At Last, My Timeline

[basement24]

I also wondered if Twinrova were just followers of Ganon, and were only interested in whatever body he was inhabbiting at the time. The only problem is some of the quotes in OoT say they are surrogate mothers to GanonDORF, and not Ganon.

Although I like DarkLink01's theory about placing Ganon in Ganondorf, it might not work based on the text Navi delivers when asking for more details on each witch. Perhaps they became Ganondorf's surrogate mothers when they discovered that Ganon's spirit was trapped within this man, and not the other way around?

So, it could be that they are followers of Ganon, hence the need to revive him past OoT, but for OoT's intents and purposes, they were just interested in the vessel that carried their chosen god.

It could also simply be that in OoT, they didn't want to acknowledge anything about Ganon until his transformation at the end of the game, and therefore referred to Twinrova as GanonDORF's surrogate mothers just so the name Ganon wasn't used as of yet.

 

[Hayzer]

All the answers aren't there. There are a lot of things that don't make sense about the timeline because there are a lot of plotholes. What my suggestion would be is that after Ganondorf lost his piece of the Triforce at the end of TP, that the other two pieces went back and became one unit as well. Link didn't need the Triforce of Courage anymore, and Zelda didn't need the Triforce of Wisdom. So it could make sense that the Triforce just went back to its one single unit after that.

The only problem with this is that it's all speculation, which usually never turns out to be canon.

It is strongly implied that Link has the ToP and ToW during this game, as he is shown with all three pieces, the complete Triforce, at the end after getting the ToC. Ganon sure doesn't have the ToP during this game because he is dead.

Sorry, must've missed that detail. I knew all three pieces were in the game, I just didn't know who exactly had them. I couldn't find the info anywhere.

What events would those be? Ganon wasn't even in AoL. Again, he was dead. The whole point of the monsters trying to hunt down and kill Link was to use his blood to revive Ganon. The fact that you have Ganon mysteriously living after AoL is inaccurate as well. There was never anything within FS or FSA that said Ganon was revived from a previous death. In fact, it talks about Ganondorf going and retrieving the Trident, not Ganon. It says that by obtaining the Trident, he became the King of Darkness/Implied as becoming the beast Ganon we see at the end of the game.

I thought we agreed that Ganon's reccurance was irrelevant, because game baddies always come back?

I see. So that reworks the theory a bit.

TP--FS/FSA--LoZ/AoL--OoX--ALttP/LA

But the flow is still smoother in the above order.

TP: Ganon loses ToP, Link has ToC, Zelda has ToW
FS/FSA: Power-starved, Ganondorf gets the trident/becomes Ganon, Triforce not mentioned
LoZ: Ganon gets ToP (BS), ToC in hiding (or at the Great Palace), Zelda breaks ToW, Link collects ToW
AoL: Link has ToW and ToP, and collects the ToC, Triforce is unified
ALttP: Ganon comes back, Triforce in Sacred Realm, stays there untouched.
LA: Triforce not mentioned

This is where we find problems. The OoX duo doesn't quite fit after because the Triforce is at the Castle and not in the Sacred Realm. It would make sense if it prequeled ALttP though. The United Triforce is in the castle at the end of AoL, correct? That sets us up for OoX. And then of course we can only speculate that the Triforce is returned to the Sacred Realm.

Besides that, if you consider a timeline in which ALttP is last (well, second to last [LA]), it makes a great ending for the timeline. The Master Sword is done, the Triforce is in the SR, Ganon is defeated and Link ventures off. A perfect ending to the series.

Triforce was never in Hyrule Castle during this game; It was in the Sacred Realm/Dark World.

Yeah, I got some of my details mixed up. I was thinking about OoX at the time. The same flow applies though.

 

[MrMosley]

Well, yeah bosses do mysteriously come back sometimes. But the majority, if not all of the time, they have a reason for coming back. Either they didn't die, or we find out that they were brought back by other means.

Like, lets look at your timeline idea here:

TP--FS/FSA--LoZ/AoL--OoX--ALttP/LA

Okay..The first three games are fine. Now when you go from FSA to LoZ, you are skipping over Ganon escaping from the Four Sword, which he was sealed in at the end of FSA. As much as I hate to use it as an example, I'll just say a lot of people use the Palace of the Four Sword in GBA ALttP as a ways of connecting to two. In the Palace, people argue that the Four Sword is broke. Of course, it is definitely not together, as it is in four separate swords which you have to piece together throughout the Palace. There isn't any text revealing that this is here because Ganon eventually escaped, but people like to use it as an example, and it definitely works better than there being nothing from FSA to LoZ explaining his escape.

