Why the Hat Shouldn't Be Used As Evidence

[ZeldaGamer21]

Many people who place TMC as the first game in the timeline use Link acquiring a hat at the end of TMC as often the main reason for them placing TMC at the beginning. They see it as meaning that TMC Link was the first ever Link to wear a green hat, which is a pretty big assumption seeing as TMC leaves the origins of the tunic unexplained, yet there are three games that explain the origins of both hat and tunic.

I see Link (and the Hero of Men) being hatless at the start as a gameplay mechanic, nothing more, otherwise one of the main characters in the plot of TMC, Ezlo, would effectively be rendered obsolete, as if Link already had a hat, why would Link need Ezlo on his head? Many who place TMC first argue that Nintendo/Capcom didn't have to have Ezlo as a hat, he could have been something else. What else exactly? A talking tunic? Talking boots? A talking sword? A talking shield? All of these ideas are ridiculous, and would have been rather silly. The only part of Link's outfit that wouldn't seem stupid to have as a living talking being is his hat, so that's what they went with, ergo why they made the Hero of Men and Link capless at the beginning of TMC.

Another thing to consider is what Ezlo and his ability to shrink Link down to Minish size was based on. Anyone who's played Four Swords will know the answer to this. The Gnat Hat. A hat that when worn allows Link to shrink down to a tiny size and explore previously inaccessible areas. This was a popular concept, and Nintendo/Capcom liked it, so they decided to base a game around it. For this reason, they made Link hatless at the beginning of TMC, and made the Hero of Men hatless too, so that there'd be some continuity from the Hero of Men to TMC Link.

That's all that the Hero of Men and TMC Link being hatless is: a gameplay mechanic. If they weren't hatless, Ezlo would be useless, and the whole concept behind TMC would be pointless. Gameplay mechanics can't be used as evidence, otherwise we could say things like being able to ride Epona in OoT and TP is timeline evidence, when it's just a gameplay mechanic. If Ezlo didn't act as Link's hat in TMC, but something else, and gave Link a hat at the end of the game, that would be a storyline mechanic, and could be used as evidence. However, the removal of the hat from the HoM's and TMC Link's outfits was purely so that Ezlo could fit in there.

If the hat was meant as a storyline mechanic, Nintendo/Capcom would have treated it like one, but they made it clear that it was a gameplay mechanic, and thus can't be used as evidence. Ezlo was in the from of a hat, so the hat was removed from Link's costume for TMC. Simple as that. No storyline influences were intended by Ezlo giving Link a hat at the end of TMC, it was merely a parting gift from Ezlo to replace his spot on Link's head. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sure there are other reasons for placing TMC first in the timeline, other than the hat (gameplay mechanic) and the Aonuma statement (outdated, contradicted and was only correct at the time it was made), but I'd like to hear more reasons other than those mentioned above, as they aren't really valid evidence, and it becomes very tedious seeing these two things repeatedly used as often the sole reasons for placing TMC at the beginning of the timeline.

|Sentient|

[Hyruleansoldier]

I did take the hat as evidence, as, and here is that explanation you wanted for the tunic: Smith made Link dress in green to look all official and reminiscent of the Hero of Men (you know, King Gustav - the first King-.  *He* never wore a cap, yet he is the first in the line of the Heroes.  I think the argument isn't so bad, that it's only TMC Link who starts the hat-wearing tradition as/for the Hero of Time and his descendants...

But as always, belief or disbelief rests with you.

[ZeldaGamer21]

I did take the hat as evidence, as, and here is that explanation you wanted for the tunic: Smith made Link dress in green to look all official and reminiscent of the Hero of Men (you know, King Gustav - the first King-.  *He* never wore a cap, yet he is the first in the line of the Heroes.  I think the argument isn't so bad, that it's only TMC Link who starts the hat-wearing tradition as/for the Hero of Time and his descendants...

But as always, belief or disbelief rests with you.

Gustav wasn't the Hero of Men. There is no evidence or implications to support this. And as far as we know, the green tunic could be something often worn by Link, and not just for this occasion. Link didn't have any intention of going to the Picori Festival until Zelda came and asked if he would go with her. He hadn't bothered to get up, his uncle had made no effort to wake him up until Zelda came, and Link certainly wouldn't sleep in clothes he was meant to wear on a special occasion.

