Jump to content

IPBoard Styles©Fisana

Photo

Let's talk about The Minish Cap


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

Poll: The Minish Cap (21 member(s) have cast votes)

Where does TMC go in the Timeline?

  1. Before OoT (12 votes [57.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.14%

  2. After TWW (3 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  3. After TP (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. Some other place, because I'm crazy (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. I don't know, what are you asking me for? (3 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  6. THE TIMELINE IS A LIE (3 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 22 March 2008 - 10:17 PM

It's been a while since I've had a decent chance to go over TMC, and as I've been doing that recently, I think I've got a fairly solid set of points now, some of which may be new to many people. I'll save it for after other people post, though, because a counterargument just isn't fun if you can't use it to shoot something down.

What I just want to know is, are there any serious reasons left to consider TMC anywhere other than first in the timeline? Particularly because the ending of the Japanese version calls it Link's FIRST adventure. I really think it would be stupid to try and interpret that as only talking about THAT Link, considering the implications throughout TMC. And really, they wouldn't need to put that there if that was true, it's pretty obvious that the Link in TMC hasn't been on any adventures yet. Nor has there been a sequel, or any intention for one... I can't imagine that was what they had in mind, since TMC was a prequel already. Since it talks about the many future threats to Hyrule, and Link always being the one to rise against them, its meaning obviously refers to the entire series. The light force will echo "throughout the ages", that's not the lifetime of one Link. All the translation does is confirm that this echoing begins with the first Link on his first adventure.

And by serious reason, I mean major plot evidence, not minor references like Triumph Forks.

Edited by Impossible, 22 March 2008 - 10:52 PM.


#2 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 23 March 2008 - 02:49 AM

There is not enough information in TMC to connect it to any games other than FS/FSA. As the consequence, the only way we can know it's placement for sure is:

a) A developer tells us where it goes.
b) It is revealed FSA takes place before OoT.

Otherwise, you will always be left with two placements; before or after OoT.

Edited by jhurvid, 23 March 2008 - 06:44 AM.


#3 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 23 March 2008 - 02:51 PM

It may not connect to other games, but it doesn't need to in order to be first. There's enough evidence to determine where it belongs definitively just from what's in the game.

#4 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 23 March 2008 - 03:18 PM

It may not connect to other games, but it doesn't need to in order to be first. There's enough evidence to determine where it belongs definitively just from what's in the game.


Well, you know my opinion of visual parallels. I don't think they're reliable enough to be good timeline evidence.

#5 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 23 March 2008 - 03:48 PM

"Link's first adventure" is a visual parallel?

#6 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 23 March 2008 - 04:27 PM

"Link's first adventure" is a visual parallel?


Well, there's that one implication. I forgot about that, to be honest.

#7 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2008 - 06:27 PM

Because "Link's first adventure" doesn't refer to TMC Link as an individual or anything...

#8 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 23 March 2008 - 07:57 PM

It almost certainly doesn't refer to TMC Link alone, if you look at it in context, and from a developer's point of view. It's talking about how the light force "echoes throughout the ages", not for one person's life time. If you try to think about WHY they put "Link's first adventure" in there, it doesn't make sense at all for it to be talking only about that Link. That's not something Zelda games have ever referred to or pointed out before, and there's no reason why they would say it in that way. The Legend of Zelda isn't about one Link, it's about Link. The ending was clearly talking about the grand scheme of things, and the future of Hyrule. Besides, there was absolutely no indication of plans for a TMC sequel. It was made as a prequel to the FS series, there's no reason to continue from there. Especially when they had a complete trilogy, already giving the backstory they wanted to the Four Sword and Vaati.

Anyway, it fits perfectly with everything else in TMC which is along the same lines - that this Link is the first Link. He represents all Links. It's the first adventure of Link. (I wonder if that's also technically an acceptable translation... You can get both "Link's Adventure" and "Adventure of Link" out of "Link no Bouken", right?) That's why past heroes, such as the one we see, didn't wear hats. They weren't Link. Link receiving his hat is a story element which is given great significance. Again, you have to think about why they did that. (And it's not like Nintendo haven't told us.) There's more to the timeline than taking everything completely literally, when another meaning is obviously intended. Just because it CAN be interpreted differently, and you don't want to accept the implications because they contradict your theory, that doesn't nullify it as timeline evidence.

What I'm asking is, what good reason exists why any of this would be WRONG? You can argue over interpretation all you want, but there's nothing to stop TMC from being first. Everything in the story only makes it first, as does nearly everything outside of it.