Now, we come to AoL--OoX. It makes sense that the Triforce is one unit from the end of AoL to the beginning of OoX, I agree. But there is nothing that says it was put in the castle. Its just as easy to speculate the Triforce somehow going to the SR from AoL or OoX to ALttP as it is to say that it somehow went to Hyrule from ALttP to OoX or LoZ. None of it has any evidence and can only be speculated. But at the same time, neither way has any power over the other. They are both one in the same in the fact that the Triforce mysteriously goes from Hyrule to the SR or vice-versa. So, when this happens, you have to look to other evidence to support the idea. That is why I said its hard to base a timeline off the Triforce's position from game to game.

Besides that, if you consider a timeline in which ALttP is last (well, second to last [LA]), it makes a great ending for the timeline. The Master Sword is done, the Triforce is in the SR, Ganon is defeated and Link ventures off. A perfect ending to the series.

It would be a perfect ending. But just because all of that happens doesn't mean it has to come last. Now, of course there will be more games. There's also a very high likelihood that in the future, we will see games beyond ALttP that use the Master Sword. But as of right now, that quote at the end of the game has held true. No matter how you structure ALttP with LoZ, after ALttP, the MS has not been used again aside from a cameo in OoX. So that quote still holds up even if it isn't the last game of the series on the CT.

 

[Zemen]

I thought we agreed that Ganon's reccurance was irrelevant, because game baddies always come back?

Ganon being a recurring villain is VERY relevant. He is the only one that has games based on his resurrection. You can't just say that him coming back without explanation doesn't matter, because there are whole games based on him coming back.

TP--FS/FSA--LoZ/AoL--OoX--ALttP/LA

But the flow is still smoother in the above order.

TP: Ganon loses ToP, Link has ToC, Zelda has ToW
FS/FSA: Power-starved, Ganondorf gets the trident/becomes Ganon, Triforce not mentioned
LoZ: Ganon gets ToP (BS), ToC in hiding (or at the Great Palace), Zelda breaks ToW, Link collects ToW
AoL: Link has ToW and ToP, and collects the ToC, Triforce is unified
ALttP: Ganon comes back, Triforce in Sacred Realm, stays there untouched.
LA: Triforce not mentioned

Two problems with this. You have absolutely no explanation as to how Ganon escaped his seal of the Four Sword. The retconned ALTTP has the Four Sword palace in it. You can't say that it doesn't matter to it's timeline placement because it's an obvious connection to FSA. Why would it be there, with a split Four Sword and a freed Ganon and NOT come after a game in which Ganon was trapped in the Four Sword?

Also, the second problem is that you have an unexplained resurrection after AoL-OoX. AoL was all about Ganon's minions trying to kill Link to use his blood to bring Ganon back. They fail and then Twinrova would try again in OoX but create a half baked Ganon who is destroyed and then you have an unexplained resurrection by putting ALTTP after OoX.

A timeline based on the Triforce alone is a very ugly thing. Your timeline has two unexplained appearances by Ganon where as mine only has one. I think the living state of the characters in the game is a little more important than the state of the Triforce.

Besides that, if you consider a timeline in which ALttP is last (well, second to last [LA]), it makes a great ending for the timeline. The Master Sword is done, the Triforce is in the SR, Ganon is defeated and Link ventures off. A perfect ending to the series.

Like DarkLink said, this still holds true if you go by my timeline. LoZ and AoL certainly don't have the Master Sword in them and OoX only has a cameo of it. OoX also is made by a different company which could be an explanation of the cameo even though the Master Sword is supposed to rest forever. Either way, based on my timeline, it is not used after ALTTP. Just because that's supposed to be the last game it's used doesn't mean it has to be the last game period.

 

[Hayzer]

Ganon being a recurring villain is VERY relevant. He is the only one that has games based on his resurrection. You can't just say that him coming back without explanation doesn't matter, because there are whole games based on him coming back.



Two problems with this. You have absolutely no explanation as to how Ganon escaped his seal of the Four Sword. The retconned ALTTP has the Four Sword palace in it. You can't say that it doesn't matter to it's timeline placement because it's an obvious connection to FSA. Why would it be there, with a split Four Sword and a freed Ganon and NOT come after a game in which Ganon was trapped in the Four Sword?

Also, the second problem is that you have an unexplained resurrection after AoL-OoX. AoL was all about Ganon's minions trying to kill Link to use his blood to bring Ganon back. They fail and then Twinrova would try again in OoX but create a half baked Ganon who is destroyed and then you have an unexplained resurrection by putting ALTTP after OoX.

