Minish Cap is NOT First

[OOT]

Here's why it is not first in the timeline.
In, Minish Cap, in the figurine shop, you can win a figurine of Din. In the description, it says that she is a famous dancer from Holdrum. This puts OoX before Minish Cap.
Just wanted to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Erimgard]

I'd agree that even Capcom seems to believe that Minish Cap goes after the two other games they designed under Nintendo's supervision, but most people will right that off as a cameo. I find that an ignorant thing to do, but meh, can't control people's minds.

 

[angelkid]

I personally do not think that MC comes first. However, just because it says she is a dancer in Holdrum doesnt necessarily mean that OoX comes first. She could have been a dancer for a while. I'm not arguing with your theory, because personally I have read that people put MC first because it is when Link gets his hat... and? He gets a tunic sbout 20 different times. Just because he gets his hat in this game doesnt mean this game comes first.

 

[Moosh_is_cool]

I disagree with you, OOT. As Angelkid said, the fact that she was a dancer in MC doesn't mean much of anything.

On a side note, I do think MC was first. Link seemed younger in MC than in any other games.

 

[sign of table]

I'd agree that even Capcom seems to believe that Minish Cap goes after the two other games they designed under Nintendo's supervision, but most people will right that off as a cameo. I find that an ignorant thing to do, but meh, can't control people's minds.

While I agree it's an implication, it could take place before OoX. As long as they are in the same timeline, of course.

Storyline evidence > small likely cameos that don't mean much.

The old Swiftblade (the one who we think is the HoM) says that he's the only person to master the Great Spin Attack. Orca teaches Link that same technique in TWW.

Of course that's just literal evidence and isn't what I think shows the pure intent of TMC first. But who knows. There are enough things, that I think are cameos, but they may not be, to secure an AT placement for TMC, as well.

 

[Zeruda]

I never once believed that Minish Cap came first. Why? Because when OoT was made, Nintendo was very adament on making it clear that it was the prequel to the games. If they had gone ahead and made Minish Cap a prequel, I'm sure that they would have made that clear to us.

Secondly, we don't know how old Link is in TMC. He's a child, but it doesn't mean that he's the youngest of the Links. Even if he was, that doesn't determine placement in the timeline. In fact, it has hardly anything to do with it at all.

Third, I think people take the whole thing about Link not having a hat at first way too seriously. So what if he didn't have a hat? Whether or not he had a hat doesn't really determine placement in time. I think that they made him without a hat so that they could implement Ezlo. Really, how else could they have done that?

Most of the information that people come up with to support the theory of TMC being first are easily disproven or argued against.

 

[MrMosley]

There has already been a lot of talk about the Din figurine. Most likely, it is a simple cameo. I do not believe MC is first, but I don't think that the figurine helps much in explaining MC's placement. I actually believe that MC takes place in a separate timeline.

What could be possible is this. Din is the primary character of Oracle of Seasons. She is apparently the reincarnation of the goddess Din, therefore she would have certain powers and most likely be able to live forever. If MC were the first game in the timeline, then Din could have still originated in Holodrum, but traveled to other countries occasionally. In other words, her primary residence has always been Holodrum, but she can come to Hyrule or Labrynna or anywhere else she wants at any time.

 

[Zemen]

I never once believed that Minish Cap came first. Why? Because when OoT was made, Nintendo was very adament on making it clear that it was the prequel to the games.

When OoT was first made, they also intended for there to be a linear timeline that went OoT-ALTTP-LoZ/AoL but this has OBVIOUSLY changed due to the creation of WW and TP.

Also, with ALTTP, they intended for OoT to be the seal war but this, too has OBVIOUSLY changed drastically with due to the addition of WW in the timeline.

They intended for FS to be the first game in the series and the majority of the people believe this to be completely false (although it still could be first). The people who said that FS was thought to be first weren't the people who actually worked on that specific game.

As you can see, original intention can only be taken so far because the creators can, and have, retconned their original ideas before. If MC is first do you suggest that they completely remake OoT so that it works? Good luck with that dream.

If they had gone ahead and made Minish Cap a prequel, I'm sure that they would have made that clear to us.