[Ezlo]

Did the HoT wear the cap because MC Link had one? No, it's because he's a kokiri, (or at least thought he was).

I could likely be OoT who is the first one.

But didn't someone say MC is the first game in the timeline?

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

But didn't someone say MC is the first game in the timeline?

That was Aonuma, and it's a statement which ZG21 describes as "outdated, contradicted and was only correct at the time it was made"... Where did it become outdated and contradicted? As far as I know it hasn't, and it's a rather huge contradiction to call it out-dated if you're comparing it to any statements about OoT's placement at the start of the timelines.

Regarding the rest of the article, it all comes down to fate, and Nintendo are big fans of that. And while I am relatively impressed with your argument, it feels as though it could be applied to anything in a Zelda game.

If you take away all the evidence regarding the hat that you have mentioned which suggests that TMC is the first game in any timeline, you are indeed left with pretty much nothing. However, what evidence is there to situate the game at any other distinct point in a timeline? Are you going to bring it down to something like the similarities in art style between TMC and TWW- something which to me seems like worse justification than a "gameplay mechanic"?

The hat argument may not be the most detailed nor sensational (nor convincing?) reasoning for TMC's placement, but often with timelining you work with  what you are given. In the case of TMC, it may not be a lot, but it is there.

So, my challenge to you: Suggest an alternative placement for TMC with evidence to support any theory you come up with.

[Hyruleansoldier]

So, my challenge to you: Suggest an alternative placement for TMC with evidence to support any theory you come up with.

... And bear in mind that it will still have to come before FS, FSA & ALttP (Trident), and then it was said in FSA's intro that the rise (and fall) of Vaati was several centuries ago, so it shouldn't come *immediately* before FS & FSA either...

*sits back in anticipation*

[ZeldaGamer21]

But didn't someone say MC is the first game in the timeline?

No one has ever stated TMC to be first in the timeline. Aonumas once said that FS was the "oldest tale" in the Zelda saga, which, although could very well have been true at the time seeing as how FS has no connections to any other games whatsoever, is now outdated and contradicted.

That was Aonuma, and it's a statement which ZG21 describes as "outdated, contradicted and was only correct at the time it was made"... Where did it become outdated and contradicted? As far as I know it hasn't, and it's a rather huge contradiction to call it out-dated if you're comparing it to any statements about OoT's placement at the start of the timelines.

The very existance of TMC nullfies any valdity the "FS is the oldest tale" statement had in the first place. Whilst the statement could have been true at the time, with the release of TMC and FSA and their strong ties to TWW and ALttP respectively, that statement can no longer be true. OoT is the last game to be clearly confirmed as first without anything contradictory against it, and even now Ninendo still intend for OoT to be first, as the VC description of OoT states that it's the first adventure of Link and Zelda.

So, my challenge to you: Suggest an alternative placement for TMC with evidence to support any theory you come up with.

I believe TMC to be in the adult timeline, after TWW/PH, and there is plenty of evidence for it. It's early in the morning here, so I'll just do a brief summary of all the evidence:

- The people of Hyrule are referred to as humans, rather than Hylians, and so if TMC were before OoT, they would be called Hylians.
- The Gorons are in a very similar position in TMC as they were in TWW: very few of them left, make business as travelling merchants, and don't live on a mountain.
- Land crawling Octoroks introduced in TMC, as TWW has the last appearance of water dwelling Octoroks.
- Knowledge of the Triforce is next to nothing, just like in TWW. In fact the knowledge is about the same, as there's a book in the TMC library entitled "Triumph Forks".
- Hyrule is an island surrounded by a vast ocean in TMC, strongly suggesting a post-TWW placement.
- Picori Blade/Four Sword and Light Force acting as "substitutes" of sorts for the Master Sword and the Triforce, as the former is beneath the waves, and the latter is hardly known of.
- Heavy emphasis on wind throughout the entire FS Saga, suggesting a connection with TWW, as no other games in the series put such a strong emphasis on wind.

There's probably more, but right now I'm tired. I will elaborate on these if you want me to, just not right now.

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

- If TMC were before OoT they could be referred to as Hylians. There was a time when we were all humans, not Americans, Brits, Chinese...