A timeline based on the Triforce alone is a very ugly thing. Your timeline has two unexplained appearances by Ganon where as mine only has one. I think the living state of the characters in the game is a little more important than the state of the Triforce.



Like DarkLink said, this still holds true if you go by my timeline. LoZ and AoL certainly don't have the Master Sword in them and OoX only has a cameo of it. OoX also is made by a different company which could be an explanation of the cameo even though the Master Sword is supposed to rest forever. Either way, based on my timeline, it is not used after ALTTP. Just because that's supposed to be the last game it's used doesn't mean it has to be the last game period.

Okay, I understand that part about ALttP, and I can see how basing the timeline off the Triforce is shakey, but Ganon/dorf has broken seals before. Who's to say that he didn't break out of the Four Sword before LoZ?

 

[MrMosley]

Okay, I understand that part about ALttP, and I can see how basing the timeline off the Triforce is shakey, but Ganon/dorf has broken seals before. Who's to say that he didn't break out of the Four Sword before LoZ?

There's no one to say it. But that's just the problem. There's nothing linking FSA to LoZ as far as Ganon being sealed and escaping. However, when you look at FSA leading into ALttP, you get:

*Palace of the Four Sword in GBA ALttP w/ the (apparently) broken Four Sword.

*FSA in-game text referencing Ganondorf obtaining the Trident from the Pyramid. Again, this leads to ALttP because Ganon has the Trident.

*To take a page out of your own book, the Triforce has to be in the SR during FSA, since no one in Hyrule knows of its whereabouts. In ALttP, it is still in the SR, while in LoZ, its mysteriously in Hyrule.

Not to mention the general overworld design of FSA being identical in style, almost identical in layout, to ALttP.

 

[Hayzer]

There's no one to say it. But that's just the problem. There's nothing linking FSA to LoZ as far as Ganon being sealed and escaping. However, when you look at FSA leading into ALttP, you get:

*Palace of the Four Sword in GBA ALttP w/ the (apparently) broken Four Sword.

*FSA in-game text referencing Ganondorf obtaining the Trident from the Pyramid. Again, this leads to ALttP because Ganon has the Trident.

*To take a page out of your own book, the Triforce has to be in the SR during FSA, since no one in Hyrule knows of its whereabouts. In ALttP, it is still in the SR, while in LoZ, its mysteriously in Hyrule.

Not to mention the general overworld design of FSA being identical in style, almost identical in layout, to ALttP.

Ah, much clearer. And I'm tired of arguing about the Miyamoto Timeline stuff. I'm done.

 

[sign of table]

If you want an article with a lot of proof for the OPs timeline read Impossible's ridiculously huge (200 pages in Word........) timeline document that supports that very timeline. It's quite thorough.

MC first because the lack of a hat in both the hero in the BS and Link seems too coincidental to not be significant.

Ehh, it may mean something, it may not. I'm hesitant on basing a major part of my timeline on something that has just as much chance of being nothing as it does of being significant.

There is no mention or hint of Ganon/dorf who is supposed to be the biggest threat to Hyrule.

Supposed to be? Clearly there can be more villains than Ganondorf (as shown in TMC, FS, and FSA). The games do not rely on the existance of Ganondorf.

Only Hyrule based game to not feature him in any sort of way.

Funny how Hyrule was named after the Hylians, yet the word "Hylian" is not ever mentioned once. You'd think that since it's, you know, Hyrule's origins (or closest game to it) it would contain the word Hylian as the country was named after it...

I believe the hero in the BS is not a previous Link of any kind. Link is always chosen by the Goddesses or by fate.

Just to nitpick P), can I have some proof that Link is ALWAYS chosen by the goddesses?

This is obvious. ST was stated by the developers to take place 100 years after PH. PH is an obvious sequel to WW with the same main characters.

The only proof of this is a quote from someone who works at NoA... so... LOL NoA

Oh and the creator of the series says it goes LoZ-LttP. Pick-and-choose what matters based on your preset beliefs, much?

LoZ has Link defeating Ganon. AoL features the same Link so it has to be a direct sequel. In AoL, Ganon is still dead and his minions are trying to resurrect him by killing Link. They ultimately fail and Ganon stays dead. In OoX, Ganon is still dead and his minions are once again trying to resurrect him by different means. They partially succeed and a nearly brainless Ganon is born but quickly defeated.

This is where it gets a little sketchy, imo. I'd agree that OoX fits nicely after LoZ/AoL (I mean it flows pretty much perfectly), but I'm unsure of whether these two should go on the AT, or the CT.

