340 replies to this topic

[BourgeoisJerry]

Can we just tentatively declare ourselves the winners until he actually addresses the points we've made? He's made two posts since I requested he give one fact that supports his claim that we should assume by default that the Minish came during the game's backstory and he has yet to do so, and he's not doing such a great job of responding to everybody else either.

[Vertiboy]

Can we just tentatively declare ourselves the winners until he actually addresses the points we've made? He's made two posts since I requested he give one fact that supports his claim that we should assume by default that the Minish came during the game's backstory and he has yet to do so, and he's not doing such a great job of responding to everybody else either.

It's so hard to keep up sometimes. Anyway, I can't convince you that you are wrong, and you can't convince me that I am wrong. Let's just end the debate now before we go in circles even more. Let's at least end the debate about TMC's placement.

I would still like to debate about the Minish trophy description, though.

I would still like to know from everyone:
When did it become okay to ignore evidence simply because it doesn't sound canon?

Edited by Vertiboy, 17 April 2007 - 05:35 PM.

[Hero of Slime]

Because if somthing does not sound like it has relevance to the timeline, it probably doesn't have relevance. Thus using that "Evidence" is actually going against the creators original intentions.

[Fyxe]

You are just saying that I am a noob because you are mad.

I never said you were a noob. I said you were being goddamn childish.

Also, how have I been debating like a child? Give me one specific example.

If you want a SPECIFIC example, your rediculous overuse of EXTRA LARGE TEXT BECAUSE YOU THINK EVERYONE ELSE IS STUPID and making text red just for the hell of it because you think it makes your point more important.

But it's not that. It's just the simple fact that you're utterly arrogant beyond belief and don't consider for a second that you're being close minded.

Am I the one making up the Zelda canon as I see fit? No, I am not. If memory serves, that was you.

...What the.

Where the HELL are you pulling that from?

You know what, FUCK OFF. I'm fed up of your utterly random and displaced claims of superiority and baseless attacks on other people's intelligence.
Shall I spell that in 'l337' speak for you?

I'm going to ignore the hell out of you from now on, frankly. I can't waste my time dealing with you. I'll leave that to everyone else.

[Vertiboy]

Because if somthing does not sound like it has relevance to the timeline, it probably doesn't have relevance. Thus using that "Evidence" is actually going against the creators original intentions.

What I have been saying is that is not for us to decide. Can you tell me for sure that it doesn't have any timeline relevance? You are 100% sure that Capcom did not put it in the game in order to drop a hint that TMC could be first? Also, why doesn't it sound like it has any timeline relevance. Everyone has been saying that, but then they don't tell me why.

But it's not that. It's just the simple fact that you're utterly arrogant beyond belief and don't consider for a second that you're being close minded.

Because everyone knows that Fyxe is never close minded...

Edited by Vertiboy, 17 April 2007 - 08:23 PM.

[Hero of Slime]

Because the quote by it self does not refer to the games in an order. The quote alone makes no distinction. By itself the quote works before and after OoT. Only after using an assumption have you paired it with the minishes arrival to make it seem like it has timeline relevance. I just don't think the creators intended for that connection to be made.

[The Missing Link]

You are just saying that I am a noob because you are mad.

They say that denial is always the first step to recovery.

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.

Where does it imply they didn't?

Can someone give me a reason, preferably a new and logical one, for why the trophy description isn't canon.

Rupees. In. The. Grass. Are. A. Din-Damned. Plot. Device. Therefore. It. Doesn't. Need. Any. Explanation.

If that is true, then:

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

Miyamoto said it Ocarina's Ganon was first. Therefore, we have plausible evidence that the second is as correct as the first, and since the second is more specific than the first, then the second wins by default. So sorry... do pick your analogies better next time.

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?

Since here.

[Vertiboy]

Where does it imply they didn't?

Also nowhere. That is the reason I used the Ganon example. No where in OoT does it say or imply that OoT Ganon is the first Ganon, and no where does it say or imply that he is not the first Ganon. Most of us assume that OoT Ganon is first, though. The same applies to the Minish. TMC doesn't say or imply that TMC's backstory is the first time that they came, but it also does not say or imply that TMC's backstory is not the first time that they came. If what applies to the Ganon example is true, then we should assume that TMC's backstory is the first time that the Minish came to Hyrule by default.

Rupees. In. The. Grass. Are. A. Din-Damned. Plot. Device. Therefore. It. Doesn't. Need. Any. Explanation.