Other than the timeline going OoT/MM-TP and OoT-WW/PH, give me one instance of anything dealing with the timeline being clear. The creators definitely don't and wouldn't make it clear like you believe. The timeline is confusing as hell.

Secondly, we don't know how old Link is in TMC. He's a child, but it doesn't mean that he's the youngest of the Links. Even if he was, that doesn't determine placement in the timeline. In fact, it has hardly anything to do with it at all.

I've never heard of anyone arguing MC being first because of Link's age...

Third, I think people take the whole thing about Link not having a hat at first way too seriously. So what if he didn't have a hat? Whether or not he had a hat doesn't really determine placement in time. I think that they made him without a hat so that they could implement Ezlo. Really, how else could they have done that?

How else could they have used Ezlo? The possibilities are endless. He could have easily been turned into a fly that constantly follows Link around or a fairy or just a spirit that is always with him or a talking rock or anything they want. The all powerful item in the game was a hat that was created by Ezlo. His apprentice wanted the hat for himself and Ezlo tried to stop him. Many villains are big on the whole irony thing so what is the most ironic thing that this hat thief could have turned Ezlo into? A hat...duh.

You could be right that the hat thing could have been just a ploy to have Ezlo in the game, but im pretty sure there was a creator who said that the hat meant something or something like that.

Also, the hero in the BS of MC doesn't wear a hat either and the BS doesn't resemble ANY of the previous Zelda games. This is the first game in the series to have a completely irrelevant BS to the series. This means that it's HIGHLY likely that the hero before this Link was not a Link at all. Now why would they make a game that goes in the middle of the timeline that has a BS about someone other than Link? And if it is a Link then why didn't he wear a hat either?

It makes a lot of sense that it's first in the series because the hat is one of the defining features of Link and this could help explain why all of them wear a green hat.

Most of the information that people come up with to support the theory of TMC being first are easily disproven or argued against.

And any reason why it isn't first can be easily disproved or argued against.

The figurines have an easy enough explanation to them. How do we know that the oracles in OoX aren't descendants of the oracles that are spoken of in MC? That can easily be the case. Also, it is most likely just an easter egg.

 

[angelkid]

I've never heard of anyone arguing MC being first because of Link's age...quote]

On a side note, I do think MC was first. Link seemed younger in MC than in any other games.

Right there lol. Personally I think Mc is on a completely seperate timeline to OoX. However, the theory about Din living forever has some substance. She'd have to keep moving from place to place though. So that nobody noticed that she never aged. What about Farore and Nayru, do they always travel with her?

 

[Zeruda]

When OoT was first made, they also intended for there to be a linear timeline that went OoT-ALTTP-LoZ/AoL but this has OBVIOUSLY changed due to the creation of WW and TP.

This is true.

Also, with ALTTP, they intended for OoT to be the seal war but this, too has OBVIOUSLY changed drastically with due to the addition of WW in the timeline.

I don't know about that. OoT was actually intended to be a remake of ALttP but took a different turn and became a prequel to all. It's really hard to believe that it was intended to be the seal war, especially since I don't remember reading anything about OoT being the "seal war" in any interview. But, if you have a source, please show it to me- I'd like to read that.

They intended for FS to be the first game in the series and the majority of the people believe this to be completely false (although it still could be first). The people who said that FS was thought to be first weren't the people who actually worked on that specific game.

Yeah. I wouldn't believe anybody who didn't actually work on the game, either.

As you can see, original intention can only be taken so far because the creators can, and have, retconned their original ideas before. If MC is first do you suggest that they completely remake OoT so that it works? Good luck with that dream.

Yes, they are constantly making changes and trying to fix the timeline. It's good that they are. I don't think MC is first, nor do I think that OoT requires any sort of remake. I'm not one of those OoT fangirls.

Other than the timeline going OoT/MM-TP and OoT-WW/PH, give me one instance of anything dealing with the timeline being clear. The creators definitely don't and wouldn't make it clear like you believe. The timeline is confusing as hell.

My post wasn't about the timeline in general, it was about them making it clear that OoT was first. My post wasn't about OoT being first, but the fact that they made it clear to the fans that it was. Do you see what I'm getting at? They don't work very hard on telling us about the exact placement of all the games, but obviously the root of the games was important enough to the entire story that the games combine into. So important that they felt the need to tell us. If TMC predated that, I think they'd let us know.

