Smertios's Timeline

[Smertios]

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.

It is a good point you have, but why only the hat then? Why not tell the story of how Link got the whole green clothes?

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 of FS also doesn't mention any game. Neither does the LoZ BS nor the AoL BS.

Only games that are logical sequels do so...

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).

I have to give you this. The OoT BS and TP BS also mention wars with no specific major villains, but since those would have happened bfore OoT, that can't be used as an example.

But please notice that originally, LttP BS (about the IW) didn't mention ganon at all...

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.

Well, the fact that the monsters (and I think the only monsters trapped in the chest were moblins, goriyas etc, not normal animals like octorocks) were there before being sealed into the bound chest by the Hero of Men makes this point invalid. It's pretty logical to assume that they were trapped in TMC BS and then released in TMC, not influencing any other games.

And the picori could have come to the "normal" world anytime. They could have traveled between TWW and TMC and then left again in the end of TMC. So, even though I have to agree that it's plausible, I don't think this point s conclusive. and please notice that we don't really see a lot of peoples/races anywhere in other games (the rito, the wind tribe, the oocca, the anouki, the yooks/yetis etc.)

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.

Well, the Light Force was pretty much residing in the Picori Realm before TMC BS. That would explain why it doesn't appear in any game that comes before TMC in my timeline. I don't know what happened after it, but you should have in mind that the Force Gems from FSA (or TWW? i don't really know) are called the same as the Light Force in japanese. And apparently in some other game (i don't really know much about this subject, but i can research it later) there is something called Life Force in the american version that has the same japanese name as the Light Force and the Force Gems.

So I don't really think the Light Force is such a powerfull/important iten...

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

I agree that it's valid evidence, but none of them is really conclusive (but, again, neither are the ones i gave you), so I have to say that, even though I accept that TMC can come first in the timeline, I don't believe it for the reasons i posted already. You believe so for the reasons you said, which I think are valid. So I'd say that we can't really know for sure where TMC comes. It can be before OoT, after TWW or after TP...

Smertios, what Red Zoras are you referring to, in PH?The Zora Warriors that fight like Dark Nuts?

Yes, they are identical to the ones from LttP, except for the swords and shields and the different battle style.

I don't know if there rae any dark nuts in PH though, because i only played till the wind island and I only found one of those zoras to be honest.

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?

I have to give you that, but we see Lineback with the hourglass, so I'd say that the events really happened, even though time was slower there.

Even though I don't really agree with your timeline, you raised some good points, and I must congrat you about that, smertios

Thank you. As I said, currently we don't have any conclusive evidence to place most of the games. I'd say that TMC and FS can indeed come before OoT and the 2 games can come either in the CT or in the AT. There is evidence for both placements...

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 same could be said about TMC, they don't say that it was the first time ever that a hero used a green cap...

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.

Well, Lttp was also created before OoT, but they made sure to make it clear that OoT is LttP BS...

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.

It's perfectly possible that a new Ganondorf was born after TWW. It happens a lot with Link, Zelda and Impa.

Or he could have been ressurected and caused trouble, that way people would know about him after the flood. OoX and AoL make it clear that ressurections are possible.

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.

After you theorize about the same timeline for a while you start to state your beliefs as facts. It's natural even though it's wrong. But that doesn't make your beliefs either better or worse than mine. So i agree with you there.

And don't get too mad at SoJ, he just likes a good discussion and sometimes he sounds arrogant about it, but he is not. He is just like that when he is arguing about something. I had to get used to that...

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. 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.

I wouldn't say that there is almost no evidence for TMC to go first, but that about Aonuma is a good point.

Like, when they created FS (and Nintendo didn't have much to do with that), i believe that the idea was to have a multiplayer zelda spinoff, with no connections to the timeline at all. When they released TMC, it was clearly supposed to be a prequel to FS (with easter eggs from other zelda games, like TWW, OoX and LoZ), but still not part of the 'canon' timeline.

When Nintendo created FSA though (2 years later), they decided to make it timeline relevant, adding many connections to LttP. Recently discovered removed text from the game shows that there was supposed to be a triforce in the game and that it was indeed the IW. But they removed that at request of Miyamoto.