#9 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2008 - 08:32 PM

It almost certainly doesn't refer to TMC Link alone, if you look at it in context, and from a developer's point of view. It's talking about how the light force "echoes throughout the ages", not for one person's life time. If you try to think about WHY they put "Link's first adventure" in there, it doesn't make sense at all for it to be talking only about that Link. That's not something Zelda games have ever referred to or pointed out before, and there's no reason why they would say it in that way. The Legend of Zelda isn't about one Link, it's about Link. The ending was clearly talking about the grand scheme of things, and the future of Hyrule. Besides, there was absolutely no indication of plans for a TMC sequel. It was made as a prequel to the FS series, there's no reason to continue from there. Especially when they had a complete trilogy, already giving the backstory they wanted to the Four Sword and Vaati.


Lol, assumptions based upon assumptions. The "Echoing throughout the ages" thing doesn't mean crap. Even if we assume it's something more than flavor text, it could simply be referring to the fact that TMC is the beginning of the Four Swords subseries, which could be anything from the beginning of the entire timeline, a Post-Great Sea Hyrulian History, or an entirely seperate reality from the main series. Besides, there were plans for a TMC sequel, it was called "FS DS". So your argument collapses.

Anyway, it fits perfectly with everything else in TMC which is along the same lines - that this Link is the first Link. He represents all Links. It's the first adventure of Link. (I wonder if that's also technically an acceptable translation... You can get both "Link's Adventure" and "Adventure of Link" out of "Link no Bouken", right?) That's why past heroes, such as the one we see, didn't wear hats. They weren't Link. Link receiving his hat is a story element which is given great significance. Again, you have to think about why they did that. (And it's not like Nintendo haven't told us.) There's more to the timeline than taking everything completely literally, when another meaning is obviously intended. Just because it CAN be interpreted differently, and you don't want to accept the implications because they contradict your theory, that doesn't nullify it as timeline evidence.


Funny how TMC Link wears Kokiri garb, which was started by OOT Link.

LOL TIME PARADOX.

You'll need more than the hat for evidence, that's been argued and debunked already by several people in several threads.

What I'm asking is, what good reason exists why any of this would be WRONG? You can argue over interpretation all you want, but there's nothing to stop TMC from being first. Everything in the story only makes it first, as does nearly everything outside of it.


What good reason exists for any of that to be TRUE? Your points don't hold up at all under even minimal amounts of analysis.

#10 Malu CLBS

Malu CLBS

    Novice

  • Members
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 23 March 2008 - 09:19 PM

Funny how TMC Link wears Kokiri garb, which was started by OOT Link.

LOL TIME PARADOX.


Yeah, I also think the Kokiri clothing to be more important than just the hat.

An important thing about having TMC before OoT is this: how do you explain that Hyrule wasn't a unified country around OoT Link's birth date, and in TMC the country looks like nothing has happened?

I don't really know where to place TMC, it's something I haven't thought of much, but I kinda hate to put it before OoT. Sure, it's not always going to be the first game in the timeline. Another game may be released and that is supposed to be before OoT, but I wouldn't like TMC to take that place. I also hate WW/PH post-placing, but it's the same case, I think. They're not going to be the last games (in the adult timeline, at least) forever. But of all things, I think I prefer WW/PH post-placing. As I said, I haven't thought of it much, but I will.

#11 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 March 2008 - 10:23 PM

I have to agree with Malu. Technical points aside, TMC doesn't even deserve the "first game" spot. It's just highly unfitting. It's like opening a love note with "I luve u frum the bottem hart"

#12 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 23 March 2008 - 10:52 PM

Lol, assumptions based upon assumptions. The "Echoing throughout the ages" thing doesn't mean crap. Even if we assume it's something more than flavor text, it could simply be referring to the fact that TMC is the beginning of the Four Swords subseries, which could be anything from the beginning of the entire timeline, a Post-Great Sea Hyrulian History, or an entirely seperate reality from the main series. Besides, there were plans for a TMC sequel, it was called "FS DS". So your argument collapses.


It's talking about the first adventure of LINK, not the first time Link used the Four Sword or something. It's talking about Link and Zelda in general, not just the ones in the FS series. What TMC's ending says makes NO SENSE if TMC is anywhere other than first. I'm sick of people who twist things just because they can be twisted. The people who wrote TMC's story would NOT have done all the things they did if they didn't mean to imply that TMC was the earliest game in the timeline. Especially in the ending. The combination of looking into the future, and calling it the "first" adventure, mean it logically must be talking about all Links and Zeldas, in the future of TMC.

And no, FS DS was never in development at any point, Aonuma stated that was a misunderstanding. Even if it ever existed, I would think it was more likely to be an FSA sequel.

Funny how TMC Link wears Kokiri garb, which was started by OOT Link.

LOL TIME PARADOX.

You'll need more than the hat for evidence, that's been argued and debunked already by several people in several threads.


OoT Link didn't "start" anything. Kokiri just wear green clothes. TP and TWW's Links wore green because of OoT's Link (or at least we assume that for TP Link), all the other Links just happen to wear the same thing. It's never explained as related to a hero in any other games.