This is basically what you are saying: anything that is a plot device cannot have an explaination, and if any explaination is given, said explaination is wrong. That is why you don't think that the trophy description is canon? Wow, that is a weak arguement.

In the original Super Mario Bros. all of the blocks are citizens of the Mushroom Kingdom trying to help Mario by giving him coins and power-ups. That is not made up; the manual actually said that. Despite the fact that all of the coins and power-ups are plot devices, we have an explaination for them.

You are correct that a plot device doesn't need an explaination. If a write so chooses, though, he/she can give a plot device an explaination. That is exactly what the writers of TMC did. They gave this plot device an explaination. It is now official. Just because it is a plot device, it doesn't mean that it can't have an explaination; it just means that it doesn't neccesarily have to have one.

Miyamoto said it Ocarina's Ganon was first. Therefore, we have plausible evidence that the second is as correct as the first, and since the second is more specific than the first, then the second wins by default. So sorry... do pick your analogies better next time.

He said that OoT was first before FSA came out. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you the one who disregards all creator comments anyway? I remember when I said that people who still defend the single timeline are immune to fact, after Aonuma said that it was official, and then you told me to shut up (great defense, btw). Since when do you trust what Miyamoto says? Pick a consistent arguement that you actually believe next time.

Since here.

OH WOW REALLY!!!! YOU WROTE IT!!! IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

Look, I understand that not everything can be canon, but unlike the example in your article, the Minish trophy description does not contradict any other evidence given. If it was contradicted or retconned, then maybe I could see where you are coming from. That is not the case, though.

[The Missing Link]

Also nowhere.

Demanding that someone prove you wrong when you do not have proof yourself is like a dog chasing its tail. Not only does the dog not get anywhere or anything in the process, but people laugh at it for a good long time.

This is basically what you are saying: anything that is a plot device cannot have an explaination, and if any explaination is given, said explaination is wrong. That is why you don't think that the trophy description is canon? Wow, that is a weak arguement.

Apparently the translation from English to Vertiboy-speak isn't all that accurate. Let me attempt once more this tedious process.

It doesn't need an explanation != It cannot have an explanation. There is a major difference between these two statements.

The latter, as you so poignantly surmise, says that I must reject anything from canon which comes into conflict with my belief of plot gimmick. This is your hallucination of what my point is.

The former, as you have completely ignored, implicitly says that it doesn't matter if you accept or reject it because it doesn't matter. (Yes, I'm saying the words again, and I don't care if you like it or not.) Honestly, do you honestly believe that oh-my-goddesses the creators of the game honestly thought that this was the most serious Zelda reference ever and that people were Din-damned stupid if they don't share this opinion? Likely not.

If anything, and I'd love to hear you refute this because it would only add to the hilarity of this topic, the creators intended this as a cute little trifle, something to make the user chuckle a bit because they invented this clever little explanation for their plot gimmick. Did they truly intend to seriously retcon everything and force this interpretation over the whole series? How serious a reference do you think that this trophy is? Do you believe that this is oh-so-important such that the world will end the moment someone scoffs at this idea or realises that it's precisely the cute explanation that it likely is? Because you keep attacking this point of canon as this absolute thing which cannot ever be defied (a point I disproved, I might add, with my article).

In the original Super Mario Bros. all of the blocks are citizens of the Mushroom Kingdom trying to help Mario by giving him coins and power-ups. That is not made up; the manual actually said that. Despite the fact that all of the coins and power-ups are plot devices, we have an explaination for them.

I apologise to Fyxe in advance for the use of this one Internet word, but lawl. Canon and Mario stopped occurring in the same sentence years ago.

He said that OoT was first before FSA came out. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you the one who disregards all creator comments anyway? I remember when I said that people who still defend the single timeline are immune to fact, after Aonuma said that it was official, and then you told me to shut up (great defense, btw). Since when do you trust what Miyamoto says? Pick a consistent arguement that you actually believe next time.

Ah, so now we go with the ad hominem attacks now? Classic. But if you want to hear me spill my guts (again) as to my exact beliefs (since you cannot seem to get it right), fine, prepared to be bored because you're going to hear the same thing I've said a million times.

I have great love for the linearist timeline. You should also know precisely why I have great love for it. You should also know precisely why I choose not to give it up in favour of a multiple timeline argument. As I said then, even the multiple timeline theories are imperfect or ugly, and until there's a theory that just works universally across the board, I really don't see the reason why I should force myself to change. This is how I am personally.

