Smertios's Timeline

[sign of table]

Proof that they all evolved?

 

[Zemen]

This is the most ignorant thing I have read as of 2009. Congratulations.

this does not contribute to the thread at all so congratulations to you.

Proof that they all evolved?

in WW, the zora sage tells you to find her DESCENDANT that carries the same instrument as her and she is supposed to be the new sage. her DESCENDANT that you find is a Rito, not a Zora which implies that the rito were once Zora, but they no longer are and evolved to adapt to the new world that was created when Hyrule was flooded. if there were other Zora in the world then why are they not in WW or PH? this leads me to believe that all Zora died out or evolved. also, the name "Rito" is very close to the original Zora sage from OoT named "Ruto" so that is another clue that the tribe was named after the first Zora sage. also, the sage in WW that is a Zora is named Laruto which is close to Ruto which is close to Rito. theres your proof.

another thing i just thought of is that Hyrule is at the bottom of the great sea but no one knows about Hyrule. if there were still Zora around then chances are they would have come across the Hyrule under the sea and tell someone about it. the fact that this is not the case, the fact that we dont see any Zora, the fact that the sage calls a member of the Rito tribe her descendant seems proof enough that there are no Zora and that the Rito evolved from them.

and as Midna666 put it, if the Zora evolved into the Rito (like WW suggests) then they would not be around to bring the sword from the bottom of the sea unless the Rito "re-evolved" back into Zora which is HIGHLY unlikely.


i would like to point out one tiny thing. when you make your timeline, you look at EVERY TINY THING as if the creators purposely have a timeline in mind which they have told us they dont put in high regard. the creators have told us that they dont put so much thought into a timeline so why do you believe that EVERY SINGLE TINY THING is proof that a game goes where you say it goes? if this was the case then the creators lied to us and they really do have a timeline in mind when they create every aspect of the game but we know this to be false. you take everything WAY to literally. i doubt that the tiny things that only zeldabangers like you notice have anything to do with a timeline. wasnt it you too who earlier said that Aonume (or however you spell it) said that there is no timeline that he knows of? if thats the case then the tiny stuff you keep arguing DEFINITELY doesnt help explain a timeline.

 

[blackmoon]

The original Japanese version of TWW uses the word "predecessor" instead of "decendant" when Medli is talking about Laruto.

I also strongly doubt the creators meant for anything to evolve. Evolution take millions of years, over which EVERYTHING changes!

youre using the fact that there is water in FSA as a reason of where your putting it. i think that using geogrpahy is a terrible way to come up with a timeline. you say that ALTTP is just completely land with no water around it. if this is the case then why would LoZ be after ALTTP? LoZ has a coast, so this destroys that idea. youre basing your ENTIRE timeline on ONE quote in the series. when the deku tree says that, he is referring to you going around and watering all the trees but that is just a SIDE QUEST. if it had more significance to it like you think it does then it would have been much more focused on in the game.

The idea that the Deku Tree puts forward does, to me, seem to have some significance. It's almost as if the creators realised halfway through the game, "Oh sh!t, how does Hyrule come back?" and they found a nice sidequest to put in a little quote to give a reason to how Hyrule may come back.

Of course, it IS just a sidequest, and it is very unfocused, but to me, it does look as if the developers wanted to put the idea that Hyrule would one day come back into the fans heads. The land could be deflooded in a number of ways, not necessarily the one the GDT put forward, but the intent certainly is there.


As for the geography of FSA... sorry, I don't buy it. The overworld map is not meant to be taken literally. Take Ocarina of Time, for example. If I'm crossing the field, it takes about two minutes to get from Kokiri Forest to Hyrule Castle Town, and about four minutes for an entire day to pass. Also, how long does it take to scale Death Mountain? Maybe a minute, to get to the very top? I don't know of many mountains where one can do that.

It's not meant to be 100% literal, otherwise half the game would be running places.

Now, onto the actual Ocean point; I can understand why someone would take it to mean FSA comes after TWW; in fact, I think it fits quite well. However, when you do this, you must also take in all other taken facts. If ALttP comes after TWW, then all memory of OoT must be taken to be lost, or at least not common knowledge. One could argue that the Book of Mudora could come from the OoT era, but very few people would know about the IW.

