Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess

[Yink]

A slightly "new" way to look at TP - REVIEW

So, I've never really done a rant before or a review of a game but I think it's appropriate to place this here and not in TP Discussion. I want to make some connections.

Hello, I'm Yink as you all know and I am quite a big Zelda fan, I own nearly all the games and I've played through each of them except Spirit Tracks (because I've been to busy lately to do so).

----------

I want to just come out and say one thing: Twilight Princess is an awful game, they could've done a lot better with it. Not saying it's the worst but it's nowhere near the best.

Now that that part is out of the way I want to say why. These are completely my own opinions, so if you want to shoot them down please do and try to argue why it's better than what I see. Maybe I'll start to like it more.

Let's look at the story first. The story isn't original which is pretty saddening for a game. It's got this weird, "sticking to ALttP" thing about it. For example, in TP Ganon is sealed away in the depths of the Twilight Realm and relies on his little minion, Zant, to bring him back to the world after he's done some damage to it.

If you look at ALttP's story it's something like this: Ganon is sealed away in the Dark World and relies on his little minion, Agahnim, to bring him back to the world doing the exact same thing as I explained for Zant (with the small exception of Agahnim breaking the seal to bring him back). Not very original at all.''

When they did introduce new ideas, they didn't really connect right. Playing as Wolf Link is fun for a total of about 5 minutes. It's not interesting, it's just another problem for you. There's nothing interesting about it. You fight almost exactly the same as Normal Link would, only with claws and fangs, the engine is too similar.

Then there's Midna. While she does tend to be an interesting character, she doesn't do much to really help you in battle at all. In previous Zelda games, you can rely on Navi or Tatl to figure out what an enemy is and what it can DO to you. That's left out completely. Also instead of scaling hills and the like, you just get her to float over to it and she does it for you. That really takes away from the fun of climbing it yourself and the challenge. That and Midna fights for you in some situations, that seems like a waste.

----------

Okay, story problems aside, I want to talk about graphics: For the most part they weren't great.

Zelda games were always so interesting to me because they also were not "realistic". Look at all the other games in this series and ask yourself "Is this really realistic?". TP focus so much on it that it kind of was ruined...I mean come on you look at the scenery. It's trying to hard then there to be OoT. So it's borrowing yet another obvious thing from another Zelda game.

It lacked in many good graphics, some looked terrible even in the cut-scences, which should have the best graphics in the game (that and the ending and opening). If you looked at backrounds, they looked lazy. Some of you are going to go "Well that's because it's the GCN" or "That's because it was put on the Wii". I don't care. That's really not a good reason for this game to look like this, the designs of the characters are quite nice, but you really shouldn't just lack on woods, dungeons, etc.

Character designs were pretty bad too. Look at most of the kids in the village, they all look like women. Colin is a guy obviously but until I knew that, I thought he was a girl. Bad trap there.

Landscapes were awful too. If you are in Hyrule field and you see the Mountains making perfect angles...no. That's just not how it is. The Dungeons however, were this game's saving grace.

----------

The music is pretty sad too, especially for the time: The entire soundtrack (I'm fairly sure) is ALL MIDI.

Come on now, it's past the time where we could only use MIDIs in games to make music, how about some real orchestrated music? It's very surprising and saddening that Nintendo didn't include that, especially when they could've. There were some good tracks yes, but this desperately needed some real orchestra in it. It would've fit the game so well.

Some of the music didn't even fit the situations well. Most of the battle music didn't fit. (With maybe the exception of fighting Beast Ganon, that one REALLY fit well)

----------

Overall, I could talk a lot more about the game but from what I gander: Twilight Princess is this weird, combination of other Zelda components including engine, storyline and graphical relations and that makes the game boring and unoriginal. It's like a Zelda tribute that failed hard.

Would I play this game again? Probably not, which is sad.

 

[Firus]

I definitely respect a differing opinion, but this review doesn't seem to make sense at all.