That said, I have been rather proactive in adopting creator statements when it comes to debating in this forum. The only times I have ever dared to denounce the parareru timeline is when you bloody overreact whenever we linearists criticise the parareru timeline! "Oh no! You fools are deluded!" I hear you cry with much less eloquence. "You are fools to defy Aonuma so openly! Your criticism means that you are poor fans, indeed! You shouldst be run out of this forum because you care not for the Legend of Zelda, that which the rest of us loyal fans do. Leave now or come back to me with your tails between your legs and pay homage to me for setting you upon the path of light!" And every time, I have to come and explain that criticism of the FPT is not the same as ignoring this honest bit of creator intent revealed to us. And every time, you have apologised for misreading our statements! Do you remember now? I spoke bluntly for all us linearists that we will move forward with the FPT... that just because we love a different theory more doesn't make us any less capable of arguing with those that disagree with us. This is how I am... for lack of a better word... "professionally."

I hope you can see the difference here.

Look, I understand that not everything can be canon, but unlike the example in your article, the Minish trophy description does not contradict any other evidence given. If it was contradicted or retconned, then maybe I could see where you are coming from. That is not the case, though.

Everything in context, m'boy. Everything must be in context.

Do you remember after Wind Waker came out? So many people asked Miyamoto why they did the toon graphics. I remember specifically a statement referring to the fact that they could do things with toon graphics that they couldn't with realistic graphics, and these things were not limited to structural but plot-related things as well. He specifically referenced Link being shot out of a cannon into the Forsaken Fortress. He said something to the fact that, had this been realistic graphics, Link would have died promptly upon smacking the wall. Thus, the general feel of the game affected the context in which we had to interpret events. (Developer intent right there!) This little scene could be interpreted directly as the fact that people can be shot out of cannons and survive every time regardless of context, but that is not what the developers intended... therefore we should not.

The same exists for this very thing. How serious a statement are they making? They didn't make any point to show the Minish hiding rupees anywhere. They inevitably put this little one-liner into what is almost an Easter egg in the game. They certainly intended it, but this whole thing smells more like an inside joke from developer to player than a complete reinterpretation of the whole series. We could interpret this very seriously... but I would make the point that we should not.

Of course, if you disagree, I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is and show me developer intent to the contrary.

Edited by The Missing Link, 18 April 2007 - 01:55 PM.

[Alastair]

TMC doesn't say or imply that TMC's backstory is the first time that they came, but it also does not say or imply that TMC's backstory is not the first time that they came.

Two quotes from TMC:

The first person Link sees in Hyrule Town,
"Welcome to the Picori Festival! They say that, every hundred years, the Picori come to Hyrule... And this is the 100th year, to the day, of the last time the Picori were here!"

An old man Zelda stands in front of in the market place,
"Only once every hundred yearsdoes the mystic doorway open. This is the door that links the human world to the world of the Picori. When this door opens, the Picori can enter our world. And gues what! This marks the hundredth year since they last appeared here!"

These two quotes, particularly given how soon in the game they appear and that the player is practically forced to read them, strongly imply that the Minish come every hundred years - and that the games designers wished the player to know this. If the last time the Picori appeared was also the first these quotes would be unnecessarily misleading.

[LionHarted]

Nope. I'd say those quotes only 'imply' what they say:

1) That the door opens every hundred years
2) That is the 100th year since the last time the Picori came through the door

Conclusion is that the door will be open, not that the Picori will come through it or that the Picori always come through it.

[Alastair]

Nope. I'd say those quotes only 'imply' what they say:

1) That the door opens every hundred years
2) That is the 100th year since the last time the Picori came through the door

Conclusion is that the door will be open, not that the Picori will come through it or that the Picori always come through it.

Um.
"They say that, every hundred years, the Picori come to Hyrule... "

[LionHarted]

Ah. I seemed to think it said they "can come" to Hyrule, which is what all the other quotes say/imply.

[Vertiboy]

Um.
"They say that, every hundred years, the Picori come to Hyrule... "

"Every June 8th (not true, btw) I celebrate my birthday."

Does that mean that I have celebrated by birthday every June 8th since the beginning of time? No. It just means that every June 8th since my birth back in 1979 (also not true), I have celebrated my birthday.

