Why Minish Cap SHOULDNT Be the First Game in the Timeline (WARNING HUGE RANT) :D

[zeldan]

many timeline theorists like to place minish cap first on the zelda timeline (aside for skyward sword) however i dont think it should be first on the timeline simply out of principle.

Ocarina of time is considered by many to be the greatest game of all time let alone the best zelda game of all time, it tells the origins of many aspects of the zelda series such as hyrules unification, triforce, ganon and the sages it also explains many aspect of the zelda seires such as how the world is created by the gods. all of this outlines that OOT is first on the timeline

Minish cap on the other hand does not have a lot of evidence to suggest it is first except maybe miyamoto claiming it goes there and link getting his hat! minish cap is not particularly groundbreaking or special and unlike ocarina will not be a game that is remembered as a great game throughout the ages.... (a little dramatic i knok )

so my question is this, just because minish cap fits at the start does that necessarily meen we should put it there ocarina of time is certainly a much more fitting game to begin the timeline in my oppion anyway what do you think???

 

[bbevington90]

I personally don't like the idea of MC being first either, but OoT being a better game isn't exactly good reasoning for MC to not be first. It needs to be based off in-game analysis, not something as subjective as how much one likes a game.

 

[PhantomTriforce]

well in MC, the landscape is quite different from the hyrule we see in other games, so if it is placed at the very beginning, then the land could change. also, MC could be after spirit tracks, but I think that the beginning of the timeline is a better place for it.

Another point is the hat Ezlo makes has many characteristics of the triforce. Either the triforce isn't made yet, or since in isn't seen in PH or ST, it has replaced it in the AT.

 

[zeldan]

(bbevington90) yeah i totaly agree with you! however you have misunderstood me a little, what im arguing is not whether minish cap does go at the start of the timeline but if it should! just because its not as good as ocarina of time and doesnt have the same feel as ocarina of time as an origin story! even though minish cap does have some evidence to suggest it is first in the series should we simply dismiss this as ocarina of time makes a much better start to the zelda series.

 

[Locke]

Another point is the hat Ezlo makes has many characteristics of the triforce. Either the triforce isn't made yet, or since in isn't seen in PH or ST, it has replaced it in the AT.

The Triforce is a prominent symbol all over Hyrule Castle.

(bbevington90) yeah i totaly agree with you! however you have misunderstood me a little, what im arguing is not whether minish cap does go at the start of the timeline but if it should! just because its not as good as ocarina of time and doesnt have the same feel as ocarina of time as an origin story! even though minish cap does have some evidence to suggest it is first in the series should we simply dismiss this as ocarina of time makes a much better start to the zelda series

I see what you're saying now, and I totally agree. MC attempts to add silly origins for the hat and for items in the grass, and a few serious origins for monsters and for Vaati, who hardly appears at all in the rest of the series. OoT goes out of its way to describe in detail the early times of Hyrule. Creation, the Triforce, the MS, the wars, Ganondorf, the tunic, the Kokiri... It'll be difficult for SS to follow that up.

 

[Jarsh]

I think Flagship may have intended for TMC to be very early in the timeline, hence the "origins" for many things the game has, but I believe that Nintendo has other games in mind to explain that. So, while the game may have been intended to be first, I personally don't think Nintendo (well, Miyamoto and Aonuma, anyway) don't consider it to be that.

I think SS is actually going to be what TMC was trying to be.

 

[link9]

I think SS is actually going to be what TMC was trying to be.

That actually perfectly describes MC. Nice job!

 

[Zemen]

For the sake of me being back (I've been barely on the site since during the summertime, when I'm home from school, I have very limited internet access) I think it's fitting that I respond to this thread for my return as MC is my favorite handheld title and I am a strong believer of it being first on the timeline. As others have stated, just because you don't believe it's as good of a game as OoT is not reason at all for it not to be placed first. Who says the first game in the timeline has to be the best game in the series? To be honest, WW is my favorite Zelda game of them all but that doesn't mean that it's placement in the timeline should be affected because of that. It's complete opinion, not evidence for placement. As to why I think MC is first, here it is.

1. You can say the hat isn't important all you want but the entire game is centered around hats so obviously the creators of the game deemed the hat concept important. The BS starts the game with a previous hero who did not wear a hat. Every Link in the series has a hat during his adventure. Maybe not at the beginning, but each Link has ended an adventure with a green hat, but for some reason this hero in the BS has no hat. If he saved the world wearing one he would have been depicted so. This leads many to believe that the Hero of Men is not any previous Link and throughout the series there is not much to suggest that there are any other main heroes in the Zelda universe other than Link so maybe this is a hero before any Link's existed or maybe it's the very first Link who just happened to not have a hat. Either way, the creators clearly wanted the gamers to know that the previous hero had no hat. Other than that, Link's helper in MC is transformed into a hat and aids you a ton. The item that causes all the mayhem in this game is a hat. The game is titled after a hat. Clearly hats are important so for those who argue saying that the hats are insignificant, the creators would disagree with you there.