Let's look at the story first. The story isn't original which is pretty saddening for a game. It's got this weird, "sticking to ALttP" thing about it. For example, in TP Ganon is sealed away in the depths of the Twilight Realm and relies on his little minion, Zant, to bring him back to the world after he's done some damage to it.

If you look at ALttP's story it's something like this: Ganon is sealed away in the Dark World and relies on his little minion, Agahnim, to bring him back to the world doing the exact same thing as I explained for Zant (with the small exception of Agahnim breaking the seal to bring him back). Not very original at all.''

Um...Aghanim is Ganon's alter-ego, as he says in the game when you fight Ganon. Also, the Twilight Realm isn't the same as the Dark World at all.

When they did introduce new ideas, they didn't really connect right. Playing as Wolf Link is fun for a total of about 5 minutes. It's not interesting, it's just another problem for you. There's nothing interesting about it. You fight almost exactly the same as Normal Link would, only with claws and fangs, the engine is too similar.

The engines were pretty similar, but Wolf Link wasn't really a BAD mechanic, just maybe not as fleshed-out as it could've been.

Then there's Midna. While she does tend to be an interesting character, she doesn't do much to really help you in battle at all. In previous Zelda games, you can rely on Navi or Tatl to figure out what an enemy is and what it can DO to you. That's left out completely. Also instead of scaling hills and the like, you just get her to float over to it and she does it for you. That really takes away from the fun of climbing it yourself and the challenge. That and Midna fights for you in some situations, that seems like a waste.

You make it sound like in most Zelda games there's a mechanic where you're told how to beat enemies or whatever, but as far as I can recall, that only exists in OoT and MM...there are certain spots where they do that in other games, like the telepathic tiles in ALttP, but for the most part that's not something typically in Zelda that they just "left out".

Also, I can't exactly make out what you're saying in the second part...but are you complaining because Midna floats over to things without you necessarily reaching that exact spot? Why is that a problem...? Most of the places she does that in are impossible to reach, and it doesn't detract from gameplay at all.

As for Midna fighting for you, if you're talking about in cutscenes and the like with the battle with Zant and Ganon, that happens in every game...if you mean her assisting you in battle like when you defeat Twilight monsters, isn't that the sort of thing companions are supposed to do in games...?

Okay, story problems aside, I want to talk about graphics: For the most part they weren't great.

Zelda games were always so interesting to me because they also were not "realistic". Look at all the other games in this series and ask yourself "Is this really realistic?". TP focus so much on it that it kind of was ruined...I mean come on you look at the scenery. It's trying to hard then there to be OoT. So it's borrowing yet another obvious thing from another Zelda game.

Wait, wait, so before it wasn't borrowing enough from OoT (partner telling you how to beat enemies), and now it's borrowing too much?

Anyway, Zelda graphics on the N64 attempted to be as life-like as was possible on the N64. Wind Waker was purposefully the opposite of realistic, same goes for PH and ST. Every other Zelda has been in 2D and it's hard to say.

I actually think TP's graphics were really nice, despite the fact that they were flawed (i.e., not high definition). It's the first 3D Zelda since MM to not use cel-shaded graphics, I don't know why that automatically makes it trying too hard to copy OoT.

It lacked in many good graphics, some looked terrible even in the cut-scences, which should have the best graphics in the game (that and the ending and opening). If you looked at backrounds, they looked lazy. Some of you are going to go "Well that's because it's the GCN" or "That's because it was put on the Wii". I don't care. That's really not a good reason for this game to look like this, the designs of the characters are quite nice, but you really shouldn't just lack on woods, dungeons, etc.

If you don't care about the lack of power on a system and want good graphics anyway, then why aren't you going with a PS3 or something? You can't complain about graphics not being up to your standards if the console can't handle it. The game was ported straight from GC so of course the graphics aren't going to look that good, that's that.