Also, you're in no position to claim that the hat isn't evidence, because you obviously don't understand the hat argument at all. OoT has nothing to do with it. It's SYMBOLIC. That, and the ending, and the opening hero without a hat, are all blatantly obvious in showing that this is the beginning of the tradition. Nobody ever claimed that OoT Link wears a green hat because of TMC Link, and I'm sick of this straw man coming up every time the hat is discussed. Most Links in the series wear those clothes by sheer coincidence - it's just a tradition from our perspective. TMC's Link was the first in that tradition. (Why do you think we're deliberately shown a capless hero in the opening?) Any argument about OoT is completely irrelevant and does NOTHING to debunk this point. There's no way in which this point doesn't hold up, particularly as it's one that was stated by the translator of all the recent Zelda games. That means it's not a fan interpretation, it's something very real, regardless of whether or not you accept it.

An important thing about having TMC before OoT is this: how do you explain that Hyrule wasn't a unified country around OoT Link's birth date, and in TMC the country looks like nothing has happened?


Funnily enough, I'm going to say that THIS has been argued and debunked by many people.

1. There's no evidence that Hyrule was unified for the FIRST time prior to OoT. That doesn't make sense anyway. Wasn't Hyrule unified when the Goddesses created it? And doesn't the fact that Hyrule is said not to be unified anymore in AoL suggest that it's entirely possible for a unified country to break down? Hell, even real life tells us that (Civil War, anyone?). Hyrule stopped being unified because they had a war over the Triforce.

2. In the context of that line in OoT, the reason why Hyrule wasn't unified was because the Hylians, Gorons, Zoras and Gerudo were separated and fighting with each other. The king united them by allying the races. Do you see evidence of any of those races being a part of the kingdom of Hyrule in TMC? Maybe it's NOT unified in the sense OoT is saying. I think it's more likely that Hyrule was unified in the past and then the unity collapsed, though... Because the sages are each of a different race, and I'm pretty sure it's implied they're part of an ancient role in protecting the Triforce.

Arturo responded to this argument in more detail in his article, too. Which I suggest reading, if you haven't.

I also have a lot more than the hat for evidence. What I was asking was for any evidence to the contrary. I'm still waiting. "TMC just doesn't feel right first" isn't the kind of argument I'm looking for. That has significantly less weighting than the hat. TMC has many reasons to be first... It tells us about the origins of many things, and begins a tradition, and calls itself Link's FIRST adventure, which no other Zelda game does. I also think that evidence IN TMC means a lot more than evidence in other games would, anyway (not that there's any which makes TMC being first actually not work). Anything in other games, particularly before TMC's release, could be unintentional. We might be making a link that was never intended to be made, just for the sake of looking for anything resembling timeline evidence. I believe jhurvid talked about this quite a bit already in another topic.

I may as well make the point I've been waiting to now... In TMC, every human you meet is a Hylian. They all have the characteristic long ears of the race - they're drawn on the sprites much more clearly and undeniably than in any other 2D Zelda, in fact. Yes, they're called humans, but so are many people in TP, including Link, so I think we can assume that Hylians are human as well. Similarly, the Deku Tree in TWW says that the Koroks were once human, and Zelda in FSA says that Ganon was once human (in the SAME LINE where she says he was a Gerudo). The fact is that they're Hylians. After TP and after TWW, Hylians are far too scarce. I believe FSA, like ALttP, doesn't really have Hylian NPCs for the most part, so it would have to be further apart from TMC. TMC must be before those games.

I think you made the mistake of assuming I believed I'd made all the points I intended to... Do you want even more evidence? Because it is there, and it's all in TMC itself. Some of these may seem like small or debatable points... But there are a LOT of them, and they add up, and none of them can be entirely disproven. (Unlike, say, the argument that TMC's people aren't Hylian, or that Hyrule isn't unified until OoT.) You're looking at these points in isolation, as they are found one by one, the same way linearists used to look at the split timeline. Then, suddenly, the evidence is overwhelming and there's too much evidence to count, and the fact that the list has grown so large will catch up with you. You can only deny the most logical interpretation in so many cases, and you can only be so conservative about anything (like what is the first game) changing before the truth catches up with you. There isn't a better place with more evidence to put TMC.

Edited by Impossible, 24 March 2008 - 02:59 AM.


#13 Jumbie

Jumbie

    Language Freak

  • ZL Staff
  • 1,023 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 March 2008 - 08:12 AM

Impossible, I applaud every single word of you in this thread, because they just scream common sense and coincide completely with my understanding of evidence in TMC.

The hardliners denying it just don't get the point the developers were making with the "Link's first adventure" statement, although it's jumping right in our faces. The devs are never any more staightforward than that! It's simply a matter of common sense, as we all know.

