Minish Cap is NOT First

[Zemen]

How do we know that's not relevant?

Whether it's relevant to timeline placement or not is a different question than what you were stating. You specifically said that Ganon/dorf has no relevance to the plot, not in general.

The Triumph Forks have absolutely no relevance to the plot. Now if you are talking in terms of timeline placement then yes, the Triumph Forks being mentioned could be relevant, but so could the mentioning (or lack there of) of Ganon/dorf.

They're actually in the game though. Ganon is not.

I don't recall them being relevant to the plot, however, and the plot is what you were discussing.

Ganondorf wasn't in the game. Making him a figurine is pointless.

Like I stated earlier, it doesn't HAVE to be a figurine. They could have mentioned him multiple ways. They could have had a book about him in the library, they could have had Vaati mention something like "I will succeed where the great king of the dark realm failed" or something along those lines. It would have taken a nanosecond to have his name mentioned somewhere or have his existence hinted at and relevance to the plot wouldn't have mattered, but they didn't mention him anywhere. Do you really believe that they accidentally didn't have him mentioned anywhere? There is no way that when creating a Zelda game Ganon/dorf would not cross the creators mind.

Now this is what you're suggesting happened.

-"Should we mention Ganon/dorf anywhere?"
-"No, he's not relevant to the plot."
-"Yeah, but we have a tiny mentioning of the Triumph Forks. We could just put a little tid bit somewhere about him."
-"No, the Triumph Forks are OK to add but the greatest villain in the series doesn't deserve recognition."
-"Yeah, but if we want people to believe that this game is not first in the timeline it would make sense to make his past existence obvious."
-"No, it doesn't matter."

This outcome seems more likely to me.

-"Should we mention Ganon/dorf anywhere?"
-"No, this game takes place before his existence."

Because in the end of the game Vaati absorbs the vast majority of it out of Princess Zelda and then dies? That tends to...ya know...do a number on it's importance to the series.

Except he doesn't die....(FS, FSA) Why didn't he go after the rest of the light force?

Not to mention, "force" is found in other games of the series.

But not Light Force, and that is the specific thing sought after in this game and in no other game. You're suggesting that all force is the same.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

-"No, the Triumph Forks are OK to add but the greatest villain in the series doesn't deserve recognition."

I'll back that up a little, that you're saying the situation in the quote is not what happened. I've played the whole series (except for Adventure of Link) and have payed a lot of attention to what influences the timeline and how it effects where each game should be placed. Having analyzed it that much, I don't even remember what the Triumph Forks are or what games they were mentioned in. They're simply not relevant to the overall placement, so of course the developer wouldn't resort to mention of the Triumph Forks to imply what has already happened and what hasn't.

I generally place The Minish Cap and Four Swords at the beginning of the timeline, before Ocarina of Time, with Four Swords Adventures much later, as a distant prequel to A Link to the Past. Ganon/dorf is a huge influence on Hyrulian history, so you are highly likely to hear mention of him if he has already made his mark in the past. So, in order to help establish timeline placement, Nintendo made sure there was no mention of him in The Minish Cap and Four Swords, but they deliberately made many mentions of Ganon in Four Swords Adventures's script. This coincides well with the order of the Four Swords games.

Edit: By the way, you spelled okay wrong.

 

[Alter]

I went back and read the manual. I didn't really get any hint from it at all that said MC was not first. It pretty much says what the game intro says, adding on the story of the festival and Vaati.

I actually went the official stories, which involves all three games.

Let me show you. Here is the FSA one:

"Long ago in the inner reaches of Hyrule, an evil wind sorcerer known as Vaati began kidnapping beautiful young maidens, one after another. Nobody could stop Vaati, and the people of Hyrule despaired.

Then, a brave young wanderer carrying a single sword appeared. When the young lad took out his sword, he split into four separate beings. The legends say that these beings worked as one and defeated Vaati.

The wanderer, united once again, imprisoned Vaati deep in Hyrule and sealed the prison with his own sword. This place became known as the Realm of the Four Sword.