- "very few of them left" could be read as "very few of them." I.e. The race is just starting out.

- When the Great Flood hit, is it not possible the Octorocks were forced into the sea from the land? Admittedly it could work the other way though.

- Knowledge of the Triforce being next to nothing, again could be reflective of a new age (TMC > OoT and the people still learning of their legends) or an age reborn (as you are suggesting with your TWW > TMC placement). As for the "Triumph Forks" thing- Hooray for recurring jokes. _{(That one never really appealed to my sense of humour either)}

- "Island surrounded by ocean" may be the one point you have me on.

- Picori Blade/Four Sword and Light force as substitutes. Because there has been no need for the creation of the Master Sword (the first attack on the SR told in ALttP)? Light Force theories still confuse the crap outta me.

- Wind... Recurring themes in Zelda from games being created at similar times? Could be linked chronologically, but perhaps not.

Feels as though most of your argument is open for interpretation as much as (or perhaps more than) the hat... (EDIT: Ok, the number of times I put "could" without realising definitely suggests that...)

[Ezlo]

- "very few of them left" could be read as "very few of them." I.e. The race is just starting out.

Acually, the game sais that there were many of them that once lived on mt.Crenel.

Yes, Mt.Crenel. Why not Death Mountain? Is this maybe Death Mountain before it was called Death Mountain?

[Cap'n Keeta]

I think there is a lot more evidence to suggest TMC coming later in the timeline than there is it coming first. Most of the 'Minish Cap' first evidence stems from the idea Ezlo created the cap myth, but that was something that is a pretty shaky foundation to base an entire timeline on! However, like all the games the evidence only seems to place the game AFTER you've made conncetions to other entries, and even then, it is usually very vague.

I guess Minish Cap's place in the timeline will be set in stone by later entries in the series. It could really fit anywhere for now, so long as it is placed before FS and FSA.

 For instance it could be the very first in the series and later events caused the life force to fracture into the Triforce (actually... an unrelated idea... what if Vaati's failed attempt to extract the light force from Zelda resulted in an imbalance in it that could only be fixed if it became three balanced triangles...) OR the game could be set post-WW/PH in a world where nobody knows anything about the triforce, ganondorf or the three goddesses - leaving open new directions to be explored in a potential sequel.

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

While the hat not being used as evidence argument is starting to grow on me, the question with TMC's placement is where would you place the events of Hero of Men if not nice and early in the timeline...? It seems like a story which could've/should've been addressed in other games.

[Plazmataz]

Wait, wait, wait. Where is all this about King Gustav being the Hero of Men coming from? Isn't he the guy in the tomb? 

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

Consider my post edited. It's just one of my personal theories from TMC (although it has got around quite a bit). It's one of those things that just felt right.

[Plazmataz]

The Hero of Men is from the prophecy in WW, right? Where did you get the connection to Gustav?

EDIT: Actually, TMC may have indeed come first, as Kakariko hadn't been founded yet by the Sheikahs. Just thought of that. If you look at a TMC map, Kakariko is indeed not on it. Am I wrong about this?

[Ezlo's Apprentice]

Hero of Men was the prologue to TMC. Got the game in front of me. " The tiny Picori appeared from the sky, bringing the hero of men a sword and a golden light." May not have been an official term in the legends of Hyrule, but in timeline circles, its a favourite.

As for the Kakariko thing, the popular alternative placement for TMC is after TWW/PH, where Kakariko would've been washed away.

[Plazmataz]

As for the Kakariko thing, the popular alternative placement for TMC is after TWW/PH, where Kakariko would've been washed away.

I refuse to believe such nonsense. 

[Hyruleansoldier]

The Hero of Men is from the prophecy in WW, right? Where did you get the connection to Gustav?

EDIT: Actually, TMC may have indeed come first, as Kakariko hadn't been founded yet by the Sheikahs. Just thought of that. If you look at a TMC map, Kakariko is indeed not on it. Am I wrong about this?

Hold your horses right there.  Geography should only on rare occasions be used as evidence, not even as backup evidence, and surely not as main evidence.

Even though some basic correspondences can often be found, we can't expect to be every known location of Hyrule to be in the games all the time!  Cause then what freeodom would the game developers have - and what joy of exploration would we have?  None!