The biggest mistake that literalists (here: those who deny the evidence on TMC's pre-OoT placement) make is that they simply refuse to imagine for a second what would be if TMC was confirmedly the first game. Please assume it was confirmed as truth - and then look at all the quotes pointing towards it: How could you still seriously claim those were a bad way to convey the developer's intention?
Now if you return to reality where TMC is not confirmed to be first, the evidence *still* point towards it being so. Perfect.

Yes, they're called humans, but so are many people in TP, including Link, so I think we can assume that Hylians are human as well. Similarly, the Deku Tree in TWW says that the Koroks were once human, and Zelda in FSA says that Ganon was once human (in the SAME LINE where she says he was a Gerudo). The fact is that they're Hylians. After TP and after TWW, Hylians are far too scarce.

Great point! :) It's about time people realized that Hylians, Sheikahs, Gerudos, Ordonians, Kakarikans etc. are all human races.

Do you want even more evidence? Because it is there, and it's all in TMC itself.

Yes please! Even though I suppose none of it will be new, it's always good to recall it.

#14 Malu CLBS

Malu CLBS

    Novice

  • Members
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 24 March 2008 - 09:21 AM

Do you want even more evidence? Because it is there, and it's all in TMC itself.

Yes please! Even though I suppose none of it will be new, it's always good to recall it.

Me too, please. I may have heard of them, but maybe that will help in making up my mind already. XD

#15 MikePetersSucks

MikePetersSucks

    Actual Japanese Person

  • ZL Staff
  • 4,174 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 March 2008 - 09:41 AM

It's talking about the first adventure of LINK, not the first time Link used the Four Sword or something. It's talking about Link and Zelda in general, not just the ones in the FS series. What TMC's ending says makes NO SENSE if TMC is anywhere other than first. I'm sick of people who twist things just because they can be twisted. The people who wrote TMC's story would NOT have done all the things they did if they didn't mean to imply that TMC was the earliest game in the timeline. Especially in the ending. The combination of looking into the future, and calling it the "first" adventure, mean it logically must be talking about all Links and Zeldas, in the future of TMC.


The Ending can make plenty of sense regardless of it's timeline placement. In my opinion, TMC being the beginning only introduces plot holes (and since I had TMC as first in my timeline for over a year, I know what I'm talk about) and frankly, it's not worth the trouble just for a couple of vague ass lines with barely any context whatso-fucking-ever.

And no, FS DS was never in development at any point, Aonuma stated that was a misunderstanding. Even if it ever existed, I would think it was more likely to be an FSA sequel.


It was never "in development", but there were plans for it on the drawing board. Can you fetch this Aonuma statement? Because I never heard this.

OoT Link didn't "start" anything. Kokiri just wear green clothes. TP and TWW's Links wore green because of OoT's Link (or at least we assume that for TP Link), all the other Links just happen to wear the same thing. It's never explained as related to a hero in any other games.


Oh please. You can't deny the OBVIOUS implication that the Kokiri thing was the start of the Link uniform. That's just silly.

Also, you're in no position to claim that the hat isn't evidence, because you obviously don't understand the hat argument at all. OoT has nothing to do with it. It's SYMBOLIC. That, and the ending, and the opening hero without a hat, are all blatantly obvious in showing that this is the beginning of the tradition. Nobody ever claimed that OoT Link wears a green hat because of TMC Link, and I'm sick of this straw man coming up every time the hat is discussed. Most Links in the series wear those clothes by sheer coincidence - it's just a tradition from our perspective. TMC's Link was the first in that tradition. (Why do you think we're deliberately shown a capless hero in the opening?) Any argument about OoT is completely irrelevant and does NOTHING to debunk this point. There's no way in which this point doesn't hold up, particularly as it's one that was stated by the translator of all the recent Zelda games. That means it's not a fan interpretation, it's something very real, regardless of whether or not you accept it.


I get the hat argument. I know it's symbolic. I don't give a shit, because OOT already explained where the hat came from. Two guys not wearing a hat is hardly much evidence for anything; the first hero even had a damned beard.

#16 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 24 March 2008 - 09:49 AM

To be honest, I think the evidence (no matter how small it was) was leading to a pre-OoT placement from the beginning. First, there was Aonuma's "FS is at the beginning of the timeline" comment. Even if FSA says otherwise, it was still an indication of preconceptual ideas about the timeline placement of the games. Then Capcom suggested that the Light Force was as old and ancient as the Triforce, which has an air of "beginnings of time" about it. And then of course there was TMC's ending, which was suspected of revealing the origins of Link and Zelda before Jumbie revealed the "first adventure" line.

As for the evidence that has been used to support a post-TWW placement, I can't help but find alternative reasons for each and every point. First there is the "Triumph Forks" reference which is clearly an easter egg, like the Oracles references surrounding it. Then there was the TWW-style graphics, which are easily put down to 2D graphics fitting the handheld consoles better. And then there are the TWW character references, which are easily put down to nostalgia (like the Oracles).

