Minish Cap is NOT First

[Alter]

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.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm simply pointing out what the manuals say.

 

[sign of table]

He did work on Four Swords Adventures, though. (Source: http://www.zeldawiki.org/Aonuma) He is heavily involved in the Zelda series, so he knows what he's talking about when he says a certain game is first and I'm sure he knows very well that Four Swords Adventures is some time after Ocarina of Time.

That's a pretty good point... if FSA, the game that should, in my opinion, take place after OoT (on either side), wasn't the game that hints so heavily that FS wasn't a direct prequel.

The only evidence we have for each placement is an interview that happened before FS came out and the person who had the interview didn't even work on the game, and a game which came after the interview that is very clear on what happens.

I know which one I'm going with...

 

[Zemen]

That's a pretty good point... if FSA, the game that should, in my opinion, take place after OoT (on either side), wasn't the game that hints so heavily that FS wasn't a direct prequel.

The only evidence we have for each placement is an interview that happened before FS came out and the person who had the interview didn't even work on the game, and a game which came after the interview that is very clear on what happens.

I know which one I'm going with...

Once again, the only real connection that the FSA has for being a direct sequel to FS is that FSA uses Link and Zelda's name in the BS.

If I do recall, doesn't Link get tricked into pulling the Four Sword in FSA? And in FS he pulls the sword for other reasons. The point is, after FS, Link knows what will happen when the sword is pulled so why would he be so easily tricked in to pulling it out after he has just got done with a quest using the Four Sword?

Also, the BS probably shouldn't be used as a basis for deciding whether or not FSA is a direct sequel. The BS explains 2 previous encounters with Vaati. Before FSA there are only 2 previous encounters that we know of with Vaati. The first encounter explained of in the BS of FSA is clearly NOT MC that is being discussed as nothing in the FSA BS matches up at all with the plot of MC. Seeing as how the first 50% of the BS is extremely vague, and wrong, why would you even use the rest of the BS to decide anything?

 

[sign of table]

Once again, the only real connection that the FSA has for being a direct sequel to FS is that FSA uses Link and Zelda's name in the BS.

So you're saying that there isn't enough evidence? I can't recall anything that suggests that they have different Link's.

Give me ONE time in ANY STORY where it refers to two characters in the backstory and happens to have two characters with the same name, that do the same thing, and gives no distinction that they are different, while being different. You won't find any because no writer would ever be that freaken stupid.

If I do recall, doesn't Link get tricked into pulling the Four Sword in FSA?

Actually from what I remember he gets tricked in FS, and in FSA he knows what'll happen if he takes out the sword.
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LNWrZs4K0I 4:42ish it says "The sword guards the seal on Vaati. If you draw the sword you must know what will happen." He knew.

Also, the BS probably shouldn't be used as a basis for deciding whether or not FSA is a direct sequel.

Really? The backstory shouldn't be used to decide if a game is a PART of said backstory?

The BS explains 2 previous encounters with Vaati.

One of which is identical to FS, contains two characters mentioned by name with the same name as the two main characters, and the main character already knows what'll happen if he pulls the sword. Nah there's no proof here.

The first encounter explained of in the BS of FSA is clearly NOT MC that is being discussed as nothing in the FSA BS matches up at all with the plot of MC.

A few things to note. It has to be TMC because it is heavily implied to be the first usage of the FS. The developers have confirmed that TMC is before FS/FSA because it is the birth of the FS.

Another thing. The game came out after FSA, but was worked on around the same time and by a different company. I can't imagine that the BS would perfectly match... I mean look at OoT back in 1998 when it was confirmed to be the SW. It barely matched at all and contained more problems than answers. But OoT was the SW back in 1998.

The other half of the plot directly references FS in quite good detail. Why should we disregard the good half because of the bad half?

Seeing as how the first 50% of the BS is extremely vague, and wrong, why would you even use the rest of the BS to decide anything?

That's actually a logical fallacy. Gimme a little while to get you a link to explain it, but it basically means that it's wrong everything because of one wrong aspect.

You're trying to win the debate, not trying to figure out the best timeline.

 

[Zemen]

Give me ONE time in ANY STORY where it refers to two characters in the backstory and happens to have two characters with the same name, that do the same thing, and gives no distinction that they are different, while being different. You won't find any because no writer would ever be that freaken stupid.

Hmmm funny you should bring the whole fact that it's never happened before because I'm pretty sure I asked you a similar question.

Give me ONE time in ANY OF THE ZELDA GAMES that takes place in Hyrule that doesn't feature or mention the existence of Ganon/dorf other than MC.

You completely disregarded that as evidence so why can't I disregard this? It's pretty much the same exact argument.

You basically said, just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't now.

I'm going to use that answer. I love irony.

it says "The sword guards the seal on Vaati. If you draw the sword you must know what will happen." He knew.

Yeah, this is pretty self explanatory. It basically says that it's the lock to his locked door. It's obvious what would happen if the sword was pulled (the lock would be removed). This doesn't hint to him previously knowing what would happen because it is an extremely self explanatory statement.