It's been stated that LoZ "takes place after the events of OoT". Without applying any stupid semantics or taking the quote out of context, ALL of the events of OoT pretty much take place on the AT, anyway. The only events that take place on the CT is possibly (key word: possibly) the first 3 dungeons as a kid (although I'd say only the first one), and only possibly the very ending of the game (which I don't believe is fully part of the CT, either).

I'd respond to more, but I'm really tired and need to get to bed.

 

[Zemen]

Let's try to stray away from posts regarding the placement of OoX and MC. I'm going to respond to posts on them just because it will keep this thread going but after that I would like it to stop because there are plenty of threads on the forums that discuss just those 2 games specifically.

Ehh, it may mean something, it may not. I'm hesitant on basing a major part of my timeline on something that has just as much chance of being nothing as it does of being significant.

If it has no significance then why make it apart of the game at all? Why not call the game "Minish Rod" instead so that there is no hat confusion? They obviously had a reason for making the hat so significant. The hero in the BS has no hat and has seemingly no relation to any Link or story relating to any Link. Then, Link starts out with no hat. Then we meet a minish wizard who happens to be a hat. And at the end of the game he gives you hat. Sounds like they focused a lot on the whole hat thing.

Supposed to be? Clearly there can be more villains than Ganondorf (as shown in TMC, FS, and FSA). The games do not rely on the existance of Ganondorf.

It's funny how you always seem to miss the point when you use this example. Ganon/dorf has been in every Hyrule based game except MC. The evidence isn't supposed to focus on Ganon so much as the fact that he's not in Hyrule or mentioned to be in Hyrule. Also, he is in FSA and the main antagonist so you failed by putting that with the other games in parenthesis. Why would this game randomly be the only Hyrule based game without Ganon being mentioned. Don't focus on him not being in the game so much as him not being in Hyrule at all or mentioned.

Funny how Hyrule was named after the Hylians, yet the word "Hylian" is not ever mentioned once. You'd think that since it's, you know, Hyrule's origins (or closest game to it) it would contain the word Hylian as the country was named after it...

I think the main antagonist to the series is a little more important than the characters being referred to as Hylians. The game takes place in Hyrule, one can assume that the people who live there are Hylians. It's something obvious that doesn't have to be mentioned, whereas if this game took place after a time when Ganon/dorf was around, that's not obvious because there is no evidence at all of his previous existence.

Just to nitpick P), can I have some proof that Link is ALWAYS chosen by the goddesses?

There are a few things that HIGHLY imply that he is always chosen.

Either the ToC chooses him (which was created by the goddesses so that is a divine choice).

He is childhood friends with Zelda (who has the ToW which means that fate brought them together).

A family member works for the royal family which indirectly links him to the royal family (which again means that fate brought them together).

As far as we know, the Hero of Men in the BS of MC has absolutely no connection to the royal family or Zelda or the Triforce. As far as we know he was just some random guy that the minish gave a sword to. As far as we know he has no connection to the Triforce in any way and until a game comes out and disproves that, it's truth. Without any game saying otherwise, the only thing we can assume is he is a randomly chosen hero.

The only proof of this is a quote from someone who works at NoA... so... LOL NoA

Oh and the creator of the series says it goes LoZ-LttP. Pick-and-choose what matters based on your preset beliefs, much?

That quote was made right at the beginning of timeline theorizing. When there were only 4 games to place. Now that the timeline is much more detailed and theorized upon and so many more people pay attention to it, I'm sure they pay more attention to what they say when referring to the timeline as opposed to sloppy quotes stated when the timeline was still young.

This is where it gets a little sketchy, imo. I'd agree that OoX fits nicely after LoZ/AoL (I mean it flows pretty much perfectly), but I'm unsure of whether these two should go on the AT, or the CT.

Well, if OoX connects as it should, it can only go on the CT as that is the only timeline that Koume and Kotake (Twinrova) are still alive. They would be dead on the AT and there is no evidence of new ones being born or them being resurrected and it would make no sense for new ones being born because then they would have almost no reason to try and bring Ganon back. There reason for bringing him back if they are the same one is because they are his mothers.

 

[sign of table]

If it has no significance then why make it apart of the game at all?

That's terrible logic. Not everything has significance in the long run. It's called adding depth and details to a story. Some mean nothing, some mean a lot. For instance, I'm reading a John Grishom book atm, and he uses quite a bit of detail. Barely any of that detail actually matters, but it adds more depth to the story and makes it seem more real.

Just because one hero is without a hat doesn't mean that all heros before that didn't wear a hat.

Why not call the game "Minish Rod" instead so that there is no hat confusion?

Umm... you do know that the Minish Cap doesn't refer to the hat Link wears in TMC, right?

They obviously had a reason for making the hat so significant.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was just an extra detail to give the story more depth.