The same can be said about this quote. It can be interpreted to mean that the door has always opened every 100 years since the beginning of time in the Zelda universe, or it has opened every 100 years since the first time it opened.

Honestly, do you honestly believe that oh-my-goddesses the creators of the game honestly thought that this was the most serious Zelda reference ever and that people were Din-damned stupid if they don't share this opinion? Likely not.

If it doesn't matter if the trophy is canon, then why do you have such a hard time accepting it? Why do you say that it is not canon if it doesn't contradict anything? If you truly believed that it doesn't matter, then you wouldn't be so quick to deny the Minish trophy description. You know that it helps me prove that TMC is first, and that is why you deny it.

They didn't make any point to show the Minish hiding rupees anywhere. They inevitably put this little one-liner into what is almost an Easter egg in the game. They certainly intended it, but this whole thing smells more like an inside joke from developer to player than a complete reinterpretation of the whole series. We could interpret this very seriously... but I would make the point that we should not.

Of course, if you disagree, I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is and show me developer intent to the contrary.

You could say that about anything in the Zelda canon. You could say, "Prove that it is canon, or else it is not canon." That is not how it works.

I don't have to prove that it is canon. That is the default assumption. Most will assume that anything is a game is canon, unless it can be clearly proven not to be canon.

What do I mean by clearly prove? Here are some examples.

In TMC, the Octorok trophy description says that they have been in every Zelda game (which TP sadly broke this tradition). The description was clearly referring to the real world. In the Zelda universe, all of the different Links adventures are not referred to as games. The description broke the fourth wall. It is not canon. If it was canon, then TMC would have to be the last game in the timeline. I know that 99.9% of Zelda fans will agree that TMC is not the very last Zelda game.

In TWW, the character Manny, or w/etf the guy's name is with the bag that hangs around the Nintendo Gallery, carries a bag with an Octorok from the NES TLoZ on it. If taken at face value, it would mean that TWW comes after TLoZ. It was clearly just a neat reference to the old-school look, though, and it is not canon.

In the Oracles, the Master Sword has two origins, depending on which game you play first. In one, the MS is broken in half and found by a Zora in the sea. In the other origin, the MS is merely the sharpened Nobel Sword. This means that the MS was not put into the Oracles to show timeline placement, and it could theoretically be placed before ALttP (if one accepts that the MS sleeps forever, but I think that it could be retconned if needed, anyway).

You are just denying the Minish trophy for the simple reason that you think that it sound untrue. You can't prove that, however. I do not have to prove that it is canon. That is the default assumption. We can probably only prove that about 1% of the information given in Zelda games is canon. That's only if you accept developer's quotes, and if you don't the number drops to 0%. We can only prove that about 0-1% of the information in Zelda games is canon, if you apply your logic.

I understand that not everything is canon, but if you eliminate canon completely, you make timeline theorizing harder than it already is.

With that being said, again, I do not have to prove that the Minish trophy is canon. That should be assumed, unless you can clearly disprove it. You have to prove that it is not canon.

You are obvioulsy immune to facts, or else you would know why it matters whether or not the Minish explaination is canon. I've explained why it matters over and over, and you continue to say that it does not matter without giving an explaination why. You can deny that it matters all you want, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can deny the Holocaust all he wants, but as long as others can provide a chain of logic proving both of those opinions are wrong, people will always scoff at them.

Edited by Vertiboy, 18 April 2007 - 06:23 PM.

[Chaltab]

But the sum of the quotes seem to imply that every 100 years since a certain point, the Minish show up. The game doesn't state or even give an inication to how many times they've come. Going not on facts but what it seemed the writers were going for is that there have been multiple instances of Minish visits to Hyrule. The phrases "every hundred years" and "since the last time they came" make it obvious the creators were going for a long-standing tradition.

Otherwise, I posit, the quotes would have read something like "We're celebrating 100 years since the Picori first came to Hyrule" or "They came 100 years ago and said they'd be back in 100 years."

Honestly, I don't see this as terribly relevant to the timeline. The Minish Cap version of Hyrule is different enough that whether it's before Ocarina or after, there is some significant laps in time between any other game and the events of TMC. Death Mountain must be connected (or reconnected) to mainland Hyrule, the swamp must be drained to form a desert, etc, etc.