#17 Mourngriever

Mourngriever

    Novice

  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • Location:Bristol
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 March 2008 - 10:35 AM

There's evidence for it both before and after OOT. No one is going to give way either side. Live with each other's views. Those who think that the Kokiri's started the clothes tradition won't accept that TMC started the hat tradition and vice versa. There's also the whole unified country argument. Just accept each each other's placements because you won't get anywhere.

#18 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 24 March 2008 - 05:30 PM

The biggest mistake that literalists (here: those who deny the evidence on TMC's pre-OoT placement) make is that they simply refuse to imagine for a second what would be if TMC was confirmedly the first game. Please assume it was confirmed as truth - and then look at all the quotes pointing towards it: How could you still seriously claim those were a bad way to convey the developer's intention?
Now if you return to reality where TMC is not confirmed to be first, the evidence *still* point towards it being so. Perfect.


Yeah, this is often the problem with a lot of all but confirmed theories. The fact is, anyone would read TMC's ending (in any non-English speaking country) and think that means it's the first game, provided they know there are many Links. Anyone would read ALttP's box and think that means it's the first game, too.

A few minor points:

The Forest Picori figurine states that the Picori “delight in making humans happy by hiding helpful items and Rupees under grass and rocks all over the world.” This occurrence is something that would obviously take place before every other game.

Similarly, the Armos figurine tells us that they were “built by the Minish for the Wind Tribe long ago”.

Of course, these could be perceived to be totally irrelevant since they're not part of the main story, but they ARE given context (unlike Triumph Forks), and they fit with basically everything else in the game: A telling of Hyrule's history. As Bill Trinen said, delving into "Hylian lore".

Hyrule is very different to that seen in the other games. It's either a different part of Hyrule - my suggestion being to the east of OoT's, since Mt. Crenel = Death Mountain, or it's a rotation with a few things from other games we can't see and a few things (like the Minish Woods) that aren't in other games. The rotation works like this:
Attached File  Minish_Cap_Rotated.PNG   133.56K   17 downloads
A few things fit ALttP's map there... The swamp area could actually be the future Lost Woods. This might be unintentional, but the other story elements in TMC certainly aren't.
Edit: I'm an idiot for only just realising this, because I've looked at this map loads of times, but the Minish Woods might turn into the somewhat foresty southern area of ALttP's Hyrule (which isn't really in what we see of OoT's Hyrule), and then the desert would be to the west somewhere. Obviously Lake Hylia fits, so this might work better than I thought. The graveyard fits with ALttP, too. >_>

It's also significant because so many places have different names to in other games. Mt. Crenel only makes sense long before or long after other games, and considering FSA has Death Mountain again with no explanation, and considering all the other hints in the game to Hyrule's history, it corroborates nicely. I really do think it's necessary for a lot of time to pass between TMC and FSA, for the Hylians to disappear and for the common names of things to be adopted.

Also, basically any references to TWW are irrelevant, because even the game's director said that elements from other games were added long after they had created the world of TMC. And Flagship come up with the stories for the Capcom games (the Oracles had their scenarios planned before their gameplay), so it's a bit different to how Nintendo does it, right? TMC's director said "We created the world of the Minish Cap first, then chose characters to fit this world."

The Ending can make plenty of sense regardless of it's timeline placement. In my opinion, TMC being the beginning only introduces plot holes (and since I had TMC as first in my timeline for over a year, I know what I'm talk about) and frankly, it's not worth the trouble just for a couple of vague ass lines with barely any context whatso-fucking-ever.


...Barely any context? Seriously? What about the context of the ENTIRE GAME? What about the very final event of the entire game before the credits (which is all about emphasising the hat)? You can't say that a game's ENDING lacks context. Triumph Forks lack context. I can't think of ANY evidence for post-TWW that exists in the actual story of TMC, which is what I made this topic to hear. I know that the ending still makes sense to you with your timeline, but as Jumbie said, that's because you've reinterpreted from the perspective of your timeline. What I'm saying is that the logical conclusion is that TMC is first, particularly as there's a lot of evidence to fit it. So what are these plotholes? They would have to be something IN TMC, I hope. And no, Link's clothes aren't a plothole.

It was never "in development", but there were plans for it on the drawing board. Can you fetch this Aonuma statement? Because I never heard this.


Even if you were right, this says NOTHING about a TMC sequel, and only implied an FS sequel. And you're wrong.

Actually, the interview that I was talking about a DS Zelda and Four Swords, I was explaining that with Four Swords we worked with two screens, and because of the experience we had with working with two screens we could easily adapt a system like that with the DS and do different things with it. But I never said that we were actually developing Four Swords for the DS.