So the original idea could have been to take LttP (and possibly LA) out of the 'main' timeline and create an alternative timeline that would start with FS (later TMC) as first and then it would go as TMCbs-TMC-FSbs-FS/FSA-LttP/(LA), but they never really stated anything else about that.

And please notice that Aonuma said that they 'were thinking' of making FS the oldest tale of Hyrule, but he never said anything about a conclusion. (FS was clearly supposed to be just a mere spinoff with no storyline purposes before they decided to make FSA.) And, of course, when he said that about FS, TMC was already being developed (it was released in the same year). That's why I think that he wanted to make the timeline go something like this:
TMC-FS/FSA-LttP/LA
...../-TWW/PH-LoZ/AoL
OoT
.....\MM-TP
with OoX coming absolutely anywhere. That's what I believe he meant when he said that he "is working" on a timeline. He probably gave up that idea to reconsider the original intent (and, hopefully, place TMC-FS/FSA in the main timeline again).

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.

Solid, definitely; but arguably conclusive. Everything is circunstancial, even though I believe that it's what makes more sense now.

The evidence for it to go first can be used for OoT to go first, too.

This is true...

 

[Skull_Kid]

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. Yeah, sorry about that. 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. 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. 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.

it is self implied in the story of MC. Before Link, the only known hero was Gustaf, the Hero of the MEN!
Not Hero of Time, Nor hero of the Winds, but the hero of Time, also, notice that, while he still has the green tunic, he wears no cap.
Also, Notice that apart from the reference of the Triumph Forks(that I still think is an easter egg), no other thing proves that there are games before it on the timeline.
The quotes about the oracles, only prove that, probably since the Triforce was left on Hyrule by the Godesses, there has been Oracles.
Also notice that either Link or Zelda have any Triforce piece(even though Zelda has the Light Force, wich can be assumed to be the Triforce of Wisdom, but I found it very unlikely, cause people were aware of the Triforce, thus, explaining all the Triforce carvings throughout Hyrule Castle Town.
So, my though is that the Triforce and the Light Force ARE separate things.

 

[Smertios]

it is self implied in the story of MC. Before Link, the only known hero was Gustaf, the Hero of the MEN!
Not Hero of Time, Nor hero of the Winds, but the hero of Time, also, notice that, while he still has the green tunic, he wears no cap.

Hmm, you mind if I ask why you say that Gustaf is the HoM with such confidence? I don't think that's stated in-game at all. Some people believe him to be Swiftblade I and others believe him to be a previous incarnation of Link. I never heard any theory about him being Gustaf...

Also, there is no other hero mentioned in LoZ BS, should that game come first too then?

So, my though is that the Triforce and the Light Force ARE separate things.

I see, i thought you were arguing that they were the same thing. My bad. I think it's Zemen who thinks so, right?

 

[sign of table]

it is self implied in the story of MC. Before Link, the only known hero was Gustaf, the Hero of the MEN!
Not Hero of Time, Nor hero of the Winds, but the hero of Time, also, notice that, while he still has the green tunic, he wears no cap.
Also, Notice that apart from the reference of the Triumph Forks(that I still think is an easter egg), no other thing proves that there are games before it on the timeline.
The quotes about the oracles, only prove that, probably since the Triforce was left on Hyrule by the Godesses, there has been Oracles.
Also notice that either Link or Zelda have any Triforce piece(even though Zelda has the Light Force, wich can be assumed to be the Triforce of Wisdom, but I found it very unlikely, cause people were aware of the Triforce, thus, explaining all the Triforce carvings throughout Hyrule Castle Town.
So, my though is that the Triforce and the Light Force ARE separate things.

You need to stop watching Gametrailers Zelda retrospective part 6. They made up that bit about Gustaf. Yes, there is a hero of Men but nothing in game EVER suggests that Gustaf was that hero.
Not hero of time or hero of winds but the hero of time? You mean hero of men, I'm sure. LttP makes no mention to any hero. OMG IT HAS TO BE BEFORE EVERYTHING BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER A HERO!!!1!1!!!!!

