Minish Cap After Adventure of Link?

[Zenox]

In the Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, the intro states that the picori gave the world a legendary sword and a golden light. It also says, that the hero (obviously Link) drove out the evil in the land using Courage and Wisdom.

In the Legend of Zelda, Link completes the Triforce of Wisdom, and in Adventure of Link, he acquires the Triforce of Courage. Could this mean that the hero that was spoken of in the Minish Cap was actually the Hero in Adventure of Link and the Legend of Zelda?

[ChargewithSword]

I don't think that is possible.

The sword in Aol is most obviously the Magic Sword which was acquired in LOZ, so that would scratch that idea.

Then there is the problem with the golden light, the Picori did not give the golden light, as it was present in the princess of the land, and although in Aol Link had used the Triforce to awaken the princess, he used Power and Wisdom only to defeat evil.

Then there comes the problem of the little paradox that exists with Ganon and FSA.

Honestly I don't think it's possible.

[basement24]

Then there comes the problem of not having the Picori exist back then (1987)

I don't think that really matters because none of the other events in any other game would matter since they didn't exist in 1987 either. They can always retcon stories or add back stories with games in the future. While I'm not sure about any of the other details because I haven't played MC, I can at least say that I don't think the 'real-world' calendar can come into play in any timeline discussion. :)

[MrMosley]

Well that sounds like a good theory to me. The thing is, the intro is talking about an event taking place way before MC. But the chances are slim that it was talking about AoL. In AoL, Link had possession of the Triforce of Power and Wisdom. He retrieved the Triforce of Courage from the Great Palace, and used the complete Triforce to wish for Zelda to be awakened. Considering that the BS of MC only says Wisdom and Courage, I doubt it is really talking about this event.

Plus, it just dosen't give enough information to be talking about AoL in my opinion. I am always a believer that if Nintendo wanted us to know something, they would just show it to us. There are a lot of things in the series that are pretty clear, and of course some things that are not, such as the timeline. But them not clearly laying out the timeline for us is a smart thing for them to do really. They clearly aren't finished with the series, so any game they make can go in different places on the timeline. They have made many statements already in the past that people believe have been altered by other games, so really it just saves them trouble, give theorists something to talk about, and leaves the door open for them to make countless more games if they do not release a definite timeline.

[Skull_Kid]

In the Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, the intro states that the hero (obviously Link) ?

This is where you messed it all up, to start with...

The hero mentioned in the intro of MC, is called, in-game, Gustaf, the Hero of Men.
I am pretty sure that He is NOT Link.

Also, Myiamoto and Shigeru pretty much said that MC is the FIRST game in the Timeline, so, this totally contradicts your idea, wich was not bad, until you saw the details

[peanutjoepap]

Actually I had a similar idea because the magical sword could be the picori blade. It is a magic sword given to the hero by some random old guy (who could possibly be a minish that made himself human size like ezlo or vatti). And the golden light is the triforce of wisdom because it was in the princess until she hid it from Ganon.

[Zemen125]

In the Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, the intro states that the picori gave the world a legendary sword and a golden light. It also says, that the hero (obviously Link) drove out the evil in the land using Courage and Wisdom.

Actually, there is TONS of speculation on the hero in the BS of MC being Link or not. Many people believe that it is clearly NOT Link for the fact that he has no green hat. You can argue all you want that the green hat is not a big deal but if this recent game is supposed to be talking about a past game where Link has a hat then how hard would it have been to give the character in the BS a hat? That, right there already destroys this theory, IMO.

The BS also talks about the picori helping the HoM save the world. Regardless of whether AoL could be retconned, this would be a HUGE retcon. The BS of MC is basically giving all the credit to the picori for saving the world when in AoL Link was on his own. That would be a big stretch to make for a retcon.

Also, Link has never been referred to as the Hero of Men so what's the point of giving a Link from such an old game that name now without making it more clear that it actually is supposed to be that Link (or a Link at all)?

Skull Kid, I too once believed that Gustaf was the hero in the BS. It does not say that the hero of men is Gustaf but they are mentioned in the same BS so many people get confused over that.


In the Legend of Zelda, Link completes the Triforce of Wisdom, and in Adventure of Link, he acquires the Triforce of Courage. Could this mean that the hero that was spoken of in the Minish Cap was actually the Hero in Adventure of Link and the Legend of Zelda?