Speaking of the IW, although it was originally supposed to have been OoT; I believe it to have been retconned. Now that TWW and TP are both direct sequels to OoT; it doesn't make sense for OoT to be the IW.

In other words, for OoT to be the IW, the timeline must go

......ALttP
OoT/

I think it's more likely that FSA was retconned to be the IW. The 4S can be found in the Dark World of ALttP, and I don't think there is any reason that the sages couldn't have put a Seal around the 4S after the game ends. This makes much more sense to me.


Now, I agree that TMC doesn't need to come first. The quote used is innaccurate and has been contradicted. On that note, I see no reason NOT to put it first. The quote from Anouma says that he may have been wrong about 4S being first, but I see no real reason NOT to put it first. So, I won't argue the point, even though I have always put TMC first in my timeline.

 

[Skull_Kid]

The figurines of Nayru say that she is a descendant of a line of oracles from Labrynna.

Well... that actually proves nothing except for the fact that there was already a line of Oracles before Her, and probably went On, over the years, so just helps to prove that there have been Oracles like...since the dawn of ages or so.

I have to contradict Zemen on this one, the Japanese version is the canon version, unless it is retconned by the creators...
Like in the Japanese version of the SNES ALttP some things are way different from the USA version, fortubately, that was corrected in the GBA version and both versions are Matches.

The Zoras evolved into Rito, but, PH brought something that made me think if they all evolved: The Zora Scale... if there are no more Zora's, where did it come from?

Also, the reference to the Triumph Forks is also on the European version of MC, at least.

One thing that I noticed is that there are no Zora's in MC and FS(if I recall correctly), but they are in FSA.

We all assumed and is given by some in-game dialogues that the Zora evolved into Rito cause they couldn't stand the salt water.
But this is contradicted in OoA in wich there is a whole Zora City in the Sea, and they even claim that they aren't as rude as their river counterparts(referring to the ones that pop out and throw fireballs).

I also don't think that, even if hyrule unflooded, people would chisel down Ganondorf's body to make a pedestal.

Someone told up there that he thinks that the Great Sea of PH is more probably Hyrule because of the Maze Island. Well... I can disprove this in two separate ways:

1st- The Geography is all wrong

2nd- PH is in a paralell dimension, as it is hinted by the ending!

Also, I don't think that the Maku Trees are grown from normal trees... What I can assume is that, if the Oracles would come after WW(wich I don't think they are), and the plan of the Deku Tree worked, the Trees that were withering evolved into Maku trees... But it is unlikely, cause I don't believe in that sequence of games

 

[Smertios]

i have no idea what this book of mudora is. if you could explain that it would be great.

The Book of Mudora is an iten from LttP. It is said to have the legends of hyrule written in it.

PH does not mention Ganon because the game has NOTHING TO DO WITH GANON. i would also like to mention that spear moblins are still around in PH even though ganondorf is "dead"

That is my point. Just because there is no Ganon in some games doesn't mean they have to come before OoT

you cant say that the MS being in stone in ALTTP is the same as in WW because in WW the stone is clearly ganondorf. i doubt that someone came along and chizzled it to make it look like a pedestal. the point of the sword is that only a great hero can wield it and also that only the royal family knows where it is, IMO. also, the sword is left in the forsaken fortress at the end of WW. when they found a new Hyrule are we supposed to believe they went back for the master sword AND chizzled it to look like a pedestal?

Weird enough, this is how the MS ended in Ganondorf's head in TWW:

It's exactly the same position the MS is in LttP...

MC is not a sequel to a game. its a prequel that introduces a completely new antagonist and talks about a hero who sealed away monsters. it also makes it clear that this hero is NOT link. it also makes it clear that there was not ONE MAIN ENEMY but rather an army of monsters. if ganon had anything to do with the war over the light force, it would have been mentioned. the back story of MC also does not at all correspond to any other game in the series. the back story for all of the Zelda games (the ones that have BS') are pretty clear in their explanation of a past Zelda game, but MC doesnt have a BS that corresponds to any other Zelda game OR link which leads me to believe that it is first in the timeline.