Who here thinks that the Light Force and the Triforce are the same thing?

 

[Zemen]

i definitely never said that the triforce and light force are the same. in every thread discussing it i argued they were different things. even is this thread i said i believed they are different.

 

[sign of table]

Ok good. Can you reply to my post please?

 

[Zemen]

Ok good. Can you reply to my post please?

ok. i dont know what gametrailer youre talking about, but when i played MC i know that the back story talks about the hero of men and gustav. youre right, maybe they arent the same person but the argument still stands that link was never referred to as the hero of men in any game, nor was there any game where he doesnt have the green hat and the pictures of the hero of men clearly shows the hero without a hat.

you said that just because a games back story doesnt talk about link doesnt mean much. there is a difference between a back story that talks about no hero at all and a back story that talks about a hero that is clearly not link and MC is clearly either A) not link or not a link from any game thats been created.

seeing as how the creators have never made a game where the BS didnt talk about link or a war, i would assume that we are meant to assume its not link.

also, later on in MC you do end up talking to Gustav and i could swear he mentoned something about sealing monsters away or fighting in the war (ill research that and get back to you).

and im not the only one who has gotten the gist that Gustav is the hero of men.


THIS IS SOMETHING I JUST THOUGHT OF!!

he sword is called the white sword before it gets its power in MC. i know that someone made the argument that you never see the four sword in any other game. the white sword IS the four sword before it has its power and the white sword IS in other zelda games! not sure if that changes your mind at all about anything but im just pointing out that the FS series games are not the only games that have the picori sword/four sword/white sword. its in LoZ. its the second strongest sword in the game. this obviously means its an important weapon. it had to come from somewhere and it has the same name as the sword in MC.

 

[sign of table]

seeing as how the creators have never made a game where the BS didnt talk about link or a war, i would assume that we are meant to assume its not link.

They've had plenty of backstories that don't involve a Link. Not so much with wars, though. But tMC has a war as its BS too. It isn't evidence that the fact that the tMC BS isn't mentioned in any other game. It has no proof as true evidence and it can be used on both sides. The Fierce Wars aren't part of any game. The Interloper Wars aren't part of any game. And there are heroes in the series that are exclusive to only the BS of that game.

 

[Zemen]

They've had plenty of backstories that don't involve a Link. Not so much with wars, though. But tMC has a war as its BS too. It isn't evidence that the fact that the tMC BS isn't mentioned in any other game. It has no proof as true evidence and it can be used on both sides. The Fierce Wars aren't part of any game. The Interloper Wars aren't part of any game. And there are heroes in the series that are exclusive to only the BS of that game.

not really sure what youre saying here.

this is my point. all Zelda games have a BS either about a hero from a previous game (link) or about a war so it doesnt have to be about a previous game.

MC has a BS that is about a war BUT is also about ONE hero that is obviously not Link. also, this previous hero doesnt wear a hat. if it was a link, then it was obviously a previous link that didint wear a hat which means the first hat link would get would be in MC which would put MC first.

 

[sign of table]

So what if the previous hero wasn't a Link? Not all heroes are Link...

There are plenty of backstories that don't involve a war or a Link. Hell the only backstories that even mention Link are the ones that are direct sequels. OoT/MM, tWW/PH, (OoX or LttP)/LA. Hmm FSA mentions Link when it refers to FS. Nah they can't be sequels. The maps look too similar and the state of everything is the exact same. /endsarcasm

There are heroes in the backstories of a couple games that don't refer to Link. I don't see how that is actually evidence...

 

[Skull_Kid]

So what if the previous hero wasn't a Link? Not all heroes are Link...

There are plenty of backstories that don't involve a war or a Link. Hell the only backstories that even mention Link are the ones that are direct sequels. OoT/MM, tWW/PH, (OoX or LttP)/LA. Hmm FSA mentions Link when it refers to FS. Nah they can't be sequels. The maps look too similar and the state of everything is the exact same. /endsarcasm

There are heroes in the backstories of a couple games that don't refer to Link. I don't see how that is actually evidence...