2. Ganondorf is not mentioned once or even hinted at an existence. I've heard the long over used argument of "The game has nothing to do with him so why would he be mentioned in it?" Although I would agree that this is a good counterargument in most cases, I don't in this case. Why? Because MC is the ONLY Hyrule based game to not give any mention or screen time to Ganondorf. The only other Hyrule based game to do so is Spirit Tracks but this is easily explained by the fact that it's new Hyrule and the game is directly connected to a previous game that did have Ganondorf as the antagonist. So why is this important? Because it shows that the greatest threat Hyrule has even known is for some reason inexplicably absent not only from any conversations in the game, but in the library which would be a perfect place to have an easter egg book titled "The King of the Gerudo" just so we know that he previously lived. But no, there is not even an easter egg for the man who is supposed to be feared by all. Even Mario games that don't have Bowser as the antagonist still have Bowser mentioned in the game. If MC is supposed to clearly take place after the existence of Ganondorf then the least the creators could have done was added a simple easter egg. Hell, they had no problem including a book about the triforks, but apparently Ganondorf didn't cross their mind.

3. At the end of the game, the Japanese version talks about the game being the end of Link's first adventure. Whether this talks about this specific Link or all Links is unclear but there is much more reason to believe it means all Links than just the specific Link. Why? Because we have not seen MC Link return in any games in years. There are no games that feature that same Link character. Seems obvious that the statement at the end talks about all Link's in general.

Anyway, it's good to be back. I know I have more to say but I'd rather hear responses before I type anymore.

 

[bbevington90]

Zemen: Thank you for those points. This is literally the first time I've seen good, solid reasoning as to why MC should be first. People always say "ITZ CUZ DA HAT LULZ," but this is the first time someone gave at least decent reasoning for the hat argument.

I'm swayed. MC is first imo now too.

 

[Satsy]

As someone who doesn't put much stock into the Capcom games (and never seems to be up to date with interview info), has Miyamato mentioned anything on where Minish Cap goes into the storyline? I only ask since the OP mentioned it.

My personal belief is that it doesn't come first, and I was also under the impression that MC and the two Four Swords games used the same Link (considering you're also fighting the same bad guy with the same finishing sword). But regardless.

 

[Ventus]

@ Zemen

Your point about the hat is almost moot. I say that because having a hat is really unimportant. I've beaten TWW, Link didn't have a hat on in the ending. You'll say that is irrelevant, and that is exactly my point. The hat has nothing to back MC up with regards to being first.

Ganondorf not being mentioned or having an appearance can easily be explained as the Hyrule of MC being another New Hyrule, but unexplained because the concept of "New Hyrule" hadn't been birthed at the time of MC's release. Ganon wasn't in FS, yet somehow appeared in FSA.

And lastly, Link can have a "first adventure". Any Link can. I highly doubt that MC is first based off of this because MC Link would have to have some kind of legend, reference, or at least be in the Royal Family. Saving a King's daughter doesn't come without merit. A simple festival certainly won't be someone's reward if they did a task of that caliber.
----
I'm not trying to bash you, but "patching" your points, as they have various flaws in them that are more than easy to exploit.
----
As for me, MC isn't first. The hat, as I've said before, is a moot point, doesn't matter. OoT has done so much for the series, I doubt it would be replaced by a mediocre* game such as MC.

*Mediocre with regards to story/impact, not gameplay or fun factors.

 

[bbevington90]

I highly doubt that MC is first based off of this because MC Link would have to have some kind of legend, reference, or at least be in the Royal Family. Saving a King's daughter doesn't come without merit. A simple festival certainly won't be someone's reward if they did a task of that caliber.

You could say the same about WW, TP, and ALttP, couldn't you? There's no reference to those games as being "legends" even though they did the same thing MC Link did, save Princess Zelda. I could be wrong about WW, I haven't played PH or ST. And does Link ever get rewarded with anything better than a festival? What more could he really even ask for other than money?

 

[Pinecove]

except maybe miyamoto claiming it goes there

Miyamoto has never stated TMC is first in the timeline.

 

[Locke]

(bbevington90) yeah i totaly agree with you! however you have misunderstood me a little, what im arguing is not whether minish cap does go at the start of the timeline but if it should! just because its not as good as ocarina of time and doesnt have the same feel as ocarina of time as an origin story! even though minish cap does have some evidence to suggest it is first in the series should we simply dismiss this as ocarina of time makes a much better start to the zelda series.

This needs to be quoted again before this thread turns into another 'is MC first' debate. The purpose of this thread is to share opinions on which game makes a better origin story. (note the capitalized "SHOULDNT" in the title, rather than the expected "cant" or "isnt.") Come to think of it, it probably shouldn't be in the theory section in this case.

My opinion is that OoT makes a better first game [whether it is really the first game in the timeline or not]. It features the Hylians, the [second] closest race to the gods (iirc, we don't know if the people in MC are Hylian or not; correct me if I'm wrong); it shows the Sages at the [near] height of their power (SS will replace it in this respect); it tells the stories of the creation of Hyrule, the Triforce, and the Master Sword; while it's not emphasized as much as MC's hat, the reason Link wears the tunic is revealed; and it tells more of Ganondorf's BS.

 

[Satsy]

I'd have thought Minish Cap couldn't go first simply because Capcom didn't design their games to be staple parts of the series. Following certain rules and paying certain homages, perhaps, but not with any intent to override the already existing areas of story. Probably the reason the main boss is never Ganon and why no specific Zelda legend was ever referenced. Gives freedom to insert the game anywhere rather than in any specific place (including first or last).

Besides I found a lot of Minish Cap's landscapes and scores bore uncoincidental similarities to Link to the Past, so I'd have figured the games would be centred around there (wherever that game goes chronologically).