Character designs were pretty bad too. Look at most of the kids in the village, they all look like women. Colin is a guy obviously but until I knew that, I thought he was a girl. Bad trap there.

I did notice this somewhat, the characters did tend to look kind of odd.

----------

The music is pretty sad too, especially for the time: The entire soundtrack (I'm fairly sure) is ALL MIDI.

*FACEPALM*

Okay, seriously, do you know what a MIDI is?

Twilight Princess Intro [MIDI]

Twilight Princess Intro [Actual]

There's a LARGE quality difference between the two.

Come on now, it's past the time where we could only use MIDIs in games to make music, how about some real orchestrated music? It's very surprising and saddening that Nintendo didn't include that, especially when they could've. There were some good tracks yes, but this desperately needed some real orchestra in it. It would've fit the game so well.

Something isn't automatically a MIDI just because it isn't orchestrated. And while it may be YOUR personal preference, it's not everyone's. I usually tend to prefer non-orchestrated music. It isn't just laziness that leads to a lack of orchestrated music, it's a creative decision.

Some of the music didn't even fit the situations well. Most of the battle music didn't fit. (With maybe the exception of fighting Beast Ganon, that one REALLY fit well)

I dunno, I personally thought they all fit pretty well. Blizzeta's especially.

Overall, I could talk a lot more about the game but from what I gander: Twilight Princess is this weird, combination of other Zelda components including engine, storyline and graphical relations and that makes the game boring and unoriginal. It's like a Zelda tribute that failed hard.

Would I play this game again? Probably not, which is sad.

Again you talk about how boring and unoriginal it is, yet you complained because it lacked other Zelda mechanics.

I can understand the "similar to other Zelda games" complaint, most people tend to think that (I personally didn't notice it so strongly, but I understand other people's point). But the attitude that it just stole everything from other games and is totally unoriginal -- and therefore is a piece of crap -- is illogical to me.

I respect your opinion, but you seriously seem to be nitpicking at everything in the game.

 

[Yink]

I am nitpicking because I think this game could have been better.

This is still my opinion. I love Zelda games, I'm just saddened that this game really isn't original in many senses that have made it (Zelda games) original in the first place.

The point of a review is to nitpick and point out some good and bad. I feel there's more "bad" to place than good.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to mention this. What you've told me inspires me to play this game with a new mindset...but I really cannot ignore such obvious flaws with this game.

And the MIDI stuff you said? First, sorry but your first link doesn't work. Second, yes, there is probably an obvious quality difference but they're both STILL MIDIs. I'm not saying the quality terrible I'm saying this game deserves orchestrated music. I know exactly what an MIDI is and I said "I was fairly sure they were all MIDI".

 

[Firus]

The point of a review is to nitpick and point out some good and bad. I feel there's more "bad" to place than good.

The point of a review is to point out what's good and what's bad, not to LOOK for bad things to point out.

And the MIDI stuff you said? First, sorry but your first link doesn't work. Second, yes, there is a quality difference but they're both STILL MIDIs. I'm not saying the quality terrible I'm saying this game deserves orchestrated music. I know exactly what an MIDI is and I said "I was fairly sure they were all MIDI".

I don't know why the first link is failing for everyone but me...bah. I can't find any good Zelda ones, but here's one from Phoenix Wright.

[MIDI]

[Actual]

THEY ARE NOT BOTH MIDIS. MIDI is a type of music file that is completely different. BY DEFINITION, if something is a MIDI, its quality is worse. If you think that any game (that isn't purposefully retro) nowadays uses MIDIs, you clearly don't know what they are.

 

[Yink]

Sorry but like I said, I did point out some good. There's more to point out in the "bad". I didn't turn on the game and go, "Oh I don't like how this character is, so that means I should look to see if any other ones suck too". If that's what you're getting at I apologize, but that's not what I meant.

Thank you that link worked. ^_^ I see that one sounds better but to be honest, I still think this game deserves better music.