I really don't get your point there. If Ganon was dead after TWW and alive again for FSA, he didn't need to be there for TMC or FS...

also i believe that in this thread or another thread you said something about MC being near an ocean. ive looked at the map from MC and there is no ocean. there is a lake/river but no ocean on the map. its pretty landlocked. its similar to OoT even (i dont mean map-wise i mean its traits). it has a mountain, a river/lake and a forest. the only major difference is that OoT has a desert and MC has a swamp.

Go way up to the Palace of Winds and look down below. This is what you'll see:

It seems like an ocean to me (and it is in TMC)...

i dont recall ANY mention of triumph forks/triforce in MC so if you could find an in game quote that would be awesome.

It is the name of one of the books in the library of TMC. It is written in the hylian alphabet so it's hard to find a quote. There is a study in ZL I think. I'll see if i can find it for you...

just about all of your stuff is based off of the japanese versions of the game. welcome to America, homes.

But the game is japanese. The other versions can't be more canon...

The Zora become the Rito(on the adult timeline)so they could not pull the sword out of Ganon.

PH shows red zoras too, implying that some of the blue zoras from OoT did not become rito...

another thing i just thought of is that Hyrule is at the bottom of the great sea but no one knows about Hyrule. if there were still Zora around then chances are they would have come across the Hyrule under the sea and tell someone about it. the fact that this is not the case, the fact that we dont see any Zora, the fact that the sage calls a member of the Rito tribe her descendant seems proof enough that there are no Zora and that the Rito evolved from them.

There were no zoras in Hyrule in TWW. That's why none found Hyrule...

and as Midna666 put it, if the Zora evolved into the Rito (like WW suggests) then they would not be around to bring the sword from the bottom of the sea unless the Rito "re-evolved" back into Zora which is HIGHLY unlikely.

There is no proof that all zoras evolved into rito though...

the creators have told us that they dont put so much thought into a timeline so why do you believe that EVERY SINGLE TINY THING is proof that a game goes where you say it goes?

In the same interview in which Aonuma said that FS is the "oldest tale of Hyrule" he said that, after a game is complete, they add stuff to conect it to other games' storylines. So, we should look at every single detail to see what he was talking about...

The original Japanese version of TWW uses the word "predecessor" instead of "decendant" when Medli is talking about Laruto.

I also strongly doubt the creators meant for anything to evolve. Evolution take millions of years, over which EVERYTHING changes!

Exactly...

The idea that the Deku Tree puts forward does, to me, seem to have some significance. It's almost as if the creators realised halfway through the game, "Oh sh!t, how does Hyrule come back?" and they found a nice sidequest to put in a little quote to give a reason to how Hyrule may come back.

Again, this is what i was talking about...

In other words, for OoT to be the IW, the timeline must go

......ALttP
OoT/

I think it's more likely that FSA was retconned to be the IW. The 4S can be found in the Dark World of ALttP, and I don't think there is any reason that the sages couldn't have put a Seal around the 4S after the game ends. This makes much more sense to me.

FSA does not match the IW description from LttP. First that Ganon was never sealed in the Sr. Second that the triforce is not even mentioned in the game...

Well... that actually proves nothing except for the fact that there was already a line of Oracles before Her, and probably went On, over the years, so just helps to prove that there have been Oracles like...since the dawn of ages or so.

We agree on that...

The Zoras evolved into Rito, but, PH brought something that made me think if they all evolved: The Zora Scale... if there are no more Zora's, where did it come from?

The japanese version of TWW does not use the word 'descendent' when referring to Laruto at all. That was the only thing implying that the Rito evolved from the zoras...

I also don't think that, even if hyrule unflooded, people would chisel down Ganondorf's body to make a pedestal.

With enough time, the ocean itself would have made it look just as a ordinary rock. After it deflooded, people could have built the pedestal around the stone...

