Deku Tree's Success...real or Fanfiction?

[Pinecove]

Okay, you do have a point, but it's a pointless point, because even if the Deku Tree's Success was in fact taken into account in RPTRR, it hasn't been shown in any main series Zelda game.

Never did I once say that it has been shown in any main Zelda game.

Also, while it might in fact be the islands of the Great Sea coming together and the water level dropping, many years after TWW...it could also be many years prior to TWW, in a newly flooded world. This seems even more likely, because people remember landmarks like Death Mountain and Lon Lon Ranch, while in TWW nearly everything about Hyrule has been forgotten.

Except, The Great Deku Tree dies in FPTRRL with his sprout not surviving - and he's alive in TWW.

Or, a third possibility...RPTRR isn't canon at all, in which case it doesn't connect to the main series Zelda games in any way, so any "evidence" you draw from PRTRR means nothing.

WHEN DID I SAY IT CONNECTED TO THE MAIN ZELDA SERIES!?!?!?! Please stop putting words in my mouth. And I don't know if you realize it, but you are being extremely rude.

And once again FPTRRL was supervised by the same guy who supervised OoT, making it as Canon as TMC because it was published by Nintendo and made completely by a third party.

 

[TheAhiru17]

Yes but that is allfanfiction and not proven. Like Axle said in his video, there really is not enough proof to even say that and that does not contradict what joseph says what so ever. Besides, if that were true, that would be on the adult timeline, TP is canonicly on the child timeline. Anyways, that is a tangent and lets get back on topic. Is the Deku Tree's Success real?

Sorry I don't really understand why you say that would be in the Adult timeline, if MM according to me goes in the Child timeline, and so does TP but you're right that's not the point xD

And once again FPTRRL was supervised by the same guy who supervised OoT, making it as Canon as TMC because it was published by Nintendo and made completely by a third party.

Sorry Pinecove I hadn't read this, but if it is true then FPTRRL IS canon, and that proves the Deku Tree's success, in my opinion, since the pictures you posted seemed similar to the WW islands

 

[Tyeforce]

Never did I once say that it has been shown in any main Zelda game.

Never did I say that you said it has been shown in any main Zelda game. It's just a fact, and the whole debate as to whether or not FPTRR shows the Deku Tree's Success is pointless because of it.

Except, The Great Deku Tree dies in FPTRRL with his sprout not surviving - and he's alive in TWW.

That I didn't know, as I haven't played the game. I'll take your word for it.

WHEN DID I SAY IT CONNECTED TO THE MAIN ZELDA SERIES!?!?!?! Please stop putting words in my mouth. And I don't know if you realize it, but you are being extremely rude.

And once again FPTRRL was supervised by the same guy who supervised OoT, making it as Canon as TMC because it was published by Nintendo and made completely by a third party.

Again, I never said that you said it was connected to the main Zelda series. I am not putting words into your mouth, nor am I trying to be rude; I'm just having a debate.

And it doesn't matter who FPTRR was supervised or published by. Link's Crossbow Training was made by the same people who worked on Twilight Princess, but it's certainly not canon, is it? The thing about FPTRR is that it's canonicity is debatable. It could be canon, or it could not. Either way, it doesn't affect the series much at all, and until we see a game that actually makes use of the Deku Tree's Success, your theory is pointless. It's highly unlikely that that will ever happen, anyway, given that Spirit Tracks gave us a brand new Hyrule on the Adult Timeline.

 

[Pinecove]

Never did I say that you said it has been shown in any main Zelda game. It's just a fact, and the whole debate as to whether or not FPTRR shows the Deku Tree's Success is pointless because of it.

So what, any debate and/or theory that does not affect other games is pointless? Gimme a break.

And it doesn't matter who FPTRR was supervised or published by. Link's Crossbow Training was made by the same people who worked on Twilight Princess, but it's certainly not canon, is it?

Why shouldn't LCT be Canon?

The thing about FPTRR is that it's canonicity is debatable. It could be canon, or it could not. Either way, it doesn't affect the series much at all, and until we see a game that actually makes use of the Deku Tree's Success, your theory is pointless. It's highly unlikely that that will ever happen, anyway, given that Spirit Tracks gave us a brand new Hyrule on the Adult Timeline.

As I said before, I don't give a rat's *** if this connects to the other games or not. I'm just trying to prove that it happened. You can't deny this. Whether anything affects any other game, or not, it doesn't matter. Theories don't have to relate to other games.

Edit:

Sorry Pinecove I hadn't read this, but if it is true then FPTRRL IS canon, and that proves the Deku Tree's success, in my opinion, since the pictures you posted seemed similar to the WW islands

Thankyou.

 

[Ember Incubus]

Why shouldn't LCT be Canon?

LCT is canon, but it does not go on the timeline because there is no story. But if it does, it would probably go after or during TP.