Miyamoto and Aounuma have said that they were "thinking" that FS is the oldest (first) game on the timeline. This was before MC and that would make MC the first game on the timeline seeing as how its a prequel. Whether or not they still believe those 2 games to be first has never been restated and a new statement on it has yet to be revealed. Still, there is plenty of evidence for MC to be first and in other places, but I have yet to see any reason why the game could be put after AoL. There would have to have been big technological changes and geographical changes in order for it to make sense and even then it's a stretch because the BS doesn't match up as nicely as you seem to think it does.

It's a well thought out theory, but I don't see it working so well.

[Erimgard]

The "with courage and wisdom" line is meaningless.
In Ocarina of Time, the Great Deku Tree tells Child Link to use his courage and wisdom to kill the parasite. I don't recall Child Link having two Triforce pieces ;)

[Zemen125]

We also have to keep in mind that AoL and LoZ don't really relate to the other games so well. I usually put those games at the end of the timeline or just before OoX. I really fail to see the evidence for AoL taking place before MC. That might cause problems in other areas too. That would make ALTTP after LoZ and AoL which is impossible because ALTTP says that Link is the predecessor of the Link in AoL/LoZ.

[sign of table]

That would make ALTTP after LoZ and AoL which is impossible because ALTTP says that Link is the predecessor of the Link in AoL/LoZ. Ugh... while I do place LoZ/AoL after LttP I wish people would stop using that ridiculously outdated box. I could easily just say that LoZ/AoL being after LttP is impossible because Miyamoto said in 1998, after the box was made, that it went LoZ/AoL-LttP.

[Zemen125]

Ugh... while I do place LoZ/AoL after LttP I wish people would stop using that ridiculously outdated box. I could easily just say that LoZ/AoL being after LttP is impossible because Miyamoto said in 1998, after the box was made, that it went LoZ/AoL-LttP.

And you're sure he wasn't referring to the order the games were created as opposed to a timeline?

[Smertios]

yes, he said the chronological order was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP and that LA could come anywhere...

[Zemen125]

yes, he said the chronological order was OoT-LoZ/AoL-LttP and that LA could come anywhere...

Maybe he was mistaken. Everyone always says "the creators have been wrong before"

They said that they believed FS to be the first game on the timeline (before MC came out) and they never once said that they don't believe that anymore but people still put in many other places other than first. Why should this be any different?

[Smertios]

Maybe he was mistaken. Everyone always says "the creators have been wrong before"

They said that they believed FS to be the first game on the timeline (before MC came out) and they never once said that they don't believe that anymore but people still put in many other places other than first. Why should this be any different?

Oh, i don't take what miyamoto or aonuma said about the timeline. Miyamoto only create the games and think of nice gameplay ideas. He is not in charge of writing the plot of the games. Plus he has always said he doesn't care about the timeline. Aonuma also doesn't write the script. He just directs it. They don't have to know exactly what the timeline is.

Miyamoto was under pressure when he said that. He just wanted to get rid of the interviewer questions about the timeline, because he didn't care about that...

[Zemen125]

Oh, i don't take what miyamoto or aonuma said about the timeline. Miyamoto only create the games and think of nice gameplay ideas. He is not in charge of writing the plot of the games. Plus he has always said he doesn't care about the timeline. Aonuma also doesn't write the script. He just directs it. They don't have to know exactly what the timeline is.

Miyamoto was under pressure when he said that. He just wanted to get rid of the interviewer questions about the timeline, because he didn't care about that...

Well then doesn't that make the quote about LoZ and AoL being before ALTTP completely irrelevant, according to what you're saying?

[Smertios]

Well then doesn't that make the quote about LoZ and AoL being before ALTTP completely irrelevant, according to what you're saying?

Well, kind of, that's why i don't take that quote as evidence for anything. It doesn't change the fact that he said it though...

[Erimgard]

The point isn't whether or not SoJ/Smertios believe that quote...the point is you can't use an outdated 1993 box any more than you can use an outdated 1998 director quote. Their both old, unsupported, and obsolete because of all the releases since then.

[Zemen125]

The point isn't whether or not SoJ/Smertios believe that quote...the point is you can't use an outdated 1993 box any more than you can use an outdated 1998 director quote. Their both old, unsupported, and obsolete because of all the releases since then.

Ah, but if the releases since then don't obviously and perfectly destroy the quote or the box, then they can still be taken into account. You can't throw it out if it's not obviously disbanded. If I tell you that my favorite color is yellow and ten years later you see me and i seem to be wearing nothing but red, that doesn't mean yellow isn't my favorite color anymore. Yes, it's evidence that it's not my favorite color anymore, but in essence, it doesn't prove anything because it's not 100% evidence.

Yes, the quotes were made a while ago and so was the box, but there is no 100% proof that the quotes are wrong which means you can't throw them away just because they are old.