Someone told up there that he thinks that the Great Sea of PH is more probably Hyrule because of the Maze Island. Well... I can disprove this in two separate ways:

1st- The Geography is all wrong

2nd- PH is in a paralell dimension, as it is hinted by the ending!

Later you take a look at this please:
http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/zelda-theorizing/89088-mastering-geography.html

And I believe someone said that the japanese version doesn't imply that it's a different dimension...

Also, I don't think that the Maku Trees are grown from normal trees... What I can assume is that, if the Oracles would come after WW(wich I don't think they are), and the plan of the Deku Tree worked, the Trees that were withering evolved into Maku trees... But it is unlikely, cause I don't believe in that sequence of games

At least you acknowledge that it can work...

 

[Zemen]

no timeline was ever thought of until after OoT was made. the only games that were made AFTER OoT were WW, TP, MM, MC, FSA, PH and i guess the "remake" of ALTTP which is pretty much the same with a few differences. other than that, all other Zelda games were not made with any timeline in mind whatsoever. the original ALTTP was made before the timeline theories so using evidence from ALTTP to support a timeline is irrelevant.

whoever made that comment on evolution, here is my rebuttal.

OBVIOUSLY the land of Hyrule is very different to our own world. anything seems to be possible. there is magic all over the place. maybe the Zora didnt evolve but maybe they were magically changed into the Rito. we already know that magic CAN change creatures seeing as how the deku tree changed the kokiri into the koroks. whos to say that jabu jabu (who is the zora equivalent of the deku tree) didnt use some sort of magic to turn them into the Rito tribe. also it was stated that the only evidence to support the rito tribe being evolved Zoras is that the zora sage says descendents. thats not at all the only evidence. as i said, the name itself is VERY similar to Ruto who was the water sage in OoT.

rIto...rUto....seem very similar to me.

youre right, maybe he deku tree sidequest does explain how the water comes back, but as i stated before, if this is the case then it should have been MUCH more focused especially if the creators intended on that side quest to help explain timelines. it seems like too much of a footnote to be taken so seriously.

you read the books in the library in MC. you translated the Hylian alphabet to figure out that the books talk about the triumph fork. seems like WAY to much work just to figure out where a game goes on a timeline. like seriously, i bet youre one of maybe 3 people in the world who actually checked that. i HIGHLY doubt it has any significance seeing as how it was probably never meant to even be translated. i bet the creators never expected anyone to translate. it was just in there for fun.

youre making it sound like ALTTP was made with WW in mind but that is impossible seeing as how long ago ALTTP was made. you say that the ocean could have helped chip away at the rock. thats true, that could happen, but i doubt that when the creators were making ALTTP they said "some day we are gonna make a game that has a sword sticking into ganondorfs head and then the ocean will make the stone of ganondorf look just like this pedestal."

in order for this to happen they would have had to make WW with ALTTP in mind which is more likely, except that WW makes no references to ALTTP except that both games have the master sword, but you could say that for almost every Zelda game..

 

[sign of table]

no timeline was ever thought of until after OoT was made. the only games that were made AFTER OoT were WW, TP, MM, MC, FSA, PH and i guess the "remake" of ALTTP which is pretty much the same with a few differences. other than that, all other Zelda games were not made with any timeline in mind whatsoever. the original ALTTP was made before the timeline theories so using evidence from ALTTP to support a timeline is irrelevant.

That is the second-most fail logic I've ever heard. If that's the case take out LttP, LoZ, AoL and LA out of your timeline.

you read the books in the library in MC. you translated the Hylian alphabet to figure out that the books talk about the triumph fork. seems like WAY to much work just to figure out where a game goes on a timeline. like seriously, i bet youre one of maybe 3 people in the world who actually checked that. i HIGHLY doubt it has any significance seeing as how it was probably never meant to even be translated. i bet the creators never expected anyone to translate. it was just in there for fun.

Actually, it is pretty common knowledge to most of the theorizing community. Almost everyone on LA, ZI and ZU know it. I've even seen people on youtube who know it!

in order for this to happen they would have had to make WW with ALTTP in mind which is more likely, except that WW makes no references to ALTTP except that both games have the master sword, but you could say that for almost every Zelda game..