[Vertiboy]

But the sum of the quotes seem to imply that every 100 years since a certain point, the Minish show up. The game doesn't state or even give an inication to how many times they've come. Going not on facts but what it seemed the writers were going for is that there have been multiple instances of Minish visits to Hyrule. The phrases "every hundred years" and "since the last time they came" make it obvious the creators were going for a long-standing tradition.

Otherwise, I posit, the quotes would have read something like "We're celebrating 100 years since the Picori first came to Hyrule" or "They came 100 years ago and said they'd be back in 100 years."

Honestly, I don't see this as terribly relevant to the timeline. The Minish Cap version of Hyrule is different enough that whether it's before Ocarina or after, there is some significant laps in time between any other game and the events of TMC. Death Mountain must be connected (or reconnected) to mainland Hyrule, the swamp must be drained to form a desert, etc, etc.

If you look at this rough comparison, you can see that OoT Hyrule is huge compared to TMC Hyrule's map. It only covers the area of HC and HCT.

[Hero of Slime]

Vertiboy, your are assuming being canon and timeline relevant are the same thing. They are not. The satement about the minish hidding things is canon meaning it is a true fact about the zelda universe. However that does not mean that the creators intended to use this fact as a hint for TMC's placement before OoT. You always say that creator intent is mist important. Since it requires a lot of assumtion to connect the quote about the minish to any kind of supposed timeline relevance, it shows that the creators did not intend for that fact to be used that way. It's a small allusion and nothing more.

[Chaltab]

If you look at this rough comparison, you can see that OoT Hyrule is huge compared to TMC Hyrule's map. It only covers the area of HC and HCT.

No offense, but I don't think your method of scaling the maps together is really adequate. The 2D games don't render things to realistic scale. Houses are much bigger on the inside than they are on the outside. The same sprite for Link works in the overhead perspective or the side-scrolling perespective.

Also, just at a glance, your Minish Cap castle doesn't even seem to be the same size as the OOT castle on that page, let alone in the 'real Hyrule'.

Edited by Chaltab, 18 April 2007 - 06:41 PM.

[Vertiboy]

Vertiboy, your are assuming being canon and timeline relevant are the same thing. They are not. The satement about the minish hidding things is canon meaning it is a true fact about the zelda universe. However that does not mean that the creators intended to use this fact as a hint for TMC's placement before OoT. You always say that creator intent is mist important. Since it requires a lot of assumtion to connect the quote about the minish to any kind of supposed timeline relevance, it shows that the creators did not intend for that fact to be used that way. It's a small allusion and nothing more.

It doesn't require any more assumption that a regular connection would take, like TLoZ->TAoL or ALttP->LA. It only assumes that you will know that the information is canon.

It is implied that no monsters came between TMC and its backstory. That, in turn, implies that no current games can come between them. No assumption there.

Because of the default assumptions made in other similar situations, the default assumption of this situation is that the Minish first came to Hyrule during TMC's backstory. It makes no mention of them coming before, just like OoT makes no mention of a Ganon coming before OoT Ganon. That is the largest assumption this makes, and it isn't that large since we make similar assumptions in other situations.

Because of this, the Minish must come before OoT (if you assume that it is true [/common sense]), so TMC must come before OoT.

There are no assumptions beyond the assumptions normally made. It is just a more complex chain of logic than TLoZ-TAoL or ALttP->LA. It isn't any less true just because it takes more than a kindergarden education to understand (that wasn't an insult toward anybody; I'm just saying that it takes some actual thinking to understand).

[Chaltab]

...stuff...

You're going about this the wrong way. The Minish coming to Hyrule, how often they've come isn't relevant to the timline.


Look at what exists and doesn't exist in Hyrule.

Hyrule Castle is in the northern most point of central Hyrule as in Ocarina, not in the middle like in FSA and ALTTP.
There is a fairly lengthy path between Castle Town and the Castle itself.
Death Mountain is not accessible from Hyrule, yet is in every other Hyrule-bound Zelda game.
Lon Lon Ranch, though in a different place, exists, implying relative temporal proximity to Ocarina.
The location of the dessert in all other games is occupied by a swamp and wind ruins in TMC; the only logical explanation for this is either the Flood and eventual re-draining of the desert, or that it hasn't been drained at all, yet.
The Triforce is not mentioned and nobody seems to be after it. (Unless the Light Force is the Triforce.)

Basically, given this, not the Minish's appearances, I reason that TMC is the first game.

Sequence:

Hyrule is created.

The original Zelda is put to sleep.