The hero in the BS has no hat and has seemingly no relation to any Link or story relating to any Link.

And?

Then, Link starts out with no hat.

And? TP Link doesn't start out with a hat IIRC.

Then we meet a minish wizard who happens to be a hat.

So?

And at the end of the game he gives you hat. Sounds like they focused a lot on the whole hat thing.

A lot of writers put some focus on things that don't mean anything. That usually gives an added feel of depth and detail.

The evidence isn't supposed to focus on Ganon so much as the fact that he's not in Hyrule or mentioned to be in Hyrule.

Because he's not relevant at all. This game is about Vaati, not Ganon.

Oh and Ganon appears in FS which is a Hyrule game.

Also, he is in FSA and the main antagonist so you failed by putting that with the other games in parenthesis.

Way to not read my post. I said that there can be other villains. And there IS another villain in FSA. Yes, there is Ganon in FSA, but there is also Vaati, which is a different villain.

Why would this game randomly be the only Hyrule based game without Ganon being mentioned.

You mean the second game, right? Maybe because, idk, HE ISN'T RELEVANT AT ALL AND THE EXISTANCE OF HYRULE DOES NOT DEPEND ON IT?

Don't focus on him not being in the game so much as him not being in Hyrule at all or mentioned.

Both of those statements mean the exact same thing...

I think the main antagonist to the series

Clearly there's more than one antagonist.

The game takes place in Hyrule, one can assume that the people who live there are Hylians.

Except they never use the word Hylian and REPLACE every single time when Hylian would be used with Human.

It's something obvious that doesn't have to be mentioned, whereas if this game took place after a time when Ganon/dorf was around, that's not obvious because there is no evidence at all of his previous existence.

So you're saying that humans are the same as Hylians? We know that humans exist in TMC, but there is NOTHING that says Hylians do.

" whereas if this game took place after a time when Ganon/dorf was around, that's not obvious because there is no evidence at all of his previous existence." Why hello thar, Argument from Ignorance.

Either the ToC chooses him (which was created by the goddesses so that is a divine choice).

Fair enough.

He is childhood friends with Zelda (who has the ToW which means that fate brought them together).

TMC, FS, and FSA says "Hi".

As far as we know, the Hero of Men in the BS of MC has absolutely no connection to the royal family or Zelda or the Triforce. As far as we know he was just some random guy that the minish gave a sword to. As far as we know he has no connection to the Triforce in any way and until a game comes out and disproves that, it's truth. Without any game saying otherwise, the only thing we can assume is he is a randomly chosen hero.

I wasn't denying that, but nothing truly implies that all of the heros are divinely chosen. Look at LoZ.

That quote was made right at the beginning of timeline theorizing. When there were only 4 games to place. Now that the timeline is much more detailed and theorized upon and so many more people pay attention to it, I'm sure they pay more attention to what they say when referring to the timeline as opposed to sloppy quotes stated when the timeline was still young.

Yeah I'm sure NoA pays a ton of attention to how the timeline goes----owait

Oh and let's not take early development quotes as end-all-be-all canon. Remember that when TP was being developed it was supposed to take place between OoT and TWW.

Well, if OoX connects as it should, it can only go on the CT as that is the only timeline that Koume and Kotake (Twinrova) are still alive. They would be dead on the AT and there is no evidence of new ones being born or them being resurrected and it would make no sense for new ones being born because then they would have almost no reason to try and bring Ganon back. There reason for bringing him back if they are the same one is because they are his mothers.

lolargumentfromignorance

 

[Zemen]

You literally failed to understand anything I said. Kind of sad, because a when you first started posting on this site you wouldn't have been nearly as rude about things you replied to. I used to like posting against you and now it's no longer enjoyable. Anyway, I'll get to your post now.

The title Minish Cap definitely refers to the hat Link wears because Link is wearing a cap (hat) that is a Minish wizard. OMG sounds like a Minish Cap to me.

By the way, your whole "maybe, maybe not" idea on the hat being significant or not is also an argument from ignorance, as is you saying that nothing truly implies that Link is also divinely chosen, so stop being a hypocrite by calling me out on it. At least I'm coming up with my own ideas other than criticizing everyone elses ideas. You used to come up with your own until recently.

Just because LoZ doesn't have a divine choosing of Link as a hero doesn't mean much to me. That game was made before the timeline was a twinkle in anyones eyes. It's not like they knew how far the series would go after that game. LoZ is a canon game, don't get me wrong, but I always looked at it as more of a pilot game.