Not exactly... The fact that it mentions the "HERO OF MEN" implies a lot that there weren't any Heroes of [insert name here] before, no Links before Gustaf... also, notice that the fact that Gustaf is also dressed in a green tunic, is to symbolize courage.But there is no hat. The game is full of symbolisms, hinting at the fact that it is the first in the timeline

 

[Zemen]

So what if the previous hero wasn't a Link? Not all heroes are Link...

There are plenty of backstories that don't involve a war or a Link. Hell the only backstories that even mention Link are the ones that are direct sequels. OoT/MM, tWW/PH, (OoX or LttP)/LA. Hmm FSA mentions Link when it refers to FS. Nah they can't be sequels. The maps look too similar and the state of everything is the exact same. /endsarcasm

There are heroes in the backstories of a couple games that don't refer to Link. I don't see how that is actually evidence...

yes, those games mention link in the BS but every game that doesnt has a BS about a war or something. you keep saying there are games that have BS' about other heros so it would be awesome if you showed me one of these because i dont recall any other heros being talked of that arent sages or something "divine" like that. this BS talks about one specific hero in the past who is not Link. Link was never called hero of men. the picture of this hero is wearing green but no hat. this implies that no heros wore the hat before MC took place when we see Link get the hat. it doesnt talk about this hero of men defeating one super evil guy. it talks about him sealing monsters away. it seems to be a popular legend as the land of hyrule celebrates the picori who helped the hero of men save the world. im pretty sure that it makes sense for it to go first unless between WW/PH and MC some HUGE event (like the BS of MC lets say) happened but instead of making a game about it, nintendo decided to just skip that because they didnt feel like it. end sarcasm.

 

[sign of table]

Not exactly... The fact that it mentions the "HERO OF MEN" implies a lot that there weren't any Heroes of [insert name here] before, no Links before Gustaf... also, notice that the fact that Gustaf is also dressed in a green tunic, is to symbolize courage.But there is no hat. The game is full of symbolisms, hinting at the fact that it is the first in the timeline

That doesn't imply a thing. With that logic the fact that OoT and TP don't mention a hero they should go first.

And wasn't Gustaf the fat dead king dude? He didn't wear a green tunic.

yes, those games mention link in the BS but every game that doesnt has a BS about a war or something. you keep saying there are games that have BS' about other heros so it would be awesome if you showed me one of these because i dont recall any other heros being talked of that arent sages or something "divine" like that. this BS talks about one specific hero in the past who is not Link. Link was never called hero of men. the picture of this hero is wearing green but no hat. this implies that no heros wore the hat before MC

1) That doesn't imply anything 2) That logic can go both ways. I can say that Link wearing the kokiri garb implies that is where the garb tradition started. But I don't because it is fail logic. 3) Lyphos in TRR is not mentioned in any other game. He is a hero.

Just because one hero, who wasn't Link, doesn't wear a hat doesn't mean that it is the first.

The fact is that the hat isn't proof. I'm sorry but it isn't. It makes a nice explanation for the hat. But OoT also makes a nice explanation for the entire tunic. TMC does not give an explanation for the tunic.

Here I'll give you an example of how ridiculous it is to think that the hat is proof.

It would be like saying that because the bible gives an explanation about our creation proves that god exists. You see what I mean? (Btw I don't want to start a religious debate. I just want to show how failfull that logic is.)

So let's list the proof for the placement of tMC.

TMC first.
Only one hero mentioned could imply from a certain point of view in a certain context that there haven't been heroes before. Implication

An explanation for why heroes wear hats. Implication

The fact that the Hero of Men doesn't wear a hat. Even though he isn't Link. Implication

A quote from a person who didn't work on the game he is talking about before the game was even finished. Also ignoring the obvious implications of a more recent game. Some-what proof

The fact that Ganon isn't mentioned could imply that Ganon has never appeared before. Implication

OoT first.
No hero mentioned could imply from a certain point of view in a certain context that there haven't been heroes before. Implication

An explanation for why heroes wear tunics. Implication

The fact that no hero before has ever worn a tunic; because the tunic wasn't founded until the kokiri. Implication

A quote from a person who did work on the game after the game was made. Proof

The fact that Vaati wasn't mentioned in either OoT or TP could imply that Vaati hasn't appeared yet. Implication

tMC to NOT be first

A word that isn't even founded until tWW is said. Proof.