The other half of the plot directly references FS in quite good detail. Why should we disregard the good half because of the bad half? That's actually a logical fallacy. Gimme a little while to get you a link to explain it, but it basically means that it's wrong everything because of one wrong aspect.

If I lied to you about something and then started telling you about something related to the lie, would you believe it?

You're trying to win the debate, not trying to figure out the best timeline.

I'm pretty sure that this whole thread is a debate on where MC goes. I believe it goes first, therefor I am going to try and "win" by giving more evidence for it being first. You're just trying to win too by giving evidence for it not to be first, so don't be a hypocrite.

 

[sign of table]

Give me ONE time in ANY OF THE ZELDA GAMES that takes place in Hyrule that doesn't feature or mention the existence of Ganon/dorf other than MC.

I can't name a Zelda game, but I can name plenty of literature where the main villain doesn't appear in one of the main books. But you will NEVER find a book that mentions two people who are childhood friends, while there are two characters in the backstory with the same names and were childhood friends. Because no writer is that damn stupid.

You completely disregarded that as evidence so why can't I disregard this? It's pretty much the same exact argument.

Ganon not appearing in TMC isn't evidence for its placement. It fits nicely if it goes first, but you can't use that to prove its placement because it just isn't solid enough. For example. If TMC is first it could mark the beginning of organized villainry. Now that isn't evidence for its placement, but it would fit nicely if it went first. You get what I'm saying?

Yeah, this is pretty self explanatory. It basically says that it's the lock to his locked door. It's obvious what would happen if the sword was pulled (the lock would be removed). This doesn't hint to him previously knowing what would happen because it is an extremely self explanatory statement.

He clearly didn't get tricked into pulling the sword, of course, as he knew fully well what would happen if he pulled the sword.

If I lied to you about something and then started telling you about something related to the lie, would you believe it?

If you're wrong about one thing, then correct on the other half of the tale, does that automatically make the other correct half of the tale wrong? No it doesn't. We know for a fact that the second half of the tale is 100% correct. We can't deny it because FS came out before it and it describes it perfectly.

The second half is correct. The second half makes no mistakes on what happens in FS, so why should we believe that it is wrong when it was made to describe FS and it does so perfectly and adds a few details?

I'm pretty sure that this whole thread is a debate on where MC goes. I believe it goes first, therefor I am going to try and "win" by giving more evidence for it being first. You're just trying to win too by giving evidence for it not to be first, so don't be a hypocrite.

I actually heavily lean towards TMC being first. But I'm not going to take every piece of evidence as, well, evidence when some of it just doesn't work and is fallacious and illogical.

Also that comment was about FS placement, not TMC placement.

What evidence is there for FS as first(/second after TMC or whatever...)? A developer who didn't work on the game saying their thinking of it being first before it even came out.

What evidence is against it as first? A game made by the same developer who made the original quote that gives a huge implication in the backstory which came out after the quote.

Weren't you the one who said in a previous debate game evidence > developer quotes?

 

[Zemen]

I can't name a Zelda game,

Exactly.

but I can name plenty of literature where the main villain doesn't appear in one of the main books. But you will NEVER find a book that mentions two people who are childhood friends, while there are two characters in the backstory with the same names and were childhood friends. Because no writer is that damn stupid.

Too bad that statement has absolutely nothing to do with Zelda and is completely irrelevant. Terrible argument.

Weren't you the one who said in a previous debate game evidence > developer quotes?

Where have I argued any creator quotes?

 

[sign of table]

Too bad that statement has absolutely nothing to do with Zelda and is completely irrelevant. Terrible argument.

So you're telling me that to place FS as first I have to ignore all common sense of writing and believe that the writers were that stupid?

I'm sorry but it's just a ridiculous argument. The OoT as SW has some merit and makes some sense. This doesn't. You cannot give me any example of any writer above the age of 4 being as stupid as you claim the FSA BS writers were. It's called common sense.

It says that Zelda had a childhood friend named Link. Zelda is still the princess in FSA. Zelda is friends with Link. Link knows what will happen if he pulls the sword.

You are claiming that the Link and Zelda in the first instance are different from the second/third/fourth one that I posted? If-so I can only say one thing....... lol

Where have I argued any creator quotes?

Earlier in this very thread:

Once again, you fail to see the point. You're assuming that one statement made is more correct than the thousands upon thousands of boxes that were created and never corrected. Miyamoto never once came out and said "the boxes are wrong, Link is not the predecessor of Link in LoZ/AoL"

He's been wrong before and I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't bluntly say that the box is wrong. Just stop arguing because you are not at all understanding anything I'm saying.

Stop changing your arguments for each debate to suit you. It's doing exactly what I was talking about. You're trying to win, not trying to find the best timeline.

 

[Zemen]

Stop changing your arguments for each debate to suit you. It's doing exactly what I was talking about. You're trying to win, not trying to find the best timeline.

Your previous post said that I was the one who said that game evidence was more important than creator quotes. You then posted something I said that went exactly with my theory of game evidence being more important than creator quotes. I fail to see how that proved me wrong on anything. All you did was verify that i stick to my belief. Congrats. And you seem to be only trying to "win" as well, so once again, stop being a hypocrite. If you really don't care about winning, then stop posting because all you are doing is retaliating my posts and by doing so, you are doing exactly what I am supposedly doing.