I would like to add that the sappling in FPTRRL did survive, the father was the one who died. The sapling was also alive at the same time as the father and was sad that his father died.

 

[MrMosley]

LCT is canon, but it does not go on the timeline because there is no story. But if it does, it would probably go after or during TP.

This canon business is getting way out of hand. Games like LCT, they don't matter. A game's canon status is not relevant to anything unless it is a continuation of the main storyline in my opinion, and LCT, whether it was Link while he had nothing better to do than shoot a crossbow that you can't even get in TP or whatever, is not important to the overall storyline so to even discuss its canonicity is a giant waste of time.

When it comes to TRR, that game doesn't prove or disprove anything about the timeline or anything from the games that is even important so far as I know. The most important thing about TRR that I have ever heard is that it gives a backstory as to how Tingle can live seemingly forever (if he has rupees). Everything else about the game is kinda rediculous, not informative at all, and couldn't even be played by us over here in America so in my opinion, its about as good as an empty can of pop.

On the topic, if the Deku Tree was successful in his efforts, it would have to be noted in a main Zelda game to be important. TRR is not clear enough, from what I have seen thus far, to prove or disprove the Deku Tree's success.

As I said before, I don't give a rat's *** if this connects to the other games or not. I'm just trying to prove that it happened. You can't deny this. Whether anything affects any other game, or not, it doesn't matter. Theories don't have to relate to other games.

Theories don't have to relate to anything to be theories. But theories are just ideas; Guesses or opinions, if you will. First of all, I don't like to rely on a game that I can't even play for evidence. TRR is not available to me so why should I use it in my theories having to do with the games that are available to me? Just like with AST, that game helps to prove LA as a direct sequel to ALttP, but I don't use it for anything. I don't even consider the game canon, half of the reason being that it was never made available to me legally from Nintendo.

 

[Pinecove]

When it comes to TRR, that game doesn't prove or disprove anything about the timeline or anything from the games that is even important so far as I know. The most important thing about TRR that I have ever heard is that it gives a backstory as to how Tingle can live seemingly forever (if he has rupees). Everything else about the game is kinda rediculous, not informative at all, and couldn't even be played by us over here in America so in my opinion, its about as good as an empty can of pop.

Actually it makes references to OoS and how the subrosians started wearing their hoods.

Theories don't have to relate to anything to be theories. But theories are just ideas; Guesses or opinions, if you will.

Theories are intellectual opinions based and formed upon discovered facts. Not guesses.

On the topic, if the Deku Tree was successful in his efforts, it would have to be noted in a main Zelda game to be important. TRR is not clear enough, from what I have seen thus far, to prove or disprove the Deku Tree's success.

This is EXACTLY what I hate people saying! So what if it doesn't connect to other Zelda games? Maybe because it has NO RELEVANCE to them.

First of all, I don't like to rely on a game that I can't even play for evidence. TRR is not available to me so why should I use it in my theories having to do with the games that are available to me? Just like with AST, that game helps to prove LA as a direct sequel to ALttP, but I don't use it for anything. I don't even consider the game canon, half of the reason being that it was never made available to me legally from Nintendo.

With this logic, we should use NoA translations instead of Japanese ones.
You can't just pick and choose what's Canon. Either everything is, or nothing is.

 

[TheAhiru17]

You can't just pick and choose what's Canon. Either everything is, or nothing is.

Well that's not true, the manga isn't canon for example

 

[Ember Incubus]

Well that's not true, the manga isn't canon for example

That does not contradict a single thing he said about canonicy.

 

[MrMosley]

This is EXACTLY what I hate people saying! So what if it doesn't connect to other Zelda games? Maybe because it has NO RELEVANCE to them.

Then you are wasting your time arguing about them being canon. It doesn't matter if they are canon or not if they aren't even important to the overall series. This is the point I am trying to make. I am actually not opposed to any evidence that TRR can give us, but the question is does it even give us anything important? Is it truly clear to the point of proving the Deku Tree's success? And if it doesn't, then why waste your time arguing about it?

With this logic, we should use NoA translations instead of Japanese ones.
You can't just pick and choose what's Canon. Either everything is, or nothing is.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with NoA translations and I am tired of people acting like there is. As long as I've been a theorist, I have never seen anything since the first like, three games that was even mistranslated, and nothing back then was terribly mistranslated to the point of it becoming something completely different. Japanese translations are a waste of time, just like arguing about games that have nothing to do with the rest of the series. Both are unnecessary and unimportant to theorizing currently. Maybe in the future when an important game only comes out in Japan that reveals all kinds of mysteries about the series, then we can talk. And maybe in the future, Nintendo might hire a bunch of terrible translators that will completely mess up the story between America and Japan. But that has not happened yet and it probably never will happen from here on out.