You can't disregard evidence just because it was made previously. Once again fail logic. It's still evidence and it can still work.

Oh and about your Rito thing. Please read what I say this time. You've been misreading me every time.

I agree that the Rito are evolved Zora. I've agreed with you on that this whole time. I'm asking for proof that EVERY SINGLE ZORA EVOLVED INTO RITO. You seem to be assuming that all zora evolved into rito. There is no proof that ALL of them evolved.

 

[Zemen]

That is the second-most fail logic I've ever heard. If that's the case take out LttP, LoZ, AoL and LA out of your timeline. Actually, it is pretty common knowledge to most of the theorizing community. Almost everyone on LA, ZI and ZU know it. I've even seen people on youtube who know it! You can't disregard evidence just because it was made previously. Once again fail logic. It's still evidence and it can still work.

the people who go on youtube and translate that stuff are people who WAY overthink those things and are zeldabangers.

as i said, and as you agreed on with me, the creators are more into gameplay than a timeline. you even said that aunome knows of no specific timeline at this time. that is the tiniest detail i have ever heard someone present as evidence. youre looking for reasons that arent there. now im not gonna post anymore on this thread untill the discussion is actually going somewhere because youre saying the same things over and over which cause me to say the same things over and over and its boring.

 

[sign of table]

So what if it is a small detail? It's still in the games and it still says a word that wasn't even developed until tWW.

Ok so I want to ask something. What evidence is there for tMC being first? I've seen you try and counter our points about how it can't be first. But I haven't seen any legitimate reasons for it to actually be first.

 

[Smertios]

no timeline was ever thought of until after OoT was made. the only games that were made AFTER OoT were WW, TP, MM, MC, FSA, PH and i guess the "remake" of ALTTP which is pretty much the same with a few differences. other than that, all other Zelda games were not made with any timeline in mind whatsoever. the original ALTTP was made before the timeline theories so using evidence from ALTTP to support a timeline is irrelevant.

But they did change a lot in the gba version to make it fit into the timeline. They even strengthened the connections between LttP and OoT (like changing the name from Wise Men for Sages) and made connections between LttP and FS (the dungeon)...

youre right, maybe he deku tree sidequest does explain how the water comes back, but as i stated before, if this is the case then it should have been MUCH more focused especially if the creators intended on that side quest to help explain timelines. it seems like too much of a footnote to be taken so seriously.

You haven't understood that they do add small details to make timeline connections right? Aonuma said that himself...

you read the books in the library in MC. you translated the Hylian alphabet to figure out that the books talk about the triumph fork. seems like WAY to much work just to figure out where a game goes on a timeline. like seriously, i bet youre one of maybe 3 people in the world who actually checked that. i HIGHLY doubt it has any significance seeing as how it was probably never meant to even be translated. i bet the creators never expected anyone to translate. it was just in there for fun.

Actually, i'm the one person in the world who didn't. I don't know japanese...
I just payed attention to a study about that done by the people from ZL...

youre making it sound like ALTTP was made with WW in mind but that is impossible seeing as how long ago ALTTP was made. you say that the ocean could have helped chip away at the rock. thats true, that could happen, but i doubt that when the creators were making ALTTP they said "some day we are gonna make a game that has a sword sticking into ganondorfs head and then the ocean will make the stone of ganondorf look just like this pedestal."

in order for this to happen they would have had to make WW with ALTTP in mind which is more likely, except that WW makes no references to ALTTP except that both games have the master sword, but you could say that for almost every Zelda game..

Maybe they wanted to hint that. We can't be sure...

the people who go on youtube and translate that stuff are people who WAY overthink those things and are zeldabangers.

If it's not to look at the details, why bother making a timeline theory at all??

as i said, and as you agreed on with me, the creators are more into gameplay than a timeline. you even said that aunome knows of no specific timeline at this time. that is the tiniest detail i have ever heard someone present as evidence. youre looking for reasons that arent there. now im not gonna post anymore on this thread untill the discussion is actually going somewhere because youre saying the same things over and over which cause me to say the same things over and over and its boring.

Aonuma said he "is working" on the timeline, not that he doesn't have one...