 

[etecoon]

BY DEFINITION, if something is a MIDI, its quality is worse

actually a MIDI file has absolutely nothing to do with sound quality, it will sound different depending on what sound bank is being used, for instance it will sound different on different PC's because of different soundcards

 

[Maaaaaaaaaan]

For starters, since this is a review of a game, there's going to be some spoilers, so heads up. But seriously, this game's been out forever now.



Hmmm... Well, to me, Twilight Princess was a great game. I think it's a little harsh to call it awful. I've played a couple awful games, and just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's awful.

Original story? Well, to me, being able to turn into a wolf is pretty original. The Twilight Realm having a power shift that influences the normal realm? That's pretty original. Setting up a villain other than Ganondorf for the majority of the game? That's a bit different. And as for Zant being a minion, he's a bit more complex than that.

He was a weak, mentally unstable subservient denizen of the Twilight Realm with jealousy in spades. Enter the KING OF EVIL with an EVIL PLAN to USE HIS WEAKNESS to his EVIL BENEFIT. Zant was a pawn, and set up the true villain rather perfectly in my opinion.

Wolf Link playing the same as Link... Well now, is that so bad? I'd rather play in a style that feels natural. And ripping the throat out of your enemy never gets old. He fights like a wolf: Fierce and Fast. That's combat at its most feral, and deliciously visceral. (As far as Nintendo goes.)

And I'm not going to really touch on Midna not helping you in combat. If you suck enough against a boss, she interrupts to hint at a strategy, for one thing. Second, Zelda is dominantly a puzzle game, so why shouldn't combat be an extension of that. I prefer solving fights on my own. Third, Midna is so much more personable than Navi it's silly. She's a real character, not some game mechanic. Nothing compares to Midna's Desperation playing as you run with her dying on your back. That's more emotion than I've gotten from any companion in a Zelda game, other than rage at Navi telling me to listen to her mindblowing discovery that Skulltulas can't be hit from the front. Fourth, I wish I had a fourth point to spend more time talking about the hilarious pot of sex that Midna is.

Okay now, graphics: At what point is TP realistic? If you're referring to the darker, more heavyset graphics, that's because the world is much grittier and darker. Could be because Twilight is in the game's title, but meh. As Rick James said, "Darkness is spreading!" TP is dark because the Twilight Realm is conquering Hyrule. Maybe they didn't use kiddy graphics, but it's hard to be lighthearted when the world is overcome by darkness. And the characters may not be in a normal style, but that's the art direction. They're well polished as far as their intended design is concerned. Not my favorite style, but they don't all look like women. Bridget from GG is a trap. Colin is a guy.

Music? My favorite aspect of most games, and I'm not sure what music you're saying is bad. A full orchestra is better served for games like MGS. Creativity is better served for games like Zelda. I've already mentioned Midna's Desperation, but there's so much more. The insanity tones when fighting the baboon, the otherworldly aspect of Celestia(I think that's it's name, it's the Sky City theme)...

The music even added intensity to the already monumentally EPIC concept of fighting a dragon, in the sky, in a borderline hurricane... And don't get me started on the throwback tunes you howl to as a wolf.


Which would bring me to my final point. The game may contain elements from past Zelda's, but that's because it's a reboot of the platformer versions. The game pays homage to it's predecessors every chance it gets. Howling old themes, learning skills and gaining the equipment of the heroes that came before... Hell, Ganondorf doing what Ganon do. You've got to stay grounded in your franchises roots, but Twilight Princess is a hell of a lot more than a OoT remake. Just ask Sonic what happens when you ignore what made a franchise good to begin with. While you're at it, ask Sonic why Werehog couldn't be more like Wolf Link.


At any rate, that's what I think about Twilight Princess. Meh, what do I know?