I've never heard of anyone arguing MC being first because of Link's age...

Scroll up.

How else could they have used Ezlo? The possibilities are endless. He could have easily been turned into a fly that constantly follows Link around or a fairy or just a spirit that is always with him or a talking rock or anything they want. The all powerful item in the game was a hat that was created by Ezlo. His apprentice wanted the hat for himself and Ezlo tried to stop him. Many villains are big on the whole irony thing so what is the most ironic thing that this hat thief could have turned Ezlo into? A hat...duh.

You could be right that the hat thing could have been just a ploy to have Ezlo in the game, but im pretty sure there was a creator who said that the hat meant something or something like that.

Also, the hero in the BS of MC doesn't wear a hat either and the BS doesn't resemble ANY of the previous Zelda games. This is the first game in the series to have a completely irrelevant BS to the series. This means that it's HIGHLY likely that the hero before this Link was not a Link at all. Now why would they make a game that goes in the middle of the timeline that has a BS about someone other than Link? And if it is a Link then why didn't he wear a hat either?

It makes a lot of sense that it's first in the series because the hat is one of the defining features of Link and this could help explain why all of them wear a green hat.

I don't recall a creator saying that the hat meant anything. I think that's just fan speculation. I've yet to read any interview on that. And so what if the hero in TMC's BS doesn't wear a hat? It only supports the idea that Link doesn't have to have a hat.

The legend spoken of in TMC refers to a hero being given a sword and a golden light. The hero also uses both Wisdom AND Courage. Now, as I recall, none of the other Links have a "golden light" ("a source of limitless magical power", according to Ezlo), nor do they possess the blessing of wisdom. The hero mentioned in TMC does things that other Links did not. Perhaps this could mean that TMC takes place much later in the timeline.

Who's to say that this hero in the BS is a Link? Who's to say he isn't? If he is a Link, what difference does it make? It'd just go to show that there was somebody else who didn't wear a hat. He also had a green tunic, I might add. If he wasn't a Link, does that matter either? A hero named Link usually rises to fight off Ganon/dorf, occassionally a different villain. Maybe some other hero fought off evil. Maybe not. In any case, whoever the hero was in TMC's BC really doesn't say much about TMC's placement in the timeline, at least not right now. It's not hard to imagine that they'd throw a game in the middle of other games. They don't exactly work on an era-to-era basis- they skip around. 100 years here, a couple of months there... they don't stick to one thing.

Link obtaining a hat in TMC could just be his own way of getting one. TP!Link didn't start out with a hat, either, and that's centuries after OoT. Same thing with TWW!Link.

I honestly don't think the hat had anything to do with it. Look at OoT!Link- he didn't have a hat because some warrior of old did. He had one because he was raised among the Kokiri. They had hats.

 

[Skull_Kid]

Another thread about this?
I am gonna simplify it for you, OOT.

To start off and kill the discussion quickly, Myiamoto said that Four Swords(the one that came with the GBA version of ALttP) was the FIRST game in the timeline.
After that he said that Minish Cap was a PREQUEL to FOUR SWORDS!
Do I need to say anything else?

On a sidenote, referring to the Oracles figurines: Your only vague point is that, and if you are clever enough, then you can see that it just shows you that the Oracles of OoX are not the first ones.
The ones in Minish Cap are their ancestors

 

[Zemen]

This is true.


I don't know about that. OoT was actually intended to be a remake of ALttP but took a different turn and became a prequel to all. It's really hard to believe that it was intended to be the seal war, especially since I don't remember reading anything about OoT being the "seal war" in any interview. But, if you have a source, please show it to me- I'd like to read that.

My post wasn't about the timeline in general, it was about them making it clear that OoT was first. My post wasn't about OoT being first, but the fact that they made it clear to the fans that it was. Do you see what I'm getting at? They don't work very hard on telling us about the exact placement of all the games, but obviously the root of the games was important enough to the entire story that the games combine into. So important that they felt the need to tell us. If TMC predated that, I think they'd let us know.