 

[Zemen]

So what if it is a small detail? It's still in the games and it still says a word that wasn't even developed until tWW.

Ok so I want to ask something. What evidence is there for tMC being first? I've seen you try and counter our points about how it can't be first. But I haven't seen any legitimate reasons for it to actually be first.

fine. here i go.

1 - this is what most people consider to be the weakest reason so ill start with it. the hat. you start off with no hat. you play the game with a hat like creature on your head. after you save him from being a hat permanantly he gives you a hat saying it suits you. its the only game in the series where you dont start out with the hat and then recieve it saying that the hero of legends wore it.

example - in WW you dont start out with any of the clothing but when you do recieve it you are told that the hero of time wore a similar outfit.

this doesnt happen in MC. no one tells you that an ancient hero wore a hat like that. he just gives it to you because he thinks it suits you. thats a good explanation as to why any link wears a hat. if MC is first and that is the original Link then it explains why all other Links wear a hat.

i will be coming back to this idea a little bit later.

2 - the BS of the game does not speak of any previous Zelda game.

example - the BS for WW obviously is talking about OoT. the BS for TP is what many believe to be what happens after Link returns to his childhood. the manual BS for FSA talks about FS. many believe that the BS for ALTTP is talking about OoT. every game that has a BS, has a BS that is obviously related to a previous game in the series.

this isnt the case with MC. the BS for MC is not at all related to any other title. also, the hero spoken of in the BS is the hero of men, Gustav...NOT LINK. also, even if you argue that it isnt Gustav in the BS, the hero in the BS still is not wearing a hat. if it was a Link from a previous game than the portraits/glass in the kingdom that shows the legend would have the hero wearing a hat. link is never referred to as the hero of men in any zelda game.
(this was where i went back to the hat idea).

3 - the BS does not talk about any ONE super evil being. it only talks about an army of creatures. there is no mention of Ganon/dorf or any other higher being which leads many to believe that there is no higher being, just monsters. the hero of men sealed those creatures away. they obviously have a legend thats passed down but this legend never speaks of an evil leader. im also pretty sure that this is the only zelda game that takes place in Hyrule that doesnt have Ganon/dorf in it and if Ganon/dorf had existed before this game, then he would have been mentioned somewhere by someone. (FS too but FS isnt considered to be a full blown game).

4 - this is Vaati's introduction. Vaati was a picori. he wanted more power so he stole the hat that his master made so he could become a powerful sorcerer. Vaati releases the monsters onto the world from the chest that they once were sealed in. at the end of the game, Vaati is sealed in the chest but the monsters are not. this could explain why Hyrule/the world has monsters to begin with. also, this could explain why no other game has picori in it. after they saw how powerful the picori are and could become, the people could have gotten scared and made them go back to their own world thinking that it is best. we know that the royal family has made a group move out of fear (the gerudo into the gerudo desert) so its possible. if this is the first game in the timeline and the picori are sent back to their world it would explain why they are in no other game.

5 - this is a recent theory i came up with so im going to see how it goes with this explanation. the light force is never spoken of in any game. if this power was fought over in ancient times and if this game takes place after WW/PH then why did it take so long to be fought over again? dont you think that Ganon/dorf would be after this power too? its the only game that mentions the light force and a war over the light force. now here is my theory. in the game, the power of the light force is given to Zelda. this could explain why the royal family has magical powers. it is never explained why the ocarina of time has the power it has. what if the royal family used their magic recieved from the light force to give the ocarina power. if we remember correctly, in some of the games the kings seem to have some magic power to them. they obviously dont get their power from a triforce so they have to get it from somewhere. if MC goes first on the timeline, it would help explain why the royal family has the powers that it has.

this isnt really meant to be an argument just a theory i came up with.

you wanted me to explain why it could go first on a timeline. there ya go.