And I can pick and choose whatever I feel to be canon. By your logic, we should make the CD-i games canon and slap them on the timeline. We should probably throw the Game and Watch, BS Satellaview titles, and the board games and whatever other rediculous renditions of the series there is out there all on the timeline too. Make them all canon as well. Can't forget about the manga. Oh but isn't the manga non-canon? Nope. Either everything is or nothing is, right?

 

[Pinecove]

Then you are wasting your time arguing about them being canon. It doesn't matter if they are canon or not if they aren't even important to the overall series. This is the point I am trying to make. I am actually not opposed to any evidence that TRR can give us, but the question is does it even give us anything important? Is it truly clear to the point of proving the Deku Tree's success? And if it doesn't, then why waste your time arguing about it?

It gives us the origins for the cloaks the subrosians wear in OoS.
But no, I doubt the Deku Tree success has relevance on anything. It's just likely however that it CAN work. Finding out that it can is like finding out who the poe salesman in OoT is. There's no point to it - it's just fun.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with NoA translations and I am tired of people acting like there is. As long as I've been a theorist, I have never seen anything since the first like, three games that was even mistranslated, and nothing back then was terribly mistranslated to the point of it becoming something completely different. Japanese translations are a waste of time, just like arguing about games that have nothing to do with the rest of the series. Both are unnecessary and unimportant to theorizing currently. Maybe in the future when an important game only comes out in Japan that reveals all kinds of mysteries about the series, then we can talk. And maybe in the future, Nintendo might hire a bunch of terrible translators that will completely mess up the story between America and Japan. But that has not happened yet and it probably never will happen from here on out.

I can name you some major flaws right now:

1. NoA states the Master Sword was made DURING the seal war. The Japanese states it was made FAR before.
2. NoA states there was a soul in the Trident in FSA - there wasn't.
3. Noa states the Oocca created the Hylians.

There's much more.

 

[MrMosley]

1. NoA states the Master Sword was made DURING the seal war. The Japanese states it was made FAR before.
2. NoA states there was a soul in the Trident in FSA - there wasn't.
3. Noa states the Oocca created the Hylians.

Well #1 is being fixed on both ends by Skyward Sword, so what was a problem is no longer. For #2 and #3, I am interested to know what this is in comparison to on the Japanese end? Like, if that's what NoA says, then how does the Japanese descriptions differ?

 

[Pinecove]

First line = Original Japanese
second line = Literal translation
Thirds line = NoA

暗黒から産み落とされし　魔のじゃき　トライデント
Born from darkness, the demon's evil device, the trident
Evil...spirit of magic trident.

There's 2. As for 3...

ハイラルは最も神に近い種族のハイリア人が創ったってのが通説だけど
The common opinion is that Hyrule was created by the Hylia people, the race closest to the gods, but…
Yes, according to legend, Hyrule was made by the Hylians, who, as we all know, are the closest race to the gods.

実は大昔には、ハイリア人よりもっと神に近い種族がいて、彼らが創った　という説もあるんだ
…truth be told, there's also a theory saying that in ancient times there was a race even closer to the gods than the Hylia people, and THEY created it.
But also according to legend, long ago there was a race even closer to the gods, and some say THESE creatures made the Hylians.

There are a few other things too. Like the place being fought over in the TP BS was Hyrule not the Sacred Realm. Small differences - but ones that can make HUGE differences.

 

[Ember Incubus]

Okay this is getting off topic. Lets get back to the debate at hand.

 

[MrMosley]

Looking at the translations...

暗黒から産み落とされし　魔のじゃき　トライデント
Born from darkness, the demon's evil device, the trident
Evil...spirit of magic trident.

This does seem to add information that is not necessarily needed, so I will give you that.

ハイラルは最も神に近い種族のハイリア人が創ったってのが通説だけど
The common opinion is that Hyrule was created by the Hylia people, the race closest to the gods, but…
Yes, according to legend, Hyrule was made by the Hylians, who, as we all know, are the closest race to the gods.

実は大昔には、ハイリア人よりもっと神に近い種族がいて、彼らが創った　という説もあるんだ
…truth be told, there's also a theory saying that in ancient times there was a race even closer to the gods than the Hylia people, and THEY created it.
But also according to legend, long ago there was a race even closer to the gods, and some say THESE creatures made the Hylians.

This, however, can be taken one of two ways. You can either look at this and say that NoA added information that was not needed, as was in the first example. Another way to look at it is to say that NoA added information that the Japanese version left out or didn't emphasize on. I mean, the Japanese translation says right out that there was a race other than the Hylians which helped in the creation of Hyrule. NoA says that this race created the Hylians. So, yeah those are two different things, but it could be interpretted as being added info.

Either way, my point was that there hasn't been anything very major that has been screwed up. Maybe some minute details here and there but nothing that if I were Japanese would it make me change my timeline or the way I view the games individually, or the plot behind the games. Nothing here is really changed an awful lot.