 

[etecoon]

oh, and on the whole I think TP's soundtrack was pretty disappointing. a few good ones like midna's themes, the credits theme was good(they almost always are on console zelda's), but a lot of it was just really dull and didn't make much attempt to stand out, not many memorable melodies. the dungeon music especially is somewhere that previous games like LTTP, LA, OoT, and MM did much much better IMO

 

[Levitas]

I've only played a couple zelda games, which is probably why I enjoyed TP.

That said, I didn't like the character design. Characters don't need to be horrifyingly absurd looking to look "styled"

Especially with how much hype this game got, it should easily have been the best zelda game yet, which it clearly wasn't. My friends are playing OoT/masterquest again and not TP again, which says something.

Also, etecoon knows his stuff, if you follow him, he'll teach you to wall jump

 

[etecoon]

the transvestite at lake hylia = most WTF thing I've seen in a zelda game maybe, ranks up there with the phallic imagery outside of stone tower temple...

 

[Maaaaaaaaaan]

oh, and on the whole I think TP's soundtrack was pretty disappointing. a few good ones like midna's themes, the credits theme was good(they almost always are on console zelda's), but a lot of it was just really dull and didn't make much attempt to stand out, not many memorable melodies. the dungeon music especially is somewhere that previous games like LTTP, LA, OoT, and MM did much much better IMO

Yeah, I'll give you that it's a bit dull on the whole, but my main point was that it wasn't awful. Then again though, with the exception of OoT, I'm not a big fan of Zelda soundtracks as a whole regardless. Meh.

I've only played a couple zelda games, which is probably why I enjoyed TP.

That said, I didn't like the character design. Characters don't need to be horrifyingly absurd looking to look "styled"

Especially with how much hype this game got, it should easily have been the best zelda game yet, which it clearly wasn't. My friends are playing OoT/masterquest again and not TP again, which says something.

Oh, I agree fully. I hate the style they're drawn in, and Malon freaks me out. I'm just saying they weren't poorly done. Then again, style doesn't overwhelm substance to me. Okami was beautiful, but it played like a poor man's Zelda.

Also, I try not to compare anything to OoT/Master Quest because that's a once in a lifetime game. I replay OoT for the game, I replay TP for the story.

 

[etecoon]

okami visual wise was freaking amazing, I wish WW/PH/ST was closer to that style(haven't actually played ST yet though)

 

[finalark]

It's trying to hard then there to be OoT.

From a different thread:

This is my problem with the general Zelda fanbase, for the most part, they're unpleasible. How do I sum it with without writing up a wall of text...?

Nintendo: "Okay, so OoT and MM were pretty cool, but let's try this new "celshading" thing with the next Zelda. A fun and cartoony style will probably be a nice break after the super-dark Majora's Mask."

(WW comes out)

LoZ Fans: ZELDA IS RUINED FOREVA!!!!1!

Nintendo: "Holy crap they did not like that! Alright, so we took a risk and the fans are unhappy. Hmm... okay, let's go back to the realistic style we had in OoT and MM. That'll make them happy."

(TP comes out)

LoZ Fans: "OMGZ THIS LOOKS LIKE OoT IT SUCKS NOW! Oh yeah, and WW is aweome!"

Seriously, they went back to a realistic style with TP because the fans were upset at WW. Then you bash TP for being too much like OoT, mostley due to the graphics.

No, this is not a "new" look at Zelda. This is just someone jumping on the "Twilight Princess sucks" bandwagon. Twilight Princess was an amazing game, but most people just seem to make up bull**** reasons to not like it. In other words, if you look for reasons to hate a game, you will find them.

 

[Sucumbio]

BY DEFINITION, if something is a MIDI, its quality is worse.

my turn to nitpick

by definition: Musical Instrument Digital Interface

vs. Orchestral

Usually, yes, there can be heard an obvious quality difference, mainly because an Orchestral recording is a collection of analog sounds all being played by talented musicians, on real instruments, and the recording itself is typically achieved with studio quality equipment, and then mastered post production on top of that.