At least, I think that's what it's referring to, and in any case it proves that (very unfortunately, because he's right, it works PERFECTLY!) Four Swords DS never existed. I also read in another interview that what he meant was that the FSA team was working on it, and that was misunderstood. Also, right below that question, do you see the picture of the interviewer, Aonuma, and another person to the left of him? The guy on the left is translating for Aonuma. His name is Bill Trinen, and he said that TMC was a look into Hylian lore (something also implied by the game's director in another interview), and that it's "the story of how Link gets his cap". Wouldn't you assume that this information came from the higher-ups, considering how often he hears everything they say?

Oh please. You can't deny the OBVIOUS implication that the Kokiri thing was the start of the Link uniform. That's just silly.


You're denying obvious implications in TMC, too. The Kokiri thing isn't an in-game explanation as to why most Links wear the green tunic, and it's not the real life reason either. And even the Kokiri clothes arguably had to come from somewhere... No real significance was placed on the clothes in OoT, while it was in TMC. You seemed to be arguing this from a plot point of view, not an intent point of view, and if you're now changing to the latter, you also have to accept TMC's intent.

I get the hat argument. I know it's symbolic. I don't give a shit, because OOT already explained where the hat came from. Two guys not wearing a hat is hardly much evidence for anything; the first hero even had a damned beard.


All this suggests is that you claim to understand, because your last two sentences are a non-sequitur from your first two. OoT didn't "explain where the hat came from", and even if it did, TMC has replaced it in that. OoT explained where the hat that three Links wear came from in STORY terms, that's unrelated to the symbolism in TMC. You're speaking on two different levels that don't really relate to each other here. TMC's Link was the first hero to wear a hat, that's the point being made.

Edited by Impossible, 24 March 2008 - 05:33 PM.


#19 SOAP

SOAP

    So Oo Ap Puh

  • Members
  • 7,750 posts
  • Location:Savannah, GA Hell Yeah!
  • Gender:Male
  • World

Posted 24 March 2008 - 09:52 PM

You guys are over thinking this way too much. I'm pretty sure the creators stated once in an interview that you could see it as the origin of Link's trademark hat. Other that, there's probably not any evidence stronger than that. I think in the minds of creators TMC does indeed come first but it has nothing to do with Triforce/Ganon arc so it's placement doesn't seriously affect the overall storyline either way. It's one of those things you either take it or leave it. Personally I think the creators placed TMC first in the series to place Vaati and the Four Sword's origins far into Hyrule's antiquity. After all, the Light Force arc is supposed to be very, very old legend. You can't get any older than predating Ganondorf, the series's oldest recurring villian.

#20 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 24 March 2008 - 10:49 PM

I just want to hear these supposed contradictions. I can think of plenty in a post-TWW placement, both in other games and in TMC itself - like the people being Hylian. I can't think of anything that makes TMC being first impossible.

Also, I stumbled upon something weird. I always assumed that our Quote FAQ for TMC was based on the US version of the game. But I just started replaying my US copy, and there are some definite differences in wording. Even Vaati's dialogue that I posted in the translation topic is different, although no more enlightening (it just flows better). We only have the script for the European version, while my version matches the US text dump. So not only do we need a Japanese text dump for TMC, we need a US Quote FAQ/script. Also, the Quote FAQ we have leaves out lots of NPC dialogue that could be useful, a more complete script would be better anyway.

#21 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 25 March 2008 - 07:37 AM

People prefer to place TMC directly before FS for the same reason that people prefer to place FSA directly before ALTTP; better continuity. For the people who see FSA as the bridge between TWW and ALTTP, placing TMC at the beginning of the timeline doesn't make sense when you have to factor a flood into the continuity.

Convince people that FSA is not a bridge between TWW and ALTTP, and you can better convince people that TMC takes place at the beginning of the timeline.

Edited by jhurvid, 25 March 2008 - 07:41 AM.


#22 Showsni

Showsni

    The Fallen

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

Posted 25 March 2008 - 03:20 PM

A few minor points:

The Forest Picori figurine states that the Picori “delight in making humans happy by hiding helpful items and Rupees under grass and rocks all over the world.” This occurrence is something that would obviously take place before every other game.

Similarly, the Armos figurine tells us that they were “built by the Minish for the Wind Tribe long ago”.


These both occur long before TMC too, though; there's nothing to stop games in between these events and TMC. Besides, there are multiple Armos origins; LoZ Armos, for instance, are soldiers who have been magically turned to stone.


It's also significant because so many places have different names to in other games. Mt. Crenel only makes sense long before or long after other games, and considering FSA has Death Mountain again with no explanation, and considering all the other hints in the game to Hyrule's history, it corroborates nicely. I really do think it's necessary for a lot of time to pass between TMC and FSA, for the Hylians to disappear and for the common names of things to be adopted.


Remember Death Mountain is called Hebra Mountain in ALttP, with no explanation. So is ALttP long before or after the other games too?

Just because person A wears a hat, doesn't mean his reincarnations will have one. Clothing arguments only make sense in TWW (when they're specifically based on the Hero's clothes) and TP.