Monsters are unleashed in Hyrule.

The Minish bring the Lightforce and Picori Blade, and the monsters are sealed away in the Chest by the Hero of Men.

An undetermined number of centuries pass, but at the very least one.

Vaati is born into the Minish, taking the Cap and becoming large. The game's events transpire.

Gradually, the land changes. Death Mountain and Kakariko Village become landmarks. A desert forms in the west, etc, etc. Hyrule now resembles OOT Hyrule.

Some undetermined time after the game, a fierce war or series of wars erupts over the keys to the Sacred Realm. The Master Sword has definitely been forged by this point. Hyrule is eventually united by OOT Zelda's father.

Ganondorf is born and begins his own quest to gain the keys to the sacred realm. Link is born and taken by his wounded mother to the Forest. Ten years later, Ocarina of Time begins. The door to the Sacred Realm is actually opened and the events that become known as the Seal War/Imprsioning war occur.

(And obviously, this leaves out events like the sealing of the Interlopers and the apperances of the Wind Tribe and Occa.)

[BourgeoisJerry]

Well, you're still saying that we should by default assume that the Minish first arrived during the game's backstory while ignoring my request for a single fact to support the claim, but I thought of a good analogy so I'm going to go ahead and make another post anyway.

Alright, I've got three stories for you, given in no particular order. These stories involve a race of creatures called Giganti, who live underground (where there is a mystic portal that opens every 100 years that leads to and from the world they originally come from) and are a source of magic for humans, and another race of creatures called the Mostri, a dark tribe who tend to serve as underlings to overlords. In one story a human hero learns magic and defeats an evil warlord who the Mostri serve. In another story a different magic using hero defeats a different warlord who was responsible for freeing the Mostri from a mirror they had been sealed in for a long time. In another story the Giganti give a human hero a magical mirror with which he seals away the Mostri.

Alright, now my question to you is this: is there enough information given here that you can accurately place the three stories in chronological order?

Edited by BourgeoisJerry, 18 April 2007 - 08:09 PM.

[LionHarted]

In one story a human hero learns magic and defeats an evil warlord who the Mostri serve.
In another story a different magic using hero defeats a different warlord who was responsible for freeing the Mostri from a mirror they had been sealed in for a long time.
In another story the Giganti give a human hero a magical mirror with which he seals away the Mostri.


None of the stories has to come first. None of the magic-using heroes necessarily has to come before any of the others. The sealing within the magical mirror in the third story may or may not have happened in a different event than the sealing before the second story. The magical mirror given to the hero in the third story may or may not be the first mirror used to seal the Mostri, and may or may not be the same mirror from the second story.

Hyrule Castle is in the northern most point of central Hyrule as in Ocarina, not in the middle like in FSA and ALTTP.
The northernmost point of the world map in Ocarina need not be the northernmost point of Hyrule in OoT or in any other game. This is just the area you access in the game. I could similarly say that the presence of a swamp in TMC, FSA, and ALttP means that those three games are definitely connected, but the fact of the matter is that there may have been a swamp in other games that we never traveled to.

There is a fairly lengthy path between Castle Town and the Castle itself.
Castle Town is not a geographical location; it is a man-made town, and can grow and shrink over time.

Death Mountain is not accessible from Hyrule, yet is in every other Hyrule-bound Zelda game.
Assuming Mount Crenel is not Death Mountain.

Lon Lon Ranch, though in a different place, exists, implying relative temporal proximity to Ocarina.
Most games share locales with Ocarina. Not all games are relatively close to Ocarina temporally.

The location of the dessert in all other games is occupied by a swamp and wind ruins in TMC
Actually, there is a swamp in relatively the same place in FSA and ALttP, featuring similar man-made ruins/landmarks, as I already mentioned. Both of these are typically considered to be after OoT.

[The Missing Link]

"Every June 8th (not true, btw) I celebrate my birthday."

Does that mean that I have celebrated by birthday every June 8th since the beginning of time? No. It just means that every June 8th since my birth back in 1979 (also not true), I have celebrated my birthday.

However, it does imply that you have either (1) done so with regularity or (2) have some knowledge that it WILL happen with regularity. The first opposes your line of thought; the second forces you to point out how you know that it will happen with regularity in the future. Both, in the case of the Minish door, are unprovable in this case. Therefore, both assumptions are valid.