 

[Skull_Kid]

Smertios, what Red Zoras are you referring to, in PH?The Zora Warriors that fight like Dark Nuts?
Also, no matter what they say in the Japanese version... In the end we all know that the Tetra crew says that they've been only in the Ghost Ship for what,?10 minutes?
Even though I don't really agree with your timeline, you raised some good points, and I must congrat you about that, smertios

 

[sign of table]

1 - this is what most people consider to be the weakest reason so ill start with it. the hat. you start off with no hat. you play the game with a hat like creature on your head. after you save him from being a hat permanantly he gives you a hat saying it suits you. its the only game in the series where you dont start out with the hat and then recieve it saying that the hero of legends wore it.

example - in WW you dont start out with any of the clothing but when you do recieve it you are told that the hero of time wore a similar outfit.

this doesnt happen in MC. no one tells you that an ancient hero wore a hat like that. he just gives it to you because he thinks it suits you. thats a good explanation as to why any link wears a hat. if MC is first and that is the original Link then it explains why all other Links wear a hat.

OoT is the start of the kokiri garb, though. Which is the full tunic and the hat.

2 - the BS of the game does not speak of any previous Zelda game.

example - the BS for WW obviously is talking about OoT. the BS for TP is what many believe to be what happens after Link returns to his childhood. the manual BS for FSA talks about FS. many believe that the BS for ALTTP is talking about OoT. every game that has a BS, has a BS that is obviously related to a previous game in the series.

this isnt the case with MC. the BS for MC is not at all related to any other title. also, the hero spoken of in the BS is the hero of men, Gustav...NOT LINK. also, even if you argue that it isnt Gustav in the BS, the hero in the BS still is not wearing a hat. if it was a Link from a previous game than the portraits/glass in the kingdom that shows the legend would have the hero wearing a hat. link is never referred to as the hero of men in any zelda game.
(this was where i went back to the hat idea).

The BS for OoT only speaks of the fierce wars. Which obviously isn't tMC.

3 - the BS does not talk about any ONE super evil being. it only talks about an army of creatures. there is no mention of Ganon/dorf or any other higher being which leads many to believe that there is no higher being, just monsters. the hero of men sealed those creatures away. they obviously have a legend thats passed down but this legend never speaks of an evil leader. im also pretty sure that this is the only zelda game that takes place in Hyrule that doesnt have Ganon/dorf in it and if Ganon/dorf had existed before this game, then he would have been mentioned somewhere by someone. (FS too but FS isnt considered to be a full blown game).

The fierce wars were just wars amongst the peoples if I remember correctly. I'm a little weak on this argument because I don't know a lot about the fierce wars.

Oh and that logic about Ganon being mentioned is just plain horrible logic. I could say that Vaati is never mentioned in TP. So he hasn't existed yet. It works both ways.

4 - this is Vaati's introduction. Vaati was a picori. he wanted more power so he stole the hat that his master made so he could become a powerful sorcerer. Vaati releases the monsters onto the world from the chest that they once were sealed in. at the end of the game, Vaati is sealed in the chest but the monsters are not. this could explain why Hyrule/the world has monsters to begin with. also, this could explain why no other game has picori in it. after they saw how powerful the picori are and could become, the people could have gotten scared and made them go back to their own world thinking that it is best. we know that the royal family has made a group move out of fear (the gerudo into the gerudo desert) so its possible. if this is the first game in the timeline and the picori are sent back to their world it would explain why they are in no other game.

Not much to say here. This is mostly just speculation.

5 - this is a recent theory i came up with so im going to see how it goes with this explanation. the light force is never spoken of in any game. if this power was fought over in ancient times and if this game takes place after WW/PH then why did it take so long to be fought over again? dont you think that Ganon/dorf would be after this power too? its the only game that mentions the light force and a war over the light force. now here is my theory. in the game, the power of the light force is given to Zelda. this could explain why the royal family has magical powers. it is never explained why the ocarina of time has the power it has. what if the royal family used their magic recieved from the light force to give the ocarina power. if we remember correctly, in some of the games the kings seem to have some magic power to them. they obviously dont get their power from a triforce so they have to get it from somewhere. if MC goes first on the timeline, it would help explain why the royal family has the powers that it has.

Well, you see, in the japanese versions of tMC, FS and FSA the Light Force and the Force Gems are just called Force. So they're pretty much the same thing.