Certain quotes, like WW being 100 years after OoT, can be ignored because in the game, itself, it says that WW takes place "hundreds" of years after OoT, not 100 years.

The fact that there is no proof that ALTTP doesn't go before LoZ/AoL means that the box saying Link is the predecessor of those Links could still be correct, whether or not it's an old, outdated box.

[basement24]

The point isn't whether or not SoJ/Smertios believe that quote...the point is you can't use an outdated 1993 box any more than you can use an outdated 1998 director quote. Their both old, unsupported, and obsolete because of all the releases since then.

I don't see why the box should be obselete just because it's old. By this definition, the game is just as obselete. It came out at the same time as the box did.

(Or at least I hope it did. It would make the most sense if it did!) :P

[Erimgard]

The game was re-released in 2002 ;)

Well clearly the box and quote can't be both correct since they are contradictary. And the only way for the quote to currently make sense is to assume that there is no direct progression from the Seal War to aLttP; that games separate them.

[Zemen125]

[QUOTE=Erimgard;55538]
Well clearly the box and quote can't be both correct since they are contradictary.

Well then I would go with the box, not the quote. I believe I said this earlier, the creators said WW was 100 years after OoT when the game even says that it takes place after OoT longer than that. If the game, manual, what have you says other than what the creators say, go with the game, because at the end of the day that's where all the information comes from.

[Erimgard]

the box, not the quote. I believe I said this earlier, the creators said WW was 100 years after OoT when the game even says that it takes place after OoT longer than that. If the game, manual, what have you says other than what the creators say, go with the game, because at the end of the day that's where all the information comes from.

There are no plurals in Japanese.
They meant hundreds and the translator assumed "one hundred". That was not the error of the directors.

Also, a translator claimed that Aonuma said Twilight Princess is "a hundred and something years after Ocarina of Time". Jacensolo06 of the LegendsAlliance forums re-translated it and it's actually several hundred years after.

The issue was that the root word was "hundred" with the phrase "several years" attached to it. The translator assumed "a hundred and several years", but it was supposed to be "several hundred years".

You can't discredit everything Miyamoto and Aonuma have ever said just because Japanese doesn't translate into English very easily when it comes to plurals.

[Zemen125]

There are no plurals in Japanese.
They meant hundreds and the translator assumed "one hundred". That was not the error of the directors.

Also, a translator claimed that Aonuma said Twilight Princess is "a hundred and something years after Ocarina of Time". Jacensolo06 of the LegendsAlliance forums re-translated it and it's actually several hundred years after.

The issue was that the root word was "hundred" with the phrase "several years" attached to it. The translator assumed "a hundred and several years", but it was supposed to be "several hundred years".

You can't discredit everything Miyamoto and Aonuma have ever said just because Japanese doesn't translate into English very easily when it comes to plurals.

I'm pretty sure there is an interview with Aounuma or Miyamoto saying that the execution of Ganondorf in TP took place several years after OoT and the actual events of TP take place 100 years after that execution. That would EXACTLY be a hundred and several years.

[sign of table]

[quote] Aonuma: The Wind Waker is parallel. In Ocarina of Time, Link flew seven years in time, he beat Ganon and went back to being a kid, remember? Twilight Princess takes place in the world of Ocarina of Time, a hundred and something years after the peace returned to kid Link’s time. In the last scene of Ocarina of Time, kids Link and Zelda have a little talk, and as a consequence of that talk, their relationship with Ganon takes a whole new direction. In the middle of this game [Twilight Princess], there's a scene showing Ganon's execution. It was decided that Ganon be executed because he'd do something outrageous if they left him be. That scene takes place several years after Ocarina of Time. Ganon was sent to another world and now he wants to obtain the power... [quote] That's the one you're referring to? That's the one that Jacensolo retranslated to several hundreds of years, IIRC...

[Erimgard]

SoJ is correct. That is the quote that Jacensolo re-translated...
Although with better quote tags :P

[LinksDarkSecret]

Then there comes the problem of the little paradox that exists with Ganon and FSA.

My timeline theory suggests that Vaati was sent back in time at the end of MC.
This is supported because the FS/FSA bs vaati was a wind mage, not a dark wizard. Also, there is evidence that MC takes place several years after Hyrule was founded.

[Zemen125]

My timeline theory suggests that Vaati was sent back in time at the end of MC.
This is supported because the FS/FSA bs vaati was a wind mage, not a dark wizard. Also, there is evidence that MC takes place several years after Hyrule was founded.

How does Vaati being sent back in time make any sense? There is absolutely no in game evidence for this at all. We clearly see Vaati get sealed away at the end of MC...