If it doesn't matter if the trophy is canon, then why do you have such a hard time accepting it? Why do you say that it is not canon if it doesn't contradict anything? If you truly believed that it doesn't matter, then you wouldn't be so quick to deny the Minish trophy description. You know that it helps me prove that TMC is first, and that is why you deny it.
You could say that about anything in the Zelda canon. You could say, "Prove that it is canon, or else it is not canon." That is not how it works.

I agree with your analysis of your hallucination of my point. However, you are hallucinating as this is not my point.

I don't care what you believe; I've said since the moment this conversation started that your theory is a possibility. I've never said it wasn't. I can see why you believe what you believe; believe me, I've accepted it. You, however, were asking for an alternate interpretation... on just how any other interpretation could be valid. I have given (and still continue to give) you such. What I believe is therefore irrelevant in this case. You asked; I provided; the transaction is complete.

I don't have to prove that it is canon. That is the default assumption. Most will assume that anything is a game is canon, unless it can be clearly proven not to be canon. [emphasis mine]

People believed the Song of Storms was self-consistent with Ocarina of Time since 1998. That was also the default assumption. I disproved that. Therefore, the default assumption is not always correct. Therefore, the default assumption is not necessarily fact.

You are just denying the Minish trophy for the simple reason that you think that it sound untrue. You can't prove that, however.... We can probably only prove that about 1% of the information given in Zelda games is canon. That's only if you accept developer's quotes, and if you don't the number drops to 0%. We can only prove that about 0-1% of the information in Zelda games is canon, if you apply your logic.

And you think this is a convincing argument? Let me tell you a little secret, Vertiboy... Come close... and sit down, cause this may shock you.

No one's found the right timeline yet. I mean, people have been working on this for how long? Nearly a decade, right? Ocarina of Time came out nine years ago... and still we don't know what to do with them. Still we haven't even narrowed down on any specific ordering of the games... or even a few select orderings of the games. Everyone who comes into this forum has their own timeline in their head, and to find two people who think exactly alike is nigh impossible.

Also, do you know how many times people have demanded proof of an idea on this forum? How many times people have asked to prove them wrong? And how many times has that inevitably come down to the realisation of... "I cannot disprove you're wrong... but you can't prove you're right either!" How many things have we been able to prove? Zero... or one percent? I'd say that's actually about our real track record here...

You know what? That's not a secret, Vertiboy. You just proved my point. We cannot prove diddily-squat. You cannot prove your theory any more than I can disprove your theory because... the canon isn't sufficient to prove or disprove much of anything. You're strengthening my point here, strengthening the fact that my theory is a possibility... that my theory cannot be offhandedly discarded because I might be right...

And worse yet, you know it. You know that my theory is a valid one. You know that I have a small seed of chance with this theory. Which is why you've moved away from attacking my theory and shifted to attacking my pattern of thinking. Here you are, asking me to prove something... asking me to prove my point because you cannot. And you know you cannot prove your theory, and so you try your hardest to mask your weakness by saying that your thinking methodology is superior... that you do not need to bother with proof because you hold the high ground. Because assuming anything is valid should be automatically superior, yes? Because text is gospel truth by default, yes? But if that's the case, then certainly your method of thinking would have caused us to come up with a timeline by now because the text should be clear! But the record doesn't show that. We're still clueless as we always have been. The track record doesn't mesh with your methodology of thinking.

You've committed seppuku. You went out on a limb, hoping that I would be flailing miserably trying to defend an indefensible position. But if what you say is right... if everything is to be believed the moment we read it, then how come we've had so many retcons? How come so many things have changed? How come we don't have a timeline yet? You cannot say that your theory makes any of that possible. We'd know the truth by now! Which is why you keep trying to yell your way to victory. And I see through it.

And I have a hunch that that would infuriate you to the point that you start using bold, red, large capital letters. Of course, now that I've said it, you won't... because you don't want me to be right. Because you cannot accept that alternative opinions can be possibilities.

Had you, from the get go, admitted that the alternative idea was a possibility... but that your theory was a possibility too, I'd have left you alone. Because, well, I'm okay with people believing whatever they want so long as they have a reason for it. You have a reason for it, and I accept that, no matter how much I disagree with it. And I'd bet my set of Deku-made golf clubs that most of the others wouldn't have pursued this as long as they did. But you went and got cocky... you went and started trying to hammer us all to believe what you believe. You couldn't accept that any other theory was valid. And now... now I stay in this debate solely because I want you to taste humble pie.