 

[sign of table]

Your previous post said that I was the one who said that game evidence was more important than creator quotes. You then posted something I said that went exactly with my theory of game evidence being more important than creator quotes.

Your only evidence is a quote from Aonuma. Whereas I'm using more recent in-game evidence. If in-game evidence is more important than developer quotes, why are you still following FS-OoT?

All you did was verify that i stick to my belief.

Actually you're doing quite the opposite. Earlier in this thread you said in-game > developer quotes for timeline stuff. Now you're using an Aonuma quote and saying that it's more important than the more recent in-game evidence. You even said: "Where have I argued any creator quotes?" That is NOT sticking to your belief and it's annoying as hell.

If you really don't care about winning, then stop posting because all you are doing is retaliating my posts and by doing so, you are doing exactly what I am supposedly doing.

Except I'm posting with logic and evidence, whereas the only thing you've done is say that it's not important, but you've yet to give me ANY example of ANYTHING FROM ANY PIECE OF FICTION OR STORY EVER IN THE HISTORY OF TIME to do what you're claiming the FSA BS did.

 

[Zemen]

Actually you're doing quite the opposite. Earlier in this thread you said in-game > developer quotes for timeline stuff. Now you're using an Aonuma quote blah blah blah

Where am I arguing that quote about FS being first and where did I ever state that I believe FS to be first? All I'm doing is arguing every spectrum that's possible. Not once have I taken my stance on where FS is placed on the timeline. All I'm doing is telling you that there is no solid evidence, other than the BS (according to you), for FS to be a direct prequel. That doesn't mean I believe it isn't a direct prequel. I'm simply stating a fact that there is only one piece of evidence for it.

Similarly, there is not one single post of mine that argues the quote Aounuma made about FS. I believe you are getting me mixed up with Caleb, who actually has been hardcore arguing that quote. But I can promise you that I am one of the people that does not take that quote seriously.

Maybe you should figure out who actually posted stuff before you start bashing the wrong person.

 

[sign of table]

Where am I arguing that quote about FS being first and where did I ever state that I believe FS to be first? All I'm doing is arguing every spectrum that's possible. Not once have I taken my stance on where FS is placed on the timeline. All I'm doing is telling you that there is no solid evidence, other than the BS (according to you), for FS to be a direct prequel. That doesn't mean I believe it isn't a direct prequel. I'm simply stating a fact that there is only one piece of evidence for it.

As long as I've remembered you did place FS before OoT and I don't remember you ever mentioning that you didn't believe it was before OoT. Sorry for any misunderstanding, then ):

Similarly, there is not one single post of mine that argues the quote Aounuma made about FS. I believe you are getting me mixed up with Caleb, who actually has been hardcore arguing that quote. But I can promise you that I am one of the people that does not take that quote seriously.

Maybe you should figure out who actually posted stuff before you start bashing the wrong person.

I'm terribly sorry for any misunderstanding. Back when you first started theorizing you did use that quote, but I guess it has been a long time since. So I'm sorry about all that. Since you seemed to be arguing for FS and the only proof for FS before OoT is the Aonuma quote I thought you still believed it mattered.

Sorry

 

[Zemen]

As long as I've remembered you did place FS before OoT and I don't remember you ever mentioning that you didn't believe it was before OoT. Sorry for any misunderstanding, then ): I'm terribly sorry for any misunderstanding. Back when you first started theorizing you did use that quote, but I guess it has been a long time since. So I'm sorry about all that. Since you seemed to be arguing for FS and the only proof for FS before OoT is the Aonuma quote I thought you still believed it mattered.

Sorry

No harm, no foul.

I wonder if anyone else will start posting now that are minor feud is out of way

 

[jco5055]

I think TMC comes first, but that FS/FSA come much later (after OoT sometime), but are the same Link in those two games.

Aonuma stated that the FS story is the oldest story in the Zelda universe, but couldnt he mean not the particular story itself, but the saga of the FS/Vaati is the oldest? That would mean that only the first game chronologically (TMC) would have to be the oldest, and come first overall. Also, though i last beat TMC three years ago so my memories a little hazy, doesnt Vaati get sealed away, so presumably thousands of years could pass betwen TMC and FS?

 

[Zemen]

I think TMC comes first, but that FS/FSA come much later (after OoT sometime), but are the same Link in those two games.

Aonuma stated that the FS story is the oldest story in the Zelda universe, but couldnt he mean not the particular story itself, but the saga of the FS/Vaati is the oldest? That would mean that only the first game chronologically (TMC) would have to be the oldest, and come first overall. Also, though i last beat TMC three years ago so my memories a little hazy, doesnt Vaati get sealed away, so presumably thousands of years could pass betwen TMC and FS?

Vaati getting sealed away is not a good basis for evidence as to FS being thousands of years later because he also gets sealed away in FS but apparently, as many people believe, he shortly gets released again in FSA which would only be a few years.