon simply because it doesn't sound canon. How does that make me a noob? How does saying that picking and choosing the canon is wrong make me a noob? How can you even promote that? You are just saying that I am a noob because you are mad. I had a true reason. Most people who haven't debated much will use that very same excuse in a debate if they can't think of anything better to say ("It doesn't sound true, so I'm going to disregard it."). Also, how have I been debating like a child? Give me one specific example. Am I the one making up the Zelda canon as I see fit? No, I am not. If memory serves, that was you.

Except that, as we've been saying from the start, the game's storyline implies that they've come every 100 years for an undetermined number of times. Assuming that there are only two instances of their appearance is the bare minimum, and the in-game text implies that it's happened more often.

WHERE?!?!? I've been asking that forever, and no one has answered me. Where in TMC does it imply that the Minish came before TMC's backstory? Show me.

Look, the Minish trophy description is a part of the Zelda canon. No one has presented a good reason to believe otherwise. (Again, "I don't think that it sounds canon," doesn't count.) Can someone give me a reason, preferably a new and logical one, for why the trophy description isn't canon.

The Minish at least appeared no later than the backstory of TMC > The Minish first occurred in the backstory of TMC.

If that is true, then:

OoT Ganon is at least the first Ganon > OoT Ganon is the first Ganon

I'm sorry, but I'm just telling you how we always assume by default.

To everyone, read carefully and respond:
When did it become okay to say that something is not canon simply because it does not sound canon in your opinion?

Edited by Vertiboy, 17 April 2007 - 04:40 PM.