MIDIs are "trigger" files, containing commands. Each "part" in a midi file can be thought of as an individual computerized musician, capable of playing multiple instruments, but only one at a time, and normally there is a limit to how many sounds can be played back simultaneously (this is called Polyphony). The quality issue comes with the literal "instruments" the MIDI file is triggering. GENERAL midi, is definitely low quality (though I'll admit Windows XP and beyond has fairly impressive GM instruments, but thinking back to Windows 95/98/NT or before that even, it was kinda crappy), however if you have a super high-end synthesizer/keyboard in use -instead- of general midi (in this case, what the Gamecube/Wii has pre-installed isn't bad but it's still GM) then you'll actually be able to get the same kind of quality that you could get from an orchestra.

Most of my early music was all MIDI but you'd barely know it, because the Alesis QS7 that I used had an incredibly diverse sound bank with really convincing sounds (for its time) way better than general midi, though not quite as good as the real thing. But today, sure, KORG, Roland, Yamaha, they all make synth patches (patches are the 'instruments' used in MIDI) that sound just like the real thing... how? Cause they ARE the real thing, lol, they literally record a person playing the violin, the piano, etc and then program it into the keyboard so that when the MIDI is played back, it's literally just like the real thing, including all the subtle nuances of live playback, like tremolo, vibrato, etc...

OT (lol): I loved TP, actually. I was able to beat it for starters, with OoT I still need help with some of the dungeons, and the final battle is a real *****. I personally hate side-quests, but the ones in TP seemed better than normal 3D zelda games' offerings, less detracting from the overall story. I think I need to get the Wii version and play it, but I'm still afraid of the controls.

 

[Phantom7]

Yink, I can think of reasons to bash WW if I wanted to (for example: Sailing is a pain in the ***). I could think of reasons to bash PH, ST, or any other game if I wanted to. I can think of similar reasons you used to bash TP if I wanted to. But your review is simply taking every negative aspect regarding TP that you can find and highly exaggerating it. TP was amazing, and the only decent complaint I have about it is its difficulty (which you didn't even mention by the way, which means you bashed it for all of the wrong reasons). So here's a brief look at the positive:

--TP had some of the most innovative dungeons ever. City in the Sky was especially creative, and this is also the first time we've been able to explore a full Hyrule Castle in 3-D, is it not?

--The graphics have been, arguably, the best in the entire series (unless, of course, you prefer WW's cel shaded graphics). The 3-D models are exceptionally smooth for GC and the textures are extremely nice for GC. If the graphics are so great for GC that the game lags in certain areas, don't complain about them.

--TP had some kick-*** enemy fights. Although a lot of them were incredibly easy, the Darknut battles, for instance, were some of the most enjoyable enemy-fights in the entire series.

--The storyline was incredible. Using ALttP as an excuse to claim that it's horrible is just invalid. How many of the Zelda games is Ganon reborn? Quite a few, including WW. The dialogue is excellent, and the interactions between characters are very well done. The game transitions smoothly from one event to another, and the plot features several twists, like the Mirror of Twilight disappearing, or Ganon revealed as the main villain (although, some people find this as a disappointment). But overall, the storyline is complex and creative.

 

[Sucumbio]

--TP had some kick-*** enemy fights. Although a lot of them were incredibly easy, the Darknut battles, for instance, were some of the most enjoyable enemy-fights in the entire series.

This!

Remember the Cave of Ordeals? I mean, hello! This was a game unto itself, like Frenzy or any number of old school knock-offs, but with 3D Zelda mechanics. I sometimes just throw the game in to play this one part, it's so much fun.

And yeah, the Darknuts were >>>> in this game than its predecessors. I mean, they really scared me... I've always been frightened of them, lol even in LoZ, but this game made them like, REAL.