Who cares if Ganon wasn't relevant to the game? In every Mario game, they somehow tie Bowser into the game. In the first Mario Superstar Saga game, Bowser was not at all important to the plot. There was a different antagonist and Bowser easily could have been left out of the game, but Bowser is the main antagonist to the series and a staple character and a constant threat so it makes sense that he would be in the game since he is always a threat. If Ganondorf was around, he would have been a threat. If he was ever around previously, he would have been a threat. You make it sound like because he's not apart of the plot then he can't have any mentioning whatsoever. The Triumph Forks have nothing to do with the plot of MC but they are mentioned in the game. You honestly think that mentioning Ganondorf never crossed their mind? You really think that the Triumph Forks seemed a more obvious easter egg to add than mentioning Ganondorf? It seems to me that they left his name completely out of the game for a reason. Stop using the "he's not relevant to the game excuse" because Easter Eggs don't need to be relevant and he's not even an easter egg to a game that you seem to think takes place after a time when he was dangerous. the ONLY Hyrule based game to not even have his name in a book. Sing a new tune.

I'm not replying to you anymore. You don't make it fun or interesting at all. All you do lately is criticize everyone's ideas without even coming up with your own.

Oh and I forgot to mention, one hero without a hat is insignificant, you're right. Too bad the game has 2 heroes without hats. The hero in the BS has not hat and Link starts out with no hat. It's a little different when comparing it to other games like TP because in TP he gets clothes that are called the heroes clothes. Same thing in WW. In any game that Link starts out without his green clothing, he recieves it and is told it was worn by a previous hero or is similar to that of a previous her. Not MC Link, though. When he gets his hat nothing is mentioned of any previous heroes wearing the hat. In fact, when the hat is addressed later on, it is only referred to as "suiting" for him and not as something that a previous hero has worn.

The point is, in TP he gets the hat and you are told that a previous hero wore it. In WW you get the hat and are told that legends say the hero of time wore similar clothes. You get the hat in MC and you are told that it suits you and nothing more.

 

[MrMosley]

Just because one hero is without a hat doesn't mean that all heros before that didn't wear a hat.

I agree that the hat thing is a weak example of MC being first. My reasoning is because a lot of people seem to assume that Link getting the hat, and that quote that Ezlo states at the end, means that all Links afterwards with the hat must have gotten that design from the legends in MC. Here's my arguement towards that:

* OoT/MM Link has that type of hat because he lives in the Kokiri Forest. That general tunic/hat design is based on what the Kokiri wear, not a previous legend.
* WW/PH, and TP Link gets his tunic/hat because that is the clothes of the hero from the legends (the Hero of Time), which of course wore those clothes because of my first example.

So really, the only games where Link has an explainable attire are ones that play off of OoT Link's tunic and hat, not MC's. And of course, it would be far-fetched to assume that the Kokiri were based off of MC's Link, or anyone in that game.

But the fact that Ganon is never mentioned or referenced is a bigger, more important example in my opinion. SoJ, you say that Ganon's absense is because he is not important to the storyline, and not by the fact that he doesn't yet exist. When we look at the other games where Ganon is never mentioned, such as PH, we know where he was by playing WW. You also have other titles that are direct sequels that we never hear about Ganon because we know already where he is by playing their prequel. FS is another game that doesn't mention Ganon in any way, and at the time of its release, it was stated to have been the first game. However, once its (IMO) direct sequel was released, FSA, we seen that Ganon was around.

Now whenever we seen that FS was apparently a direct prequel to FSA, and that FSA obviously came before ALttP as the previous generation, we knew that FS was no longer the first title. But when MC came out, it did the same thing as FS: Had Vaati as the main villain, did not reference Ganon at all. Seeing as how MC did the same thing as FS, and FS was originally the first, I think that's a pretty good indication in itself that MC is now the first game.

Umm... you do know that the Minish Cap doesn't refer to the hat Link wears in TMC, right?

Then what exactly does it refer to? Ezlo is a Minish who becomes a hat, which is the hat that Link wears. I thought that was pretty obvious, incase I missed something.

 

[Zemen]

So really, the only games where Link has an explainable attire are ones that play off of OoT Link's tunic and hat, not MC's. And of course, it would be far-fetched to assume that the Kokiri were based off of MC's Link, or anyone in that game.

I actually have come up with a theory that could explain why the kokiri have green hats and tunics just like MC Link. I have a thread on it that hasn't been posted on in some time, but nontheless there is a thread on it so I will keep the theory short.

Basically, the point of my theory is that we know that the Kokiri can change their forms. This is made obvious in WW with the Koroks. We are told by the GDT that the Koroks had previous (he may even have used the term human-like) forms. There is also the sage in the wind temple (I think it's that temple) who is a Kokiri and tells you to seek out his descendant, which ends up being a Korok. So we know from heavy implications, and obvious name similarities, that the Kokiri changed into the Koroks at some point in time. My theory is that before the Kokori were the Kokiri, they were the Piccori.

