Where The Heck Does MC Go...

[Zemen]

Oh, I realize that. I just don't care.

thats like saying that if Hershey lets a different company make a candy bar with their candy, its not a hershey bar.

Zelda let another company make a zelda game (while still being overlooked by the creator), its still zelda, just with a different label on the sponsor spots.

 

[Skull_Kid]

Oh, I realize that. I just don't care.

So, in that case, let's suppose you like metroid(i dunno if you do), so you would completely ignore the Prime subseries cause it's made by Retro, under Nintendo's wing, right?
Well... the Oracles are made by Capcom too, and ALttP, I believe(at least the GBA version is)

 

[Mike Pothier]

There's nobody debating the timeline for Metroid.

The reason I don't care has nothing to do with Capcom. Its because those games are so vague they can be placed anywhere in the timeline.

 

[Zemen]

There's nobody debating the timeline for Metroid.

The reason I don't care has nothing to do with Capcom. Its because those games are so vague they can be placed anywhere in the timeline.

the metroid thing was an example...he wasnt trying to get you to discuss metroid...

EVERY zelda game is vague. thats why no one knows what the for sure timeline is and im pretty sure i just explained to you why it is included and how it is included. this entire thread is about a capcom game that has substantial evidence towards it being placed number one in the timeline.

 

[Mike Pothier]

the metroid thing was an example...he wasnt trying to get you to discuss metroid...

I realize that. What I was saying was that the Metroid series so far has been stable and there is no question where each game goes, even the ones made by Retro.

EVERY zelda game is vague. thats why no one knows what the for sure timeline is and im pretty sure i just explained to you why it is included and how it is included. this entire thread is about a capcom game that has substantial evidence towards it being placed number one in the timeline.

Not every Zelda game is vague. Of the core games, its pretty obvious what order they go in. The side stories tend to be the vague ones, and honestly, I've stopped caring a long time ago if and where they fit in the timeline. Because its obvious Nintendo doesn't.

 

[Zemen]

I realize that. What I was saying was that the Metroid series so far has been stable and there is no question where each game goes, even the ones made by Retro.



Not every Zelda game is vague. Of the core games, its pretty obvious what order they go in. The side stories tend to be the vague ones, and honestly, I've stopped caring a long time ago if and where they fit in the timeline. Because its obvious Nintendo doesn't.

miyamoto has said that on their computers they have a special folder that has all of the details of how every game connects to each other. he has also said he focuses more on making a solid game than making a game that fits a timeline, but he still said there IS a timeline. obviously they care about it. please stay on topic now. the topic is about where the placement of MC may go, not whether or not you think the capcome games should be on the timeline nor is the topic whether or not nintendo cares about a timeline.

 

[Mike Pothier]

Huh. I am on topic. I just said I didn't care.

And I tend to take what Miyamoto says about the timeline with a grain of salt. He's contradicted himself before. As for this supposed document, I have no reason to believe it doesn't exist, but without access to it, its not much use to us.

 

[Zemen]

Huh. I am on topic. I just said I didn't care.

And I tend to take what Miyamoto says about the timeline with a grain of salt. He's contradicted himself before. As for this supposed document, I have no reason to believe it doesn't exist, but without access to it, its not much use to us.

hence why people come up with their own timelines...

you werent on topic at all. all you said was that you dont care about where it goes because you dont include the capcom games as canon. how is that on topic at all? the topic is where does MC go on the timeline. saying you dont care isnt on topic..

 

[Skull_Kid]

Huh. I am on topic. I just said I didn't care.

And I tend to take what Miyamoto says about the timeline with a grain of salt. He's contradicted himself before. As for this supposed document, I have no reason to believe it doesn't exist, but without access to it, its not much use to us.

He didn't contradict himself... he once said that OoT was the first in the timeline, and like 4 or 5 years after he said that FS was the first in the timeline, that is not contradicting, he was just adding things

 

[Dark Link '98]

1st. i have proof, but don't criticize me for my opinion.

 

[Mike Pothier]

God, I think you guys are over analyzing what i'm saying.

 

[cpunerd96]

1st. i have proof, but don't criticize me for my opinion.

Proof of what exactly?

FSA: Vaati is once again able to trick link into releasing him on the world. this time, not only does Vaati kidnap some more girls, but he has a diabolical plot to ressurect Ganon who was not at all mentioned in FS or MC (thats one main reason why many people put FS and MC before OoT). link rescues the girls, defeats Ganon and seals him in the chest that the four sword was protecting.

Ressurect Ganon?
That would suggest that Ganon had died which means there must be a story somewhere before that, right?

 

[Zemen]

Proof of what exactly?


Ressurect Ganon?
That would suggest that Ganon had died which means there must be a story somewhere before that, right?

in my explanations of the game i only ever said that many people put FS and MC infront of OoT. i even specifically said that many people put FSA before ALTTP, which would mean that it comes after OoT.

this is what myself, and many other people believe. MC is first followed by FS and then OoT.

FSA doesnt come til later in the timeline before ALTTP.

i said that in the post where i was explaining the games...

heres the rest of the post since you obviously didnt read it...

FSA: Vaati is once again able to trick link into releasing him on the world. this time, not only does Vaati kidnap some more girls, but he has a diabolical plot to ressurect Ganon who was not at all mentioned in FS or MC (thats one main reason why many people put FS and MC before OoT). link rescues the girls, defeats Ganon and seals him in the chest that the four sword was protecting.

this leads into ALTTP which has the four sword shrine and it shows he broken sword and opened chest which means that Ganon escaped.

there ya go..

 

[MrMosley]

See this is what dosen't make any sense to me. Why would MC and FS come first, then FSA a long time later if they all revolve around the same story, same basic "sword power" idea, and same boss. It dosen't make any sense how in MC and FS, Vaati would be the main boss and Link would use the Four Sword to vanquish him, then OoT happen as well as TP, which involves Ganondorf and the Master Sword, then completely abandon the Master Sword and go back to the Four Sword. That dosen't make sense.

Seeing as how MC, FS, and FSA all take place within the same plot, main boss idea, and use the same weapon, I think that MC comes sometime later, maybe even in New Hyrule, followed by FS where we see a different generation of Link, then FSA with the same Link as in FS. That is my opinion. I personally have never heard Miyamoto say anything about FS taking place before OoT, not to say that he didn't, but I haven't heard or read anything at all about that. So as of right now, going with what information I have available, to me it makes more sense for the Four Swords Saga to take place in their own time, apart from the rest of everything thats going on in the Zelda universe, and the only way to do this is to put it before or after everything that has happen. And I've already explained how its confusing to put part of it after and part before, or all before.

 

[Zemen]

See this is what dosen't make any sense to me. Why would MC and FS come first, then FSA a long time later if they all revolve around the same story, same basic "sword power" idea, and same boss.

you do realize that this is the same EXACT thing that happens in EVERY zelda game that involves Ganon but many of those games take place hundreds of years apart so why cant the four swords series games do the same thing?

many people put FS infront of ALTTP which means it comes after TP, IMO. at the end of TP, the master sword is stuck inside of a stone ganondorf. taking it out would release ganondorf so they ditch it to use the four sword which is the only sword ever proven to defeat Vaati who is trying to ressurect ganondorf. Vaati can not bring ganondorf back but he CAN bring ganon back. because Link has the four sword he uses it to trap ganondorf in the same chest that Vaati was trapped in.

every zelda game involving Ganon does the same thing as the four sword series and those games have hundreds of years between them so i dont see why MC, FS, and FSA cant. youre argument is really flawed there.