 

[Yink]

Yink, I can think of reasons to bash WW if I wanted to (for example: Sailing is a pain in the ***). I could think of reasons to bash PH, ST, or any other game if I wanted to. I can think of similar reasons you used to bash TP if I wanted to. But your review is simply taking every negative aspect regarding TP that you can find and highly exaggerating it. TP was amazing, and the only decent complaint I have about it is its difficulty (which you didn't even mention by the way, which means you bashed it for all of the wrong reasons). So here's a brief look at the positive:


--TP had some of the most innovative dungeons ever. City in the Sky was especially creative, and this is also the first time we've been able to explore a full Hyrule Castle in 3-D, is it not?

--The graphics have been, arguably, the best in the entire series (unless, of course, you prefer WW's cel shaded graphics). The 3-D models are exceptionally smooth for GC and the textures are extremely nice for GC. If the graphics are so great for GC that the game lags in certain areas, don't complain about them.

--TP had some kick-*** enemy fights. Although a lot of them were incredibly easy, the Darknut battles, for instance, were some of the most enjoyable enemy-fights in the entire series.

--The storyline was incredible. Using ALttP as an excuse to claim that it's horrible is just invalid. How many of the Zelda games is Ganon reborn? Quite a few, including WW. The dialogue is excellent, and the interactions between characters are very well done. The game transitions smoothly from one event to another, and the plot features several twists, like the Mirror of Twilight disappearing, or Ganon revealed as the main villain (although, some people find this as a disappointment). But overall, the storyline is complex and creative.

Paragraph 1:

Bashing other LoZ games really isn't what I am doing this review for, and I don't care if you bash other ones, I KNOW they have lots of problems. I find this one has waaaay too many more problems than some of the other LoZ games. And hahahaha, you think I'm bashing for the wrong reasons? I think my reasons were fine thank you. The game was not amazing. The game was decent. I love this series, I don't crap all over it because I hate this game, I as I already said am just giving a review over why I think it wasn't the greatest and think it should be better.

Paragraph 2:

I already said the saving grace were the dungeons.

Paragraph 3:

Uh no. The graphics in this game were not the best. There were some obvious times when you look at a cut-scene and notice bad graphics. If you want me to go look for one I can do it.

Paragraph 4:

I suppose they were fine.

Paragraph 5:

I don't even need to explain how wrong this is. The Zelda series REALLY needs to get away from using Ganon so much.

My last words:

This game had a lot of hype and I really don't think it lived up to it. When this game got an 8.8 (a really long time ago) I completely agreed with that score. (if you consider most Zelda games get in the 9's)

 

[Sucumbio]

yeah, but... Ganon is to the triforce of power as link is to the triforce of courage as zelda is to the triforce of wisdom. link's the hero of time, this was explained in OoT. his nemesis and his reincarnations and why ganon/ganondorf were explained in WW... zelda is, the thing for which the games are named. to stray in any way from this model is to ... not be a zelda game? or something... not saying it couldn't work, but from a marketing perspective it'd be dangerous to call it The Legend of Zelda: insertname if there wasn't Link (the hero) Zelda (the heroine) and Ganon (the baddy).

 

[Yink]

yeah, but... Ganon is to the triforce of power as link is to the triforce of courage as zelda is to the triforce of wisdom. link's the hero of time, this was explained in OoT. his nemesis and his reincarnations and why ganon/ganondorf were explained in WW... zelda is, the thing for which the games are named. to stray in any way from this model is to ... not be a zelda game? or something... not saying it couldn't work, but from a marketing perspective it'd be dangerous to call it The Legend of Zelda: insertname if there wasn't Link (the hero) Zelda (the heroine) and Ganon (the baddy).

So...let's look at Majora's Mask and The Minish Cap? I don't recall Ganon being in those but they were very fun games to me. (and possibly this new Zelda that's coming out, which would be amazing)

I really do understand everyone's opinions in this but I'm not so much bashing this game to bash it, as bashing this game to just point out some bad flaws...things they really could've done better on.

It's a Zelda game, I play them and I enjoy them. I enjoyed this game but really not as much as the other ones. I stated this review was my opinions. I'm very sorry that you disagree with me so much, I wish I could see how good this game "is" but I still fail to.