Here is why I think this.

*The majority of the Piccori seem to reside in the forest (that is where the king of them lives) and the Kokiri all live in the forest.

*The majority of them wear hats (that have the same design as Link's hat, just red) and green tunics.

*They only show themselves to children and the Kokiri are a society made up of children (except the GDT).

*In order to make yourself small in MC, the majority of the shrink portals, as I call them, are tree stumps and the Kokiri are watched over by a magical tree (GDT).

*Their race names are similar in succession.
Piccori
Kokiri
Korok

With all of that in mind, it's really not crazy to think that the Piccori became the Kokiri somehow. And since MC!Link was their hero, they could have based their Kokiri attire off of him. I know it's a bit of a stretch but there is some possible evidence for it, as I have stated.

Keep in mind that this is just a theory and I in no way intend to argue that this is canon. It's just an idea.

I also have a theory that Ezlo somehow becomes the GDT but that is much more of a stretch and irrelevant to why I brought up the previous theory.

Then what exactly does it refer to? Ezlo is a Minish who becomes a hat, which is the hat that Link wears. I thought that was pretty obvious, incase I missed something.

Exactly the point I made. I think he was referring to the hat you get at the end of the game after Ezlo becomes normal again, but still, it's obvious what the title of the game is referring to.

 

[Hayzer]

I actually have come up with a theory that could explain why the kokiri have green hats and tunics just like MC Link. I have a thread on it that hasn't been posted on in some time, but nontheless there is a thread on it so I will keep the theory short.

Basically, the point of my theory is that we know that the Kokiri can change their forms. This is made obvious in WW with the Koroks. We are told by the GDT that the Koroks had previous (he may even have used the term human-like) forms. There is also the sage in the wind temple (I think it's that temple) who is a Kokiri and tells you to seek out his descendant, which ends up being a Korok. So we know from heavy implications, and obvious name similarities, that the Kokiri changed into the Koroks at some point in time. My theory is that before the Kokori were the Kokiri, they were the Piccori.

Here is why I think this.

*The majority of the Piccori seem to reside in the forest (that is where the king of them lives) and the Kokiri all live in the forest.

*The majority of them wear hats (that have the same design as Link's hat, just red) and green tunics.

*They only show themselves to children and the Kokiri are a society made up of children (except the GDT).

*In order to make yourself small in MC, the majority of the shrink portals, as I call them, are tree stumps and the Kokiri are watched over by a magical tree (GDT).

*Their race names are similar in succession.
Piccori
Kokiri
Korok

With all of that in mind, it's really not crazy to think that the Piccori became the Kokiri somehow. And since MC!Link was their hero, they could have based their Kokiri attire off of him. I know it's a bit of a stretch but there is some possible evidence for it, as I have stated.

Keep in mind that this is just a theory and I in no way intend to argue that this is canon. It's just an idea.

I also have a theory that Ezlo somehow becomes the GDT but that is much more of a stretch and irrelevant to why I brought up the previous theory.

You know I never thought of it that way. That's a pretty cool idea you got there.

Exactly the point I made. I think he was referring to the hat you get at the end of the game after Ezlo becomes normal again, but still, it's obvious what the title of the game is referring to.

I've never even played the game, and I know Ezlo is what is refered to as "The Minish Cap."

How dumb can you be to not get that?

 

[sign of table]

The title Minish Cap definitely refers to the hat Link wears because Link is wearing a cap (hat) that is a Minish wizard. OMG sounds like a Minish Cap to me.

So, uhmm, what's that item that Ezlo creates in the backstory that Vaati uses to gain his powers again? What was the exact name? Hmmmmm... The Minish Cap...

By the way, your whole "maybe, maybe not" idea on the hat being significant or not is also an argument from ignorance, as is you saying that nothing truly implies that Link is also divinely chosen, so stop being a hypocrite by calling me out on it. At least I'm coming up with my own ideas other than criticizing everyone elses ideas. You used to come up with your own until recently.

A few things: 1) No, it is not an argument from ignorance. When one piece of evidence can mean multiple things, it is not an argument from ignorance to say that there are multiple possibilities. 2) Funny how the idea that got me well known as a theorist was my thought that it could go OoX/LA and convincing people that it is just as much of a valid possibility as LttP/LA is. Although you openly flame me over that theory...