Basically FS.

After that, a long time passed...

Then the wind sorcerer Vaati broke out of his prison, and snatched Princess Zelda of Hyrule. Zelda's childhood friend, a young boy named Link, claimed the strange power of the Four Sword, and fought Vaati fiercely. In the end, he succeeded in sealing Vaati away once again.

I'm sorry, but this one just screams TMC.

And so peace was restored to Hyrule. Or so everyone thought..."

And here begins FSA. :0

And from FS:

"Long ago, in the kingdom of Hyrule, there appeared a Wind Sorcerer named Vaati. Vaati could bend the wind to his will and used this awful power to terrorize many villages of Hyrule. In his assaults on the villages, Vaati would kidnap any beautiful girls who caught his fancy.

Many knights from the castle and other brave men set out to subdue the sorcerer and rescue the girls, but each one fell in turn to Vaati's awesome power. Just as the people had begun to lose hope, a lone young boy traveling with little but a sword at his side appeared.

When this boy heard what was happening, he said only, "I will defeat this sorcerer." He boldly entered Vaati's palace, mystically trapped the evil sorcerer inside the blade of his sword, and returned the young girls to their villages. The boy then went deep into the forest and disappeared.

The villagers asked the girls how a boy so young could have saved them all and defeated the sorcerer when no one else could. The young girls told a story of how with just a wave of his sword, the boy's body shattered into four pieces, each of which then formed a complete copy of the boy. These four young boys then worked together to defeat the sorcerer. The people did not believe the story, but they called it the Four Sword nonetheless. As rumors of the blade's power to divide a person into four entities spread, the people built a shrine to protect it.

Princess Zelda of the land of Hyrule was a beautiful young girl born with mysterious power to sense approaching forces of evil. For this reason, she was assigned with the sacred duty of protecting the shrine of the Four Sword and the blade itself. One day, Zelda was in Hyrule Castle when she sensed that something unusual was occurring at the Four Sword Shrine. She asked a boy named Link, whom she trusted above anyone else, to accompany her to investigate the happenings at the shrine..."

This supports the idea.

Any questions?

 

[MrMosley]

The story you quoted is basically what FSA talks about in its intro. To me, it describes them in the order of MC, FS, then leads into FSA.

Taken from the FSA intro:

"Long ago, in the kingdom of Hyrule, a wind sourceror named Vaati appeared. Vaati terrorized the people of Hyrule and kidnapped many beautiful young maidens from their homes.

When all hope seemed lost, a young boy carrying little more than a sword appeared. According to the legends, when the boy drew his sword, he split into four, the four-who-are-one worked together to vanquish Vaati. The hero used his sword to bind Vaati in a remote area of Hyrule. The people christened the blade the Four Sword and built a shrine around it. There it remained undisturbed for many years."

This details MC. Before MC, the Four Sword did not exist. You create the blade in MC, and at the end, the people of Hyrule built the Four Sword Shrine around it. You see this shrine for the first time in FS, which means that MC came before it.

 

[Caleb, Of Asui]

Wait, you're actually suggesting that Four Swords is before The Minish Cap, Alter? What has the world come to? No, The Minish Cap is definitely the first out of the three Four Swords games, whether or not it's before Ocarina of Time. Though what the Four Swords Adventures intro says about Vaati kidnapping girls is a vague connection with The Minish Cap, we see pretty much the same description in Four Swords, minus the part at the end about Vaati returning and kidnapping Zelda. That screams Four Swords, NOT The Minish Cap. One could assume that the details about the events of The Minish Cap became vague over time, to the point where Vaati had kidnapped many girls, rather than just Zelda. This description is obviously of Vaati's first appearance, though, so it would have to be The Minish Cap.

 

[Zemen]

I don't even remember what the Triumph Forks are or what games they were mentioned in. They're simply not relevant to the overall placement, so of course the developer wouldn't resort to mention of the Triumph Forks to imply what has already happened and what hasn't.