[Evenstevenp]

The hero in the backstory of Minish Cap is named Gustoff. So, impossible.

[Zemen125]

The hero in the backstory of Minish Cap is named Gustoff. So, impossible.

It's actually HIGHLY debated whether or not the hero in the BS of MC is Gustoff. The BS never actually straight up says that the Hero of Men IS Gustoff. We just hear the two names used closely together in the BS so that is what gives us the idea that they are one in the same, but whether or not it is Gustoff or Link still leaves us with the fact that the previous hero did not wear a green hat (and that is a staple of Link) and the lack of the green hat on the hero of the BS is very symbolic and supposed to mean something (that's what I think anyway).

[Erimgard]

MC NEVER implies that Gustaf is the hero of men. Ever. in any way.

[Zemen125]

MC NEVER implies that Gustaf is the hero of men. Ever. in any way.

Actually it does..very much so..

it talks about how the hero of men got the piccori blade and then later in the game, king gustoff shows up to talk to Link and you get the vibe that he is talking to you as a hero. It makes you think that the reason he was ever a king is because he saved the world. Go replay MC and you will definitely see why people get confused by it. Doesn't the opening scene use Gustoff's name in the BS

If you do decide to replay to see if it gives off that vibe, don't go into it thinking you are already right. There is no point in going back to check it if you're not even gonna have an open mind.

It DOES give the vibe off that Gustoff is the hero of men. If it didn't, then no one would ever debate it. Regardless of it being Gustoff or not, there is plenty of other stuff that puts MC far before AoL.

[Erimgard]

it talks about how the hero of men got the piccori blade and then later in the game, king gustoff shows up to talk to Link and you get the vibe that he is talking to you as a hero. It makes you think that the reason he was ever a king is because he saved the world. Go replay MC and you will definitely see why people get confused by it. Doesn't the opening scene use Gustoff's name in the BS

I have played it. Very recently. And no, the backstory/opening scene never mentions Gustaf. Gustaf is just a former king of Hyrule. If that makes him "implied" to be a Hero then I guess Daphnes is the Hero of Hyrule too.

If you can show me anything in the game that implies it, then I'll be happy to listen to you. As far as I can tell though, the only reason anyone thinks he is the Hero of Men is because Gametrailers says he was.

[Zemen125]

I have played it. Very recently. And no, the backstory/opening scene never mentions Gustaf. Gustaf is just a former king of Hyrule. If that makes him "implied" to be a Hero then I guess Daphnes is the Hero of Hyrule too.

If you can show me anything in the game that implies it, then I'll be happy to listen to you. As far as I can tell though, the only reason anyone thinks he is the Hero of Men is because Gametrailers says he was.

I personally don't and never really have thought that the hero of men was Gustaf. The reason anyone would get that idea is because the BS of the game talks about the hero of men and then later on in the game you talk to the ghost of a past king (Gustaf). This is why people think Gustaf is the hero of men. This ghost king was never spoken of anywhere in the game (other than when you see him), so why would they introduce some random, past king if he wasn't mentioned before. Oh wait, maybe he was mentioned. Maybe he's the hero of men who was made king after he saved the world. It's not entirely crazy. Just because you don't think it's possible doesn't make you right. That's your opinion so stop acting like you're right no matter what.

[Erimgard]

I personally don't and never really have thought that the hero of men was Gustaf. The reason anyone would get that idea is because the BS of the game talks about the hero of men and then later on in the game you talk to the ghost of a past king (Gustaf). This is why people think Gustaf is the hero of men. This ghost king was never spoken of anywhere in the game (other than when you see him), so why would they introduce some random, past king if he wasn't mentioned before. Oh wait, maybe he was mentioned. Maybe he's the hero of men who was made king after he saved the world. It's not entirely crazy. Just because you don't think it's possible doesn't make you right. That's your opinion so stop acting like you're right no matter what.

Did I say it was impossible? No.
I said noting implies it. Which is true. Nothing links him to the hero. All we know is that he is a former king and Zelda is his descendant.

[Zemen125]

Did I say it was impossible? No.
I said noting implies it. Which is true. Nothing links him to the hero. All we know is that he is a former king and Zelda is his descendant.

Saying that nothing implies it is basically the same as saying that it's impossible. Why would some random past king show himself to Link? This king had absolutely no significance to any plot in the game other than the fact that he's there. It makes sense that he would be a previous hero. I'm not saying that's what I believe, I'm just saying that's something that could be confusing.