Labrynna's existence. Proof

An ocean surrounding it. Implication/somewhat proof

The implication for the FS series to be direct sequels to each-other. Implication.

FS and FSA take place in a flooded land. Implication/somewhat proof

The entire "tMC first" argument is completely based on viewing things from a certain point of view to see an implication and those exact same implications can be seen from the same point of view for OoT first. Atleast OoT first has solid proof.

 

[Zemen]

That doesn't imply a thing. With that logic the fact that OoT and TP don't mention a hero they should go first.

And wasn't Gustaf the fat dead king dude? He didn't wear a green tunic. 1) That doesn't imply anything 2) That logic can go both ways. I can say that Link wearing the kokiri garb implies that is where the garb tradition started. But I don't because it is fail logic. 3) Lyphos in TRR is not mentioned in any other game. He is a hero.

Just because one hero, who wasn't Link, doesn't wear a hat doesn't mean that it is the first.

The fact is that the hat isn't proof. I'm sorry but it isn't. It makes a nice explanation for the hat. But OoT also makes a nice explanation for the entire tunic. TMC does not give an explanation for the tunic.

Here I'll give you an example of how ridiculous it is to think that the hat is proof.

It would be like saying that because the bible gives an explanation about our creation proves that god exists. You see what I mean? (Btw I don't want to start a religious debate. I just want to show how failfull that logic is.)

So let's list the proof for the placement of tMC.

TMC first.
Only one hero mentioned could imply from a certain point of view in a certain context that there haven't been heroes before. Implication

An explanation for why heroes wear hats. Implication

The fact that the Hero of Men doesn't wear a hat. Even though he isn't Link. Implication

A quote from a person who didn't work on the game he is talking about before the game was even finished. Also ignoring the obvious implications of a more recent game. Some-what proof

The fact that Ganon isn't mentioned could imply that Ganon has never appeared before. Implication

OoT first.
No hero mentioned could imply from a certain point of view in a certain context that there haven't been heroes before. Implication

An explanation for why heroes wear tunics. Implication

The fact that no hero before has ever worn a tunic; because the tunic wasn't founded until the kokiri. Implication

A quote from a person who did work on the game after the game was made. Proof

The fact that Vaati wasn't mentioned in either OoT or TP could imply that Vaati hasn't appeared yet. Implication

tMC to NOT be first

A word that isn't even founded until tWW is said. Proof.

Labrynna's existence. Proof

An ocean surrounding it. Implication/somewhat proof

The implication for the FS series to be direct sequels to each-other. Implication.

FS and FSA take place in a flooded land. Implication/somewhat proof

The entire "tMC first" argument is completely based on viewing things from a certain point of view to see an implication and those exact same implications can be seen from the same point of view for OoT first. Atleast OoT first has solid proof.

youre sitting here arguing that a game MANY years before MC goes first on the timeline. OoT was made way before MC was every thought of and maybe they did plan on OoT being first until they came out with other ideas later. obviously OoT isnt going to have any connections with MC because it was made WAY before MC. you also keep saying that OoT can show us where the green tunic and hat come from. the game never once says that no one before them wore that outfit. in fact, no one in OoT even says ANYTHING about links outfit so i dont understand why you think that game would explain its origins. in MC they actually mention the hat and in the BS, whether or not its a past Link, he IS OBVIOUSLY wearing a green tunic but he is not wearing a green hat. this leads me to beleive that this person is the first hero to wear a green tunic. in MC, you start off with a green tunic. this could be because that day, link decided to wear green instead of red. but they actually explain the freaking hat. now here is a new example for you since this isnt getting through to you.

you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? technically that would be like the greatest hero the world has ever known since he saved the great sea world AND started a new Hyrule, but this legend is not mentioned, or even found in a book at the library that you love talking about so much. if MC takes place in the new Hyrule, then how come there is no mention of tetra and the hero of winds? MC was made closely after WW which would mean that if it was to fit into a timeline RIGHT after WW/PH then there should a much more obvious connection because as you said, they go back and change little details to make it fit into a timeline. the fact that the "triforks" are mentioned in a book in a different language is about as important to me as the hat is to you. where are the books on the hero of winds? i would think that would be much more important but i have yet to hear one argument from you that isnt about an ocean under the sky temple or the triforks. both are very very terrible arguments. that argument is about as good as saying it goes after WW/PH because they used the toon link design. i hate people who say that.

so here is my argument.