Here is another problem I have the tWW and FS being first. Why would the seal in FS be completely forgotten about for an entire flood, Link be forgotten about for an entire flood, everything deflooding and then everyone knows what the seal is, then BOOM everyone remembers Link from thousands of years before. It makes no sense what-so-ever.

So which makes more sense to you. Something flat out saying something that wasn't created until tWW, oracles references, the seal on Vaati and the FS actually making sense. Or interperating certain things in a certain way. Which the same arguments can be used on the other side.

Also, no matter what they say in the Japanese version... In the end we all know that the Tetra crew says that they've been only in the Ghost Ship for what,?10 minutes?

You see Linebeck in the ending and Link has the hourglass. It still happened.

 

[Zemen]

OoT is the start of the kokiri garb, though. Which is the full tunic and the hat.

OoT was made before MC. there is absolutely no in game quotes that say there wasnt anyone who wore a green hat and tunic before the kokiri did. what if the kokiri wear those clothes in honor of a past hero? theres no in game quotes saying that they started that outfit.

The BS for OoT only speaks of the fierce wars. Which obviously isn't tMC. The fierce wars were just wars amongst the peoples if I remember correctly. I'm a little weak on this argument because I don't know a lot about the fierce wars.[/QUOTE]

once again, OoT was made before MC so OBVIOUSLY the BS for OoT isnt going to be about a game that isnt created yet and wouldnt be created for many years.


you also said something about some argument for WW being first...i never said WW came first on any timeline. im gonna assume you typod and meant to say MC.

you said that its unlikely everyone would forget Vaati befor flood then just suddently remember after the flood. its the same thing with ganon. the only people that knew who he was after the flood was the king of red lions, the sages and the different gods. no regular person knew of him but something happened where he came back so in games after that they know him. its possible that this could happen with Vaati. he causes trouble, gets sealed, world floods later, defloods, he gets loose thus casuing him to be reintroduced to world just like ganondorf.


ill admit that there are arguments against MC being first but there are also arguments saying that it could be first and please dont talk like what youre saying is fact. it sounds like you know everything perfectly and that MC cant possibly go first and that kind of tone is annoying.

 

[sign of table]

OoT was made before MC. there is absolutely no in game quotes that say there wasnt anyone who wore a green hat and tunic before the kokiri did. what if the kokiri wear those clothes in honor of a past hero? theres no in game quotes saying that they started that outfit.

And there is absolutely no in game quote that says there wasn't anyone who wore a green hat before tMC Link did!
Why would the kokiri wear clothes in honor of a past human hero? Makes no sense and has no proof.

you also said something about some argument for WW being first...i never said WW came first on any timeline. im gonna assume you typod and meant to say MC.

Yeah, sorry about that.

you said that its unlikely everyone would forget Vaati befor flood then just suddently remember after the flood. its the same thing with ganon. the only people that knew who he was after the flood was the king of red lions, the sages and the different gods. no regular person knew of him but something happened where he came back so in games after that they know him. its possible that this could happen with Vaati. he causes trouble, gets sealed, world floods later, defloods, he gets loose thus casuing him to be reintroduced to world just like ganondorf.

Possible. But you said that fact that tMC and FS don't feature Ganon is proof? TP doesn't even mention Vaati. And TP was released after tMC.

once again, OoT was made before MC so OBVIOUSLY the BS for OoT isnt going to be about a game that isnt created yet and wouldnt be created for many years.

Sure, but Aonuma has said he wants to connect the new games to the old games. So they should have made tMC fit with the OoT BS.

ill admit that there are arguments against MC being first but there are also arguments saying that it could be first and please dont talk like what youre saying is fact. it sounds like you know everything perfectly and that MC cant possibly go first and that kind of tone is annoying.

tMC could go first. But there is almost no evidence for it. And the exact same evidence for it can be used for OoT to go first.

Also there is evidence for it to go after.

The fact that it takes place in a flooded land. The reference to the oracles. The triumph forks. That is all solid evidence for tMC to go on the AT after tWW. The evidence for it to go first can be used for OoT to go first, too.