Exactly. The fact that the Triumph Forks are such a irrelevant and almost unknown thing makes it strange that it would be mentioned as a timeline placer. If they clearly wanted this game to be after OoT then they would have mentioned something more obvious, like Ganon/dorf.

Triumph Forks are from WW, by the way.

Ganon/dorf is a huge influence on Hyrulian history, so you are highly likely to hear mention of him if he has already made his mark in the past. So, in order to help establish timeline placement, Nintendo made sure there was no mention of him in The Minish Cap and Four Swords

Exactly. Regardless of him being relevant to the plot or not, if he had already existed and MC takes place after many Ganon/dorf based adventures, then he would have been mentioned. He literally is/was the biggest threat to Hyrule and every game that is based in Hyrule has him in it. This is the one exception and not only does it not have him as the main villain, but it doesn't even mention his name anywhere. Regardless of relevance to the plot, the greatest evil ever known would be mentioned. He wouldn't just be forgotten because something new came along. There are clearly history books in the library but nothing about the greatest evil to walk the earth?

they deliberately made many mentions of Ganon in Four Swords Adventures's script. This coincides well with the order of the Four Swords games.

Not only was he mentioned in FSA, but he was actually IN the game as the main villain.

Ganon was pulling Vaati's strings through the entire game. Now if he existed prior to MC then how come he didn't use Vaati to free him then? If he existed prior to FS then how come he didn't use Vaati to free him then? Why did it take Ganon/dorf so long to realize "hey, I can use this clown to make myself more powerful?"

If Ganon/dorf existed prior to MC, not only would/should he have been mentioned, but he probably would have been incorporated into the plot as some sort of string pulling villain or as a mission to be ressurected, but no, there is no sign/hint/mentioning of him anywhere.

One could assume that the details about the events of The Minish Cap became vague over time, to the point where Vaati had kidnapped many girls, rather than just Zelda. This description is obviously of Vaati's first appearance, though, so it would have to be The Minish Cap.

Exactly. For those of you who believe that FS does not come before OoT, this is a good indication that MC does. The BS for FSA clearly talks about 2 different instances in which Vaati appeared. There are only 2 other games that deal with Vaati so it has to be talking about those games. Obviously, however, the first game/story mentioned in the BS strays extremely far away from the actual storyline in MC. Vaati did not kidnap many maidens. A brave, young wanderer carrying a sword did not just appear out of no where. Link was a childhood friend of Zelda who had a sword made by his uncle for the festival and definitely was not a wanderer. Link did not immediately split into 4 beings during MC. It was a power he acquired over time and even then was just a limited thing when used.

The BS for FSA that is supposed to explain MC is so vague and wrong that it must mean that MC takes place a very long time before FSA and if you put FS after OoT it would take place a long time before that as well. This supports MC being first because MC could have happened, then tons of stuff in between with Ganon/dorf and then FS happens, then FSA happens which combines the 2 villains.

 

[Erimgard]

Like I stated earlier, it doesn't HAVE to be a figurine.

It doesn't HAVE to be ANYTHING. Ganon wasn't part of the plot. They had no reason to mention him in any way, shape, or form. Leaving him out does not indicate it's the first game.

But not Light Force, and that is the specific thing sought after in this game and in no other game. You're suggesting that all force is the same.

They are the exact same word in the Japanese.

 

[Zemen]

It doesn't HAVE to be ANYTHING. Ganon wasn't part of the plot. They had no reason to mention him in any way, shape, or form. Leaving him out does not indicate it's the first game.

Once again, the Triumph Forks had NOTHING to do with the plot either but they are mentioned in the game. You really think that they thought that Triumph Forks fit better into the series than Ganon/dorf does. You are seriously suggesting that they thought that mentioning the Triumph Forks was more relevant to the Zelda series than mentioning Ganon/dorf, the main villain.