MC First because you get a hat without anyone telling you that the founder of new hyrule, the hero of winds, had a hat just like it. i would think that someone would be like "hey youre wearing what our great and wonderous founder wore back in the day!"

MC First because no previous link is mentioned anywhere, and as i said, the hero of winds was the founder (along with tetra) of this new Hyrule. he was known for saving the world from ganondorf, but this isnt mentioned anywhere? interesting.

MC First because there is no mention of a previous evil. only monsters.

 

[sign of table]

you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down? technically that would be like the greatest hero the world has ever known since he saved the great sea world AND started a new Hyrule, but this legend is not mentioned, or even found in a book at the library that you love talking about so much. if MC takes place in the new Hyrule, then how come there is no mention of tetra and the hero of winds? MC was made closely after WW which would mean that if it was to fit into a timeline RIGHT after WW/PH then there should a much more obvious connection because as you said, they go back and change little details to make it fit into a timeline. the fact that the "triforks" are mentioned in a book in a different language is about as important to me as the hat is to you. where are the books on the hero of winds? i would think that would be much more important but i have yet to hear one argument from you that isnt about an ocean under the sky temple or the triforks. both are very very terrible arguments. that argument is about as good as saying it goes after WW/PH because they used the toon link design. i hate people who say that.

The wall of text... it burns!!!!

you say MC comes in the new hyrule after WW and PH. the game would have to come quite a bit of time later. if WW link and tetra started this new world then wouldnt the legend of the hero of winds be passed down?

Good point. But I must also ask something of you too. Why isn't the story of the Hero of Men or the hero from tMC ever passed down in TP? He saved the world too. And on the CT they would be the only heroes as well.

MC First because you get a hat without anyone telling you that the founder of new hyrule, the hero of winds, had a hat just like it. i would think that someone would be like "hey youre wearing what our great and wonderous founder wore back in the day!"

OoT first because in TP you get a tunic and it doesn't imply anything about tMC. Only OoT starting the tunic.

MC First because no previous link is mentioned anywhere, and as i said, the hero of winds was the founder (along with tetra) of this new Hyrule. he was known for saving the world from ganondorf, but this isnt mentioned anywhere? interesting.

OoT first because TP makes no mention of a previous hero.

TMC Link was known for defeating Vaati and saving the world from him. This isn't mentioned anywhere? Interesting...

Oh and the only people who even knew of Ganondorf were the King of Red Lions, Tetra and Link. (Maybe the pirate crew did. I can't quite remember) Ganondorf died and so did the KoRL.

So my vague, pointless implication uses the exact same logic as yours, but mine works.

MC First because there is no mention of a previous evil. only monsters.

Technically the same would be if tMC was directly after tWW. Actually with tMC as the first game in new hyrule I can use all of the same perks of tMC being first. And OoT being first. Plus factual non-implication evidence.


With evidence OoT being first is better and more evidenced. You can't deny that. It's like saying that LttP-LA has more evidence and is a better placement than OoX-LA. OoX-LA has far more evidence. OoT first has far more evidence. I don't care whether you choose to believe in tMC-OoT. I do care, however, that you admit there is more overall evidence and that your argument relies soley on pure unevidenced implications.

Sorry if I come off rude. This debate is just getting a little irritating when all that happens is:
You present un-evidenced implications.
I show how those exact implications can work for my timeline. Then I show you true evidence.
You don't mention that the implications can work for my timeline. You then say that my evidence is too old.
I show evidence more recent than your evidence and show how pointless those implications are.
You don't acknowledge my evidence then re-present your implications.

It's just going around in circles. So don't take my irritation personally. I'm just a little tired of this debate and not having my evidence acknowledged.