Just because LoZ doesn't have a divine choosing of Link as a hero doesn't mean much to me. That game was made before the timeline was a twinkle in anyones eyes. It's not like they knew how far the series would go after that game. LoZ is a canon game, don't get me wrong, but I always looked at it as more of a pilot game.

I can agree with that.

I think you're confusing me nitpicking about your beliefs and playing Devil's Advocate (which I do quite a lot), with criticizing.

Who cares if Ganon wasn't relevant to the game? In every Mario game, they somehow tie Bowser into the game. In the first Mario Superstar Saga game, Bowser was not at all important to the plot. There was a different antagonist and Bowser easily could have been left out of the game, but Bowser is the main antagonist to the series and a staple character and a constant threat so it makes sense that he would be in the game since he is always a threat. If Ganondorf was around, he would have been a threat. If he was ever around previously, he would have been a threat. You make it sound like because he's not apart of the plot then he can't have any mentioning whatsoever. The Triumph Forks have nothing to do with the plot of MC but they are mentioned in the game. You honestly think that mentioning Ganondorf never crossed their mind? You really think that the Triumph Forks seemed a more obvious easter egg to add than mentioning Ganondorf? It seems to me that they left his name completely out of the game for a reason. Stop using the "he's not relevant to the game excuse" because Easter Eggs don't need to be relevant and he's not even an easter egg to a game that you seem to think takes place after a time when he was dangerous. the ONLY Hyrule based game to not even have his name in a book. Sing a new tune.

*The wall of text crits Sign of Justice for over 9000* (I'm kinda referring to WoW )

He's not mentioned in FS, but we both agree that FS is a direct prequel to FSA. FSA has Ganondorf in it. Ganondorf would have existed before FSA. Therefore "If Ganondorf was around, he would have been a threat." is null. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this. Of course Ganon crossed their minds, but he wouldn't be relevant to the story anyway so why add him? But you could be right. It could mean that TMC goes before OoT. I just don't think it is significant.

Oh and I forgot to mention, one hero without a hat is insignificant, you're right. Too bad the game has 2 heroes without hats. The hero in the BS has not hat and Link starts out with no hat. It's a little different when comparing it to other games like TP because in TP he gets clothes that are called the heroes clothes. Same thing in WW. In any game that Link starts out without his green clothing, he recieves it and is told it was worn by a previous hero or is similar to that of a previous her. Not MC Link, though. When he gets his hat nothing is mentioned of any previous heroes wearing the hat. In fact, when the hat is addressed later on, it is only referred to as "suiting" for him and not as something that a previous hero has worn.

Maybe it is significant, maybe not. It's really hard to say for sure. Go ahead and believe TMC-OoT based on the hat, but I'm too hesitant to accept something based on loose evidence that could have multiple meanings.

So really, the only games where Link has an explainable attire are ones that play off of OoT Link's tunic and hat, not MC's. And of course, it would be far-fetched to assume that the Kokiri were based off of MC's Link, or anyone in that game.

It's more symbolic evidence, than the literal evidence you're making it out to be. I recomend reading some LegendsAlliance threads on the matter. They cover the TMC-OoT side really, really well.

*Their race names are similar in succession.
Piccori
Kokiri
Korok

With all of that in mind, it's really not crazy to think that the Piccori became the Kokiri somehow.

Just so ya know, the lumberjacks in LttP are called Kikori in the Japanese version. And the name the Minish themselves use, which would be the more proper one, is Minish.

Then what exactly does it refer to? Ezlo is a Minish who becomes a hat, which is the hat that Link wears. I thought that was pretty obvious, incase I missed something.

Well there's this little item that Ezlo created that was taken by Vaati which is used against him and turns him into a hat. Guess what that item is called? The Minish Cap.

I've never even played the game, and I know Ezlo is what is refered to as "The Minish Cap."

How dumb can you be to not get that?

Umm... maybe you SHOULD play the game. Because the title refers to the in-game item that Ezlo CREATES that Vaati uses to get his powers and is called THE MINISH CAP

Seriously there is an item in game called THE MINISH CAP. The game is called THE MINISH CAP. HMMM I WONDER WHAT IT IS REFERRING TO. I guess it is dumb, as Hayzer pointed out, to think that they are the same. Just like how Ocarina of Time refers to the Fairy Ocarina because it's an ocarina given by someone, and Majora's Mask refers to the Fierce Deity Mask, amirite?

Seriously I doubt you people have even played the game now.

Anyways, I wouldn't be surprised if I never posted here again. I wouldn't be surprised, either, if I got banned for posting my opinions of this place on Zemen's wall, even though I haven't flamed anyone or done anything wrong in the slightest (except, maybe, going overboard on the swearing in the LA thread. But I wasn't the only one who did so).