I don't know if there's anything that contradicts a first place TMC, but I just don't like the feel of it; LoZ, AoL and ALttP feel more authentically older to me. They don't have VR machines...


#23 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 25 March 2008 - 04:13 PM

These both occur long before TMC too, though; there's nothing to stop games in between these events and TMC. Besides, there are multiple Armos origins; LoZ Armos, for instance, are soldiers who have been magically turned to stone.


This is a good point. Just because a game references events from the beginning of time, doesn't mean that the game itself takes place at the beginning of time.

Just because person A wears a hat, doesn't mean his reincarnations will have one. Clothing arguments only make sense in TWW (when they're specifically based on the Hero's clothes) and TP.


As has already been said, the hat in TMC is just a symbolic beginning; not a literal beginning that realistically passes on the hat from one generation to the next. There are three Zelda games in which Link begins without a hat; TMC, TWW and TP. TWW Link and TP Link get their hats from the legacy of the Hero of Time, whereas TMC Link is given his hat as the result of his own heroic deeds. After Link is given his hat, we are then brought to the ending which refers to Link's "first adventure". Maybe this is just an inference, but the fact that so many people saw it, including the translators, suggests a possible deliberate implication.

#24 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 25 March 2008 - 06:33 PM

These both occur long before TMC too, though; there's nothing to stop games in between these events and TMC.


This is kind of difficult to explain, but let me try and make it clear... What those figurines mean is that not only were Picori/Minish a part of the original Hyrule (having presumably done those things there), but knowledge of them existed. Hylians first knew of the Picori when they came and gave a hero the light force. That still has to predate everything else. And the "better continuity" argument is nonsense when you consider the Hylians in TMC. You're right that putting TMC before the flood and FSA after the flood makes no sense, I couldn't agree more. But it makes even LESS sense to put the IW before the flood and ALttP after that, and there's no possible reason why that should be the case. So that's not a valid argument if you're really still suggesting that timeline (which there's NO OTHER REASON to ague).

There's also no way in which FSA provides a link between TWW and ALttP. The only possible suggestion of that is that the map is an island, but that's been shot down before. If FSA is on an island, so is ALttP. If ALttP's Hyrule can actually be surrounded by water, so can OoT. Nothing prevents Hyrule from having ocean outside what we see. It kind of makes sense, too, if you consider that Link goes on his quest after ALttP via boat (at least, we have to make that assumption), and he leaves at the end of the Oracles to return to Hyrule by boat. Hyrule was probably always a continent like that, aside from some border regions which aren't even shown in FSA.

If anything, FSA only destroys the possibility of OoT being the IW even more, because it's got a new Ganondorf. Why would you even want to put those games on the Adult timeline? FSA starts up a whole new Ganon who appears in ALttP, there's no link to OoT there. Besides, FSA has Knights of Hyrule, who shouldn't exist so many years and a complete apocalypse after the IW, where they were wiped out. In fact, nothing fits at all with that destruction of Hyrule in mind. The legend of the IW somehow completely changed itself? Hylian history magically became known to everyone again? Hyrule somehow became almost the same as the original one, with the same place names? Yep, really believable, lots of evidence for that...

(Also, it figures that it would be impossible to just have a topic without arguing about that.)

Remember Death Mountain is called Hebra Mountain in ALttP, with no explanation. So is ALttP long before or after the other games too?


Use some common sense, really. It was called a different name in the Japanese version depending on whether it was in the Light and Dark World, because this was the first game that even showed Hyrule in a fully developed form. Death Mountain is the ENGLISH name of Hebra Mountain, and it was later adopted (in real life) as the only name for that mountain. According to Zethar-II in the ALttP manual translation, the map in the Japanese manual also gives Death Mountain as a secondary name for Hebra Mountain. You can't really rely on Japanese names of places when we're speaking in English.

As has already been said, the hat in TMC is just a symbolic beginning; not a literal beginning that realistically passes on the hat from one generation to the next. There are three Zelda games in which Link begins without a hat; TMC, TWW and TP. TWW Link and TP Link get their hats from the legacy of the Hero of Time, whereas TMC Link is given his hat as the result of his own heroic deeds. After Link is given his hat, we are then brought to the ending which refers to Link's "first adventure". Maybe this is just an inference, but the fact that so many people saw it, including the translators, suggests a possible deliberate implication.


Somehow, though, to these people, Nintendo do things completely by accident. They write things for the sake of writing them, and have no clear purpose or reasoning in mind, intentionally making it so anyone can decide what the hell they're saying. Even though there's a clear meaning.

One thing I'm noticing early in TMC is that the Triforce is EVERYWHERE. Particularly all over Hyrule Castle. So it's not possible that the Triforce is unknown to them. It's certainly different to the Light Force, too.

Also, it's definitely implied that the threat in the backstory was just a bunch of monsters (the ones that were sealed in the chest, right?), not any single person or force.