As I stated before, they wouldn't make it clear. OoT was made LONG before MC. OoT was meant to be first in the timeline so of course it's clear that it's first. Years pass and they want this game to be first. Since OoT is heavily implied and confirmed to be first, they can't have much at all relating it to OoT. The fact that nothing in the game can be directly connected to OoT makes it that much more possible that it's first. Also, this is the ONLY game in the series that takes place in Hyrule and doesn't have a mentioning of Ganon/dorf anywhere. The only other Hyrule based game with no Ganon/dorf is FS which is more of a spinoff than an actual game.

And so what if the hero in TMC's BS doesn't wear a hat? It only supports the idea that Link doesn't have to have a hat.

EVERY SINGLE ZELDA GAME HAS LINK WEARING A HAT.

If the next game to come out featured Link with no hat through the entire game then you know there would be a thread with a million posts on ZD about how mad people are Link didn't have a hat. I mean this in the nicest way possible...cut the crap, we both know Link DOES need to have a hat.

The legend spoken of in TMC refers to a hero being given a sword and a golden light. The hero also uses both Wisdom AND Courage. Now, as I recall, none of the other Links have a "golden light" ("a source of limitless magical power", according to Ezlo), nor do they possess the blessing of wisdom. The hero mentioned in TMC does things that other Links did not. Perhaps this could mean that TMC takes place much later in the timeline.

Link didn't get the golden light, from what I recall. I'm pretty sure that they gave it to the royal family and that Zelda was the one who had it. So you don't think any other Link is wise? Just because they don't have the triforce of wisdom doesn't mean they aren't wise. You're suggesting that Zelda is the only wise person in the series, here.

MC is also a prequel to FS which is a prequel to FSA which is heavily implied to be a prequel to ALTTP which does seems to not take place that much later.

Who's to say that this hero in the BS is a Link? Who's to say he isn't? If he is a Link, what difference does it make? It'd just go to show that there was somebody else who didn't wear a hat. He also had a green tunic, I might add. If he wasn't a Link, does that matter either? A hero named Link usually rises to fight off Ganon/dorf, occassionally a different villain. Maybe some other hero fought off evil. Maybe not. In any case, whoever the hero was in TMC's BC really doesn't say much about TMC's placement in the timeline, at least not right now. It's not hard to imagine that they'd throw a game in the middle of other games. They don't exactly work on an era-to-era basis- they skip around. 100 years here, a couple of months there... they don't stick to one thing.

As I said before, it's the only game to have a BS about someone other than Link. It is one of the only BS' to have a BS that does not explain or even partially explain any previous events in the Zelda universe. WW talks about OoT. TP talks about things that happen shortly after MM. ALTTP talks either about OoT or FSA. FSA talks about FS. PH is a confirmed sequel to LoZ. LA is almost obviously a sequel to either OoX or ALTTP. LA has a BS that fits nicely with ALTTP or OoX. As you can see, these games either have BS' about another title or are obviously connected to another title. We have no idea how long before FS MC takes place and the BS is not about any of the other titles. Things that you think aren't big deals ARE big deals.

Link obtaining a hat in TMC could just be his own way of getting one. TP!Link didn't start out with a hat, either, and that's centuries after OoT. Same thing with TWW!Link.

Except that there is a reason why TP Link and WW Link got their hats. Their hats were once worn by a great hero (HoT). Every Link who has gotten an outfit has had a reason for that outfit. OoT Link because the kokiri wear it. WW because OoT Link wears it (same with TP Link).

The only reason that MC Link gets a hat is because it's Ezlo. And then the only reason he keeps the hat is because "it suits him"

There is no mentioning of any past hero wearing a hat similar to his. How much do you want me to believe that some random hero, years after many great heroes, stumbles into a great adventure where he coincidentally wears the exact same outfit as past great heroes?

That's a little too much of a coincidence for me to believe that it doesn't have more meaning.