Kokiri Forest and Gerudo Valley aren't in TP.  Does that necessarily mean that both Kokiri and Gerudo have been either wiped out or not "founded" yet?  Surely not...

Plus, and right now I wish I could link you the quote about this, the creators themselves have said that after they'd conceived the town near Death Mountain in TP, they had to choose a name and just went for Kakariko Village again as that's a familiarity of the gamers...

So knowing that...  I don't have to say no more now do I?

[Plazmataz]

Okay, I take it back about Kakariko then. 

Really, though, where did the connection of Gustav and the Hero of Men come from?

[Faceless]

- The people of Hyrule are referred to as humans, rather than Hylians, and so if TMC were before OoT, they would be called Hylians.
- The Gorons are in a very similar position in TMC as they were in TWW: very few of them left, make business as travelling merchants, and don't live on a mountain.
- Land crawling Octoroks introduced in TMC, as TWW has the last appearance of water dwelling Octoroks.
- Knowledge of the Triforce is next to nothing, just like in TWW. In fact the knowledge is about the same, as there's a book in the TMC library entitled "Triumph Forks".
- Hyrule is an island surrounded by a vast ocean in TMC, strongly suggesting a post-TWW placement.
- Picori Blade/Four Sword and Light Force acting as "substitutes" of sorts for the Master Sword and the Triforce, as the former is beneath the waves, and the latter is hardly known of.
- Heavy emphasis on wind throughout the entire FS Saga, suggesting a connection with TWW, as no other games in the series put such a strong emphasis on wind.

Despite whatever they may be called, they are definitely still Hylians, as you can see in any of the concept art, and often times in their in-game sprites as well.

There are travelling Goron merchants in TP as well, and we know for sure that the Gorons were plentiful in that game. The giant Goron on top of Mt. Crenel also suggests that there could very well be a hidden Goron establishment there. Especially when coupled with the book entry.

This is a really nice idea, and I have nothing to refute it other than to suggest that there could be a variety of different Octorok species.

Triumph Forks is just a little in-joke for the fans, so I wouldn't pay much mind to it, and you can't use an absence of apparent knowledge about the Triforce to argue anything after the obvious taboo its mention was in Twilight Princess. TMC could quite easily exist before widespread knowledge of the Triforce came into existance.

TMC Map
Not seeing how you can declare TMC Hyrule to be an island or not from the map we are given. Looks like an isolated section of a larger continent to me, but I'll let others make their own judgement on this one.

The Four Sword is still a mystery in many ways, and I do wonder if it might be the same blade as the Master Sword. It would give us an established history for it, and the more sensible name "The Picori Blade" does make this possibility less embaressing. I'll comment on the Light Force later.

I wouldn't call this evidence, as it could just be the creators' current fancy, and TMC didn't have much of a wind vibe at all. Vaati wasn't even established as a wind mage in this game.

I think there is a lot more evidence to suggest TMC coming later in the timeline than there is it coming first. Most of the 'Minish Cap' first evidence stems from the idea Ezlo created the cap myth, but that was something that is a pretty shaky foundation to base an entire timeline on! However, like all the games the evidence only seems to place the game AFTER you've made conncetions to other entries, and even then, it is usually very vague.

I guess Minish Cap's place in the timeline will be set in stone by later entries in the series. It could really fit anywhere for now, so long as it is placed before FS and FSA.

 For instance it could be the very first in the series and later events caused the life force to fracture into the Triforce (actually... an unrelated idea... what if Vaati's failed attempt to extract the light force from Zelda resulted in an imbalance in it that could only be fixed if it became three balanced triangles...) OR the game could be set post-WW/PH in a world where nobody knows anything about the triforce, ganondorf or the three goddesses - leaving open new directions to be explored in a potential sequel.

The Light Force definitely didn't split into the Triforce. The Light Spirits of TP confirmed and expanded upon OoT's creation story, and they would be in a position to know.  The Light Force is also represented as a solid triangle - an impossibile shap to form from or split into three equilateral triangles. Furthermore, the Godesses created three seperate triangles according to the creation story, so this is a moot point.

What is far more likely is that the Light Force is the Triforce of Wisdom.

Edit:
More evidence for TMC being the first in the series, is that the opening of the chest marked the advent of monsters in Hyrule's overworld.