As stated by Caleb, he doesn't even remember what game the Triumph Forks are from. Why put such an insignificant easter egg into the game but not mention the greatest villain Hyrule has ever known. Zelda is notorious for incorporating cute little easter eggs into the game and the library had "historical" books in there. If they really wanted this game to be after OoT all they had to do was title one of the books "the king of the dark realm"

You swear like every single aspect of the game HAS to be relevant to the plot. Triumph Forks have nothing to do with MC but they are mentioned in the game. Why can't they do the same with Ganon/dorf? You're argument that he is not relevant to the plot is the worst argument in the world because it's clear that there are things in the game that are not relevant to the plot. You're argument fails.

They are the exact same word in the Japanese.

Light Force, in Japanese, is the same as Force? I find that hard to believe. You're saying that the force gems are exactly the same as the light force? False.

 

[sign of table]

^Sorry Zemen. The Light Force is just called force in Japan. Not false. True.

Your Ganon not appearing in the game is null as he wasn't important to the plot of the game. I agree that Triumph Forks don't mean anything, but atleast they were mentioned.

I'm sorry, but this one just screams TMC.

Ummm more like FS. When did Vaati escape anything in TMC?

It clearly shows that FSA and FS Link are the same.

@Zemen: If FSA talks about FS then your Ganon point is even more null because it's another game without Ganon appearing.

The appearance of enemies, or lack thereof, does not prove a timeline. As shown with the LA debate...

 

[Emma]

There is as much to say it is first as there is to say it is not first. Just circumstantial evidence on either side. On one side it is the cap thing, which is a rather naive assumption. And the other is the Oracles in the games. That too is a naive assumption. Because there is nothing saying that the oracles encountered in the Oracle games are the first in their lines. The figurine says one of the long line of Oracles from Holodrum.
But that's besides the point as their appearance in The Minish Cap is clearly just a cameo. Saying that their appearance has timeline implications is like saying the Mario and co. pictures in Ocarina of Time means that they exist within the realm of Zelda. It is reading too much into a cameo.

 

[Zemen]

I agree that Triumph Forks don't mean anything, but atleast they were mentioned.

So you're suggesting that out of every possible thing they could have mentioned in the game, they seriously thought Triumph Forks were more important to mention than Ganon/dorf? You seriously think that Triumph Forks came to mind but not Ganon/dorf? That's like saying they made a Mario game and Bowser didn't once cross their minds at all but some EXTREMELY minor detail in one of the games was something they felt was important to add to the game.

 

[sign of table]

So you're suggesting that out of every possible thing they could have mentioned in the game, they seriously thought Triumph Forks were more important to mention than Ganon/dorf?

Did you actually read the message that was quoted? I said I agree that they don't mean anything, but it is still more plausible evidence than your Ganon "evidence" because it is actually mentioned.

Maybe they did think of adding Ganon but couldn't find a good spot. Who knows. I do agree that Triumph Forks mean nothing but it's better evidence than your Ganon evidence because, you know, it's actually solid.

 

[Zemen]

Did you actually read the message that was quoted? I said I agree that they don't mean anything, but it is still more plausible evidence than your Ganon "evidence" because it is actually mentioned.

Maybe they did think of adding Ganon but couldn't find a good spot. Who knows. I do agree that Triumph Forks mean nothing but it's better evidence than your Ganon evidence because, you know, it's actually solid.

The point I'm trying to make is, if they really wanted to mention Ganon/dorf somewhere then why not put him in place of something they did put in, like oh say the Triumph Forks...

You seem to be missing my point. I'm not talking about how they put Triumph Forks in and not Ganon/dorf. I'm talking about how if he crossed their minds why didn't they just replace an "easter egg" that was already there with him? That's why I keep saying do you really think they thought Triumph Forks was more important. They could easily have taken those out and mention Ganon/dorf in its place, but they didn't.

 

[sign of table]

Sure they could have. They could have called the people in the game Hylians just ONCE. But they didn't they were consistent in using human. Why weren't they called Hylians if it was before OoT? I wonder if it crossed their mind at all to call them Hylians instead. But we'll never know.

 

[Erimgard]

And you still haven't answered the question of why there is absolutely no mention of civil war, bloodshed for information, etc regarding the Sacred Realm and/or Triforce.