 

[Skull_Kid]

Guys?Why are you discussing this?I pretty much killed the discussion, and, Zeruda, sorry to admit, but Zemen's right, imo

 

[Zeruda]

As I stated before, they wouldn't make it clear. OoT was made LONG before MC. OoT was meant to be first in the timeline so of course it's clear that it's first. Years pass and they want this game to be first. Since OoT is heavily implied and confirmed to be first, they can't have much at all relating it to OoT. The fact that nothing in the game can be directly connected to OoT makes it that much more possible that it's first. Also, this is the ONLY game in the series that takes place in Hyrule and doesn't have a mentioning of Ganon/dorf anywhere. The only other Hyrule based game with no Ganon/dorf is FS which is more of a spinoff than an actual game.

What I'm pointing out is that they made it fact. Instead of implying it in OoT, the creators themselves told us. See what I'm getting at yet? What I'm saying is that the important information is usually given to us, while less important things such as individual placement is left up for debate. I really think that if they were going to make a game that predated OoT, they'd tell us. They thought it important to tell us the first in the timeline, they thought it important to verify a timeline split, they thought it important to tell us where TP and TWW fell into place. Those were of more importance that individual placement of all the games, so, I'm sure that if they were going to get ahead of all of that and make a pre-prequel, they'd let us know.

EVERY SINGLE ZELDA GAME HAS LINK WEARING A HAT.

If the next game to come out featured Link with no hat through the entire game then you know there would be a thread with a million posts on ZD about how mad people are Link didn't have a hat. I mean this in the nicest way possible...cut the crap, we both know Link DOES need to have a hat.

I never said they don't have hats. I'm not trying to sound rude, but are you even reading what I am saying, or are you skimming through it? I said they don't all start with hats. If TMC!Link started the hat trend, then explain how that'd have made OoT!Link adopt the trend. He wears Kokiri clothing. Even Malon notices that his clothes are foreign. It's more believable, IMO, that the trend would have been adopted from OoT!Link

"I mean this in the nicest way possible...cut the crap" <-- If you consider this "nice", Zemen, you are mistaken. I find it quite rude and immature. If you wish to discuss this with me or anybody else, it'd behoove you to do so in a more decent manner. I have respected your own ideas, but I do not have to agree with them. Likewise, you should respect mine, and not treat me or anybody else with such behavior just because they don't agree with you. Okay?

Link didn't get the golden light, from what I recall. I'm pretty sure that they gave it to the royal family and that Zelda was the one who had it. So you don't think any other Link is wise? Just because they don't have the triforce of wisdom doesn't mean they aren't wise. You're suggesting that Zelda is the only wise person in the series, here.

MC is also a prequel to FS which is a prequel to FSA which is heavily implied to be a prequel to ALTTP which does seems to not take place that much later.

A long, long time ago...
when the world was on the verge of being swallowed by shadow...
The tiny Picori appeared from the sky, bringing the hero of men a sword and a
golden light.
With wisdom and courage, the hero drove out the darkness.

I'm not suggesting that Zelda is the only wise person, please don't assume things. I am being blunt in my posts, and telling you exactly what I think. Keyword here is think. I'm not saying anything is fact, and likewise, I don't think you should say what is or isn't without proof or sources.

What I'm saying is that courage is associated with Link, and wisdom with Zelda, and that is all I'm saying.

As I said before, it's the only game to have a BS about someone other than Link. It is one of the only BS' to have a BS that does not explain or even partially explain any previous events in the Zelda universe. WW talks about OoT. TP talks about things that happen shortly after WW. ALTTP talks either about OoT or FSA. FSA talks about FS. PH is a confirmed sequel to LoZ. LA is almost obviously a sequel to either OoX or ALTTP. LA has a BS that fits nicely with ALTTP or OoX. As you can see, these games either have BS' about another title or are obviously connected to another title. We have no idea how long before FS MC takes place and the BS is not about any of the other titles. Things that you think aren't big deals ARE big deals.

All I'm going to say on this is that you're stating things as if they are fact. For all we know, these could be completely out of the timeline. We don't know where they fit, and there is very little evidence for any of it. What I don't remember, though, is anything about TWW being mentioned in TP like you stated. Source, please? I don't even see how that could be possible, being that they are on opposite sides of the timeline.

Except that there is a reason why TP Link and WW Link got their hats. Their hats were once worn by a great hero (HoT). Every Link who has gotten an outfit has had a reason for that outfit. OoT Link because the kokiri wear it. WW because OoT Link wears it (same with TP Link).