Even though Jumbie posted in this topic, I completely forgot to ask him. >_< Am I correct that "the first adventure of Link" would also be a possible translation for the line in the ending?

Edited by Impossible, 25 March 2008 - 08:04 PM.


#25 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 25 March 2008 - 06:39 PM

Compared to OoT's rather obvious attempts to be the origin story for a variety of things, don't you think TMC is being way, way too vague? If it's meant to be the first game in the timeline, you'd think they'd try and be a bit more blatant about it.

I've never bought the idea that TMC has to be the first of anything other than the Four Sword saga. It all comes down to the hat thing, and frankly it's just another origin story for said hat. Does Link in OoT wear the hat because of a previous hero? No, he wears it because it's what a few of the Kokiri wear. What about Link in ALttP? Does he gain his outfit for any historical reason or anything? Nah, he bloody sleeps in the thing, it's just what he wears.

Besides, the 'Link's first adventure' line is a silly thing to base a whole theory on. Sure, it's THAT Link's first adventure, it has nothing to do with any later Link, because they're all seperate people. The only reason we assume it has any meaning is because many people here obsess about the timeline. Me, I didn't even bat an eyelid at the line when I played the game because I never really think about some overall 'timeline' when I'm playing the blasted things, because, hell, the designers sure don't.

Gah, what am I saying. People love to base their theories on a single throwaway line.

#26 Impossible

Impossible

    Mage

  • Members
  • 586 posts

Posted 25 March 2008 - 06:53 PM

You're right, TMC's Link is the only one who creates relevance to the hat as the hero's garb, by actually earning it in his role as the hero. Don't you think that's important?

The "Link's first adventure" line is definitely not the basis of the theory, considering we only found out about that recently. All it does is solidify the developer intentions. You didn't bat an eyelid at the line because it's not in the English version. It's also not a fucking throwaway line - IT'S THE FINAL TEXT IN THE GAME. It's a vital part of the plot. It comes immediately after Link is given his hat. I'm goddamn sick of people just ignoring there. There's only ONE THING the developers could LOGICALLY have meant, and people are turning it into other meanings just because they can.

Link is only a single character to the player, not eight different ones. That was a line targeted at the player.

None of this prevents TMC from being first, at all. Being sceptical isn't evidence. TMC still only has one placement that is heavily supported by evidence.

#27 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 25 March 2008 - 07:02 PM

Riiight...

Ne, I'll leave this one to the rest of you guys. Not touching this subject anymore even with a barge pole for now.

Honestly, what little good it does these days when I do make a post here. Oy oy oy~

#28 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 25 March 2008 - 07:23 PM

Let's put the ending line into the context of the developer beliefs. According to Capcom, the Four Swords games were never meant to connect to the main "Triforce" games. And then there is the suggestion that the myth of the game is as old as the Triforce. What this does is say "TMC is not an origins game, but it tells us a story that predates all the main stories."

#29 Fyxe

Fyxe

    hwhere is fyxckz adn her big boobs/>?

  • Members
  • 7,132 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 25 March 2008 - 07:52 PM

I would really, really love to see some of these quotes in context, because so far they're all hearsay to me. And considering I've seen a billion examples of people misinterpreting developer quotes, you'll forgive me if hearsay isn't quite enough for me to assume anything about TMC.

It should also be noted that the dates for when the quotes were made are vitally important. Plots can change to surprising degrees during the development process of a game.

#30 Raien

Raien

    Famicom

  • Members
  • 4,833 posts
  • Location:Luton
  • Gender:Male
  • United Kingdom

Posted 25 March 2008 - 08:53 PM

I just found the full interview excerpt regarding the Light Force and the Triforce, and I have to apologise for being wrong about both points I made.

Source: http://www.hiddentri...mcinterview.htm

First, Capcom only said that FS was not intended to connect to the "Triforce storyline"; they said nothing as to the intentions of TMC.

NP: This title is the third game in the Four Sword series. Did you plan it as a trilogy from the beginning?

HF: We did not think to develop a trilogy from the beginning. When we developed the first Four Swords game for GBA, we created a new Hyrule legend that said that a long time ago, evil Vaati brought crisis to Hyrule and people sealed that evil. We had some thought that we wanted to carry over that story into future titles some way.


Second, Capcom said that no one knew the connection between the Light Force legend and the Triforce legend, only saying that it was "very very old".

NP: In the prologue to this game, there are some hints that The Minish People brought a golden light into Hyrule. Does this relate to the Triforce legend?

HF: Golden light is a very, very old legend of Hyrule and nobody knows how it relates to the Triforce legend. It is still a big mystery whether it has some relationship with the Triforce, which is the most important element in the Legend of Zelda series.


Don't put it down to misinterpretation, Fyxe. Put it down to an atrocious memory. :P

Edited by jhurvid, 25 March 2008 - 08:55 PM.





Copyright © 2021 Your Company Name