[Erimgard]

Saying that nothing implies it is basically the same as saying that it's impossible. Why would some random past king show himself to Link? This king had absolutely no significance to any plot in the game other than the fact that he's there. It makes sense that he would be a previous hero. I'm not saying that's what I believe, I'm just saying that's something that could be confusing.

The same is true of Daphnes. He was a random king not mentioned in any other game... yet he showed up to help Link.

Or how about Mutoh, King of the Cobble Tribe? He's never mentioned in any other game, yet he showed up to help Link.

It's not uncommon in Zelda at ALL for a dead king to help a hero. It's not indication that the king was a hero. Does anyone call Mutoh and Daphnes former Chosen Heroes?

[Zemen125]

The same is true of Daphnes. He was a random king not mentioned in any other game... yet he showed up to help Link.

Or how about Mutoh, King of the Cobble Tribe? He's never mentioned in any other game, yet he showed up to help Link.

It's not uncommon in Zelda at ALL for a dead king to help a hero. It's not indication that the king was a hero. Does anyone call Mutoh and Daphnes former Chosen Heroes?

But the BS' to both of those games with those past kings doesn't talk about a nameless, previous hero. If they do, it's obvious that the previous hero talked about in those BS' is Link. MC has a BS that has absolutely no connection to any other game in the series. There is a nameless hero in the BS and a dead king who helps Link that is not mentioned anywhere previously in the game. Either it's a king that was possibly around during the time of the hero of men, or he could be the hero of men. You already know my stance on the subject and this is me having an open mind about it. Maybe you should stop being so close minded about the subject because it's REALLY annoying.

[Erimgard]

Ya know, Daphnes isn't the only random ghost who teaches you something. If just being a ghost qualifies you, then Swiftblade is MUCH more qualified you. He teaches you a sword move that supposedly only a Hero can learn. If only a Hero can learn it, why does Swiftblade know it? Hmmm.

So, other than "well...he's a ghost!" what, if any, indication is there that Gustaf is the Hero of Men. Being a ghost is not enough in of itself to imply you're a past hero.

[Zemen125]

Ya know, Daphnes isn't the only random ghost who teaches you something. If just being a ghost qualifies you, then Swiftblade is MUCH more qualified you. He teaches you a sword move that supposedly only a Hero can learn. If only a Hero can learn it, why does Swiftblade know it? Hmmm.

So, other than "well...he's a ghost!" what, if any, indication is there that Gustaf is the Hero of Men. Being a ghost is not enough in of itself to imply you're a past hero.

Wow, it's almost as if you didn't read my previous post at all. In the BS we have a nameless hero. He is apparently not Link as the BS is about an adventure that Link has yet to have a game for or be discussed having in any other game. We have a random, ancient King that is also not spoken of in any previous games or plot in MC. One could put the two pieces together and say "hey, a random, nameless hero in the BS and a random, ghost king that no one knows about. I wonder if they are the same person."

I think I'm done with this. It's quite obvious your gonna stay close minded about it and not even read what I write and I would prefer to stay on topic. Thanks, bye.

[Erimgard]

I'm not closed minded. I'm just waiting for proof. "We don't know who the last hero was and Gustaf is a ghost" is not proof.

There are lots of ghosts who randomly help you out. Doesn't make any of them the nameless hero.

[Zemen125]

I'm not closed minded. I'm just waiting for proof. "We don't know who the last hero was and Gustaf is a ghost" is not proof.

There are lots of ghosts who randomly help you out. Doesn't make any of them the nameless hero.

Once again, being close minded. Did I say it made him the hero? No, in fact I even mentioned multiple times I didn't believe he was. You wanted to know why people would ever think it was implied and I told you why and you just kept shoving it down my throat even though I was telling you exactly what you wanted to know. Seriously dude, read the posts before you start attacking people's opinions or when you attack someone who was TELLING YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED TO KNOW. All I told you was a possibility. Get over it.

[Erimgard]

I know it's a possibility. Everything is a possibility. This is just a possibliity that the game does not imply to be true. There are multiple ghost who help out Link. The only one who may be implied to have been the Hero is Swiftblade, and even that is shaky.

Gustaf just wants to see his beloved Kingdom get saved. Nothing about that is an implication of Hero status.

I am well aware that you don't believe he is the HoM. I just have yet to her anything implying that he is. Not saying it's impossible. Implying it's impossible. There's a big difference.

It's physically possible for me to climb a mountain. If I go take mountain climbing lessons, it's implied that I'm going to.

It's physically possible that Gustaf was the Hero. If the game actually gave us anything (other than "he's a ghost"...there are lots of ghosts in MC) to show that he was, then it would be implied. But they don't, and it's not.