And thanks to your stubborn arrogance, the moment you relent and revert to a neutral opinion, you've lost. Even if your theory is still a possibility, you've lost ground.

And that is all the victory I need.

Edited by The Missing Link, 18 April 2007 - 10:53 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Pwned.

[Vertiboy]

Okay, I give in. I cannot prove that TMC comes before OoT. Good debate.

I have one question, though. Does anybody see a problem with pre-OoT TMC? I am not saying that it is right because you can't disprove it. I'm done debating about it. I just want to know who believes that TMC definitely cannot come before OoT.

I wouldn't mind, though, if we debate about what is and is not canon in general. Keep in mind that I am done with the pre- or post-OoT TMC debate.

I want to respond to some statements that you (and others) have made.

Pwned.

What are you pwning about? You didn't even do anything but complain that this debate was pointless the entire time. If anyone deserves to say pwned, it's definitely not the person who didn't do anything. That person, TML, has said pwned, and I assume that he will say it again.

People believed the Song of Storms was self-consistent with Ocarina of Time since 1998. That was also the default assumption. I disproved that. Therefore, the default assumption is not always correct. Therefore, the default assumption is not necessarily fact.

While you have proved that the default assumption isn't always fact in the case of the Song of Storms, you didn't prove that the default assumption that the trophy description is canon is wrong. I understand and fully accept the fact that not everything is canon. I understand that the default assumption isn't always correct. I believe, however, that one has to prove that the default assumption is not correct.

Whether or not the trophy description has timeline relevance isn't my concern right now. I think that the trophy description is a canon and neat explaination for the items around Hyrule, plot device or not. It is a unrealistic explaination in an unrealistic world. It is a perfect fit, timeline relevant or not.

Also, you asked why the writers wouldn't make it a more important point that the Minish hide items around Hyrule if it was canon. Why do the writers have to make a big deal out of something in order for it to be canon?

It's like saying that Tingle isn't 35 in MM or TWW. Sure, it may not have any timeline relevance, but it doesn't contradict or hurt anything if Tingle is 35. Now you or I cannot speak for the creators, so we don't know if the trophy description has any timeline relevance. Regardless of whether or not it matters, the same should apply to the trophy description. It doesn't contradict or hurt anything if the Minish hide items around Hyrule. Unlike your Song of Storms example, there is nothing contradicting the trophy description, in TMC or any other game. There is no reason not to think that it is canon, timeline relevant or not.

Edited by Vertiboy, 19 April 2007 - 09:36 PM.

[The Missing Link]

I have one question, though. Does anybody see a problem with pre-OoT TMC? I am not saying that it is right because you can't disprove it. I'm done debating about it. I just want to know who believes that TMC definitely cannot come before OoT.

Personally, I don't see a reason it can't.

While you have proved that the default assumption isn't always fact in the case of the Song of Storms, you didn't prove that the default assumption that the trophy description is canon is wrong. I understand and fully accept the fact that not everything is canon. I understand that the default assumption isn't always correct. I believe, however, that one has to prove that the default assumption is not correct.

Nor can I prove that the default assumption is invalid, and therein lies the dirty little secret.

I'm guessing what I've been trying to go about through this long-winded discussion is that the timeline is the epitome of an open question. There's so little we know... and there are so many legitimate ideas that clamping down and forcing everyone down a singular path of logic is almost guaranteed to lead us all to the wrong conclusion somewhere down the road. Even I have taken your road occasionally and chosen a very obscure direction when timelining the games. (Look at my main timeline in my sig: I put Minish Cap last, which is far from the standard.) The point is for us to be open to ideas, to allow ourselves to sit back and listen to others... and if we don't like the ideas, so be it. We don't have to agree. We just have to listen and consider.

</touchy-feely>

[Vertiboy]

</touchy-feely>

Edited by Vertiboy, 20 April 2007 - 11:47 AM.

[MikePetersSucks]

What are you pwning about? You didn't even do anything but complain that this debate was pointless the entire time. If anyone deserves to say pwned, it's definitely not the person who didn't do anything. That person, TML, has said pwned, and I assume that he will say it again.

I contributed. But I complained, too.

[BourgeoisJerry]

So, we gonna try and get back on topic only to be derailed again when somebody mentions Link's hat?

[MikePetersSucks]

I don't know, let's see.

Hey. TMC is the origin of Link's Hat. Discuss.