The only reason that MC Link gets a hat is because it's Ezlo. And then the only reason he keeps the hat is because "it suits him"

There is no mentioning of any past hero wearing a hat similar to his. How much do you want me to believe that some random hero, years after many great heroes, stumbles into a great adventure where he coincidentally wears the exact same outfit as past great heroes?

That's a little too much of a coincidence for me to believe that it doesn't have more meaning.

This is the image shown in TMC. This hero wears the green tunic, but he hasn't a hat. Is he a Link? He has the tunic. But maybe he's not a Link. Maybe he's a random hero. I'm not sure whether you think he's a Link or a random hero. I don't really think it matters at this point. Maybe later on when the timeline is better developed, but not now. And I'll reiterate- OoT!Link has his hat because he was raised in Kokiri Forest. So, that would mean that Link didn't adopt this trend from another Link. That is almost enough to throw the hat theory out the window. If TMC came before OoT, then the Ezlo wouldn't have anything to do with how Link gets hats in other games. It helps my theory that TMC!Link only gets his hat through an adventure, and it has little impact on the timeline.

Guys?Why are you discussing this?I pretty much killed the discussion, and, Zeruda, sorry to admit, but Zemen's right, imo

You're entitled to you own opinion. We're discussing it because, well, that's what the thread is about. But I'll end my part in the discussion, as Zemen seems to be a little... well, I'll say "touchy" about this topic. I usually don't take part in discussions such as these because of the touchy people who end up flaming others. Seeing as Zemen has already proven to be rude towards others with a difference in opinion, I think I'll wait until this topic arises again later on in a less heated debate.

It is an interesting topic, though, and I respect the opinions and ideas of others. Debates like this help keep the fandom alive between games. Perhaps Nintendo will clear this up later on, eh? Sometimes I wonder, though... you think that Nintendo will allow games that Capcom worked on to be in the timeline? Maybe they'll keep Nintendo-only games in the timeline. You never know.

 

[Zemen]

What I'm pointing out is that they made it fact. Instead of implying it in OoT, the creators themselves told us. See what I'm getting at yet? What I'm saying is that the important information is usually given to us, while less important things such as individual placement is left up for debate. I really think that if they were going to make a game that predated OoT, they'd tell us. They thought it important to tell us the first in the timeline, they thought it important to verify a timeline split, they thought it important to tell us where TP and TWW fell into place. Those were of more importance that individual placement of all the games, so, I'm sure that if they were going to get ahead of all of that and make a pre-prequel, they'd let us know.

False. They told us OoT started the timeline because if they didn't then we would literally have nowhere to start. They didn't even have to tell us where TP and WW take place because the games completely confirm their placements on their own. The split had to be confirmed otherwise the timeline would be impossible to figure out without that knowledge. The stuff they have told us is stuff we needed to know to even start a timeline. Other than that, we have to figure it out on our own.

Also, THEY HAVE SAID THAT FS IS FIRST IN THE TIMELINE. I believe it's Aunouma who said this and he later said that he was not working on the game, but he never once said that he didn't think it was first anymore.

So the fact that he said it's first without retracting his statement is evidence that MC is first because it's a prequel to FS.

Also, I said cut the crap because you were implying that if they made a game where Link didn't wear a hat then it would be ok and I was letting you know that the hat is a staple to the character and is more important than you are making it out to be.

What if the kokiri wear the green tunic because a previous hero (like the hero of men or MC Link) wore this outfit?

I have a thread somewhere on here with a theory of mine that the kokiri were once the piccori. It's a pretty good theory if you ever feel like searching for it and checking it out. It basically says that many of the piccori died out and the ones left in the forest were transformed into the kokiri. Also, notice that in order to become minish sized in MC you must be on a stump (base of a tree) and the leader of the kokiri is a grown, powerful tree. Now, if the kokiri were once the piccori then it makes sense that the kokiri wear green tunics and hats, because the hero who saved them from an evil minish (vaati) wore a green tunic and hat.

In essence, it can work and there is plenty of evidence for MC to be first on the timeline. You say that I'm being touchy about it but maybe you should go back and read your posts because you weren't all rainbows and ponies about the topic either, chum.