 

[Sucumbio]

ha! and my ignorance is displayed. good call, Yink. I will admit to having barely played MM, and hating it outright -because- it was so different. You can blame me and people like me for Nintendo keeping Zelda games stagnant and predictable :D I mean, really... if zelda changes too much I prolly won't get it, because it'd be too different. It took me a LONG time to even pick up the 3D games, cause of how different they were from their predecessors, but after mustering the courage I did get it, and loved it. But because of that fear, I wouldn't have been counted in Launch Sales perspectives, and THAT's what Nintendo does NOT want. They want it to sell big right off the bat.

Minish cap, is that a hand held game? If it is I don't own or play hand helds, too small a screen, etc. I played GBA games when I had one of those "docks" or whatever you could plug into your gamecube, but the boot CD broke, so now I don't play GBA games anymore, which sucks cause I miss Metroid: Fusion, prolly my favorite metroid game... but anyway, yeah, actually I do see your points, it's what I've heard from my wife for years since it came out, she really hated TP, and I was so disappointed that she hated it, cause before it dropped ALL I HEARD was her incessant "Why are they taking so long, when is it coming out" blah blah blah I mean GOD, just wouldn't shut up about TP, then we get it, and ha! She doesn't like it. I made it a point to like it, even if it did suck I was bound and determined to like just to spite her, lol... but in fact, I did like it! It was literally easier than OoT and there's just something to be said about a game that's easy enough to beat, but not so easy, that it's easy to beat. o.O uh, lemme try that again... there's a balance that has to be struck ... a game's difficulty is key, and MM was 10 (way too hard) OoT was about 8 (challeneging, but don't need to be God to beat it) TP was 6 (most people can beat it if they try).

 

[finalark]

This game had a lot of hype and I really don't think it lived up to it. When this game got an 8.8 (a really long time ago) I completely agreed with that score. (if you consider most Zelda games get in the 9's)

Do you know why a lot of Zelda games get 9s?

Because they're Zelda games.

So...let's look at Majora's Mask and The Minish Cap? I don't recall Ganon being in those but they were very fun games to me. (and possibly this new Zelda that's coming out, which would be amazing)

So first you say that Ganny is overused, then you go and point out games in which he was not included. Which is a majority of all Zelda titles, Ganny is only in most of the main-console games.

Case and point: if you look for reasons to not like a game, then you will find them and not like them.

And in my humble little book, TP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OoT

 

[Yink]

^^^

That's a terrible argument. They get 9's because they're Zelda games? It's like saying you get an A on a paper every week because you do a good job, then one week you're sick and you half-*** it and still get an A because the teacher's past views of how you did.

And actually, I said he's over used and he is and I pointed out a total of TWO games. How many games are in this series? <3

 

[finalark]

^^^

That's a terrible argument. They get 9's because they're Zelda games? It's like saying you get an A on a paper every week because you do a good job, then one week you're sick and you half-*** it and still get an A because the teacher's past views of how you did.

And actually, I said he's over used and he is and I pointed out a total of TWO games. How many games are in this series? <3

Yes, they get 9s because they're Zelda games. Clearly somebody here doesn't know how professional gaming critics work. Basically, they are more or less inclined to give any game that's part of a popular franchise at least a nine. In other words, they must agree with popular opionon or burn in the fires of a flame war.

There are fourteen games in the Zelda series. Only Six of them have Gannon/dorf in it, that's not even half.

 

[Yink]

Yes, they get 9s because they're Zelda games. Clearly somebody here doesn't know how professional gaming critics work. Basically, they are more or less inclined to give any game that's part of a popular franchise at least a nine. In other words, they must agree with popular opionon or burn in the fires of a flame war.

There are fourteen games in the Zelda series. Only Six of them have Gannon/dorf in it, that's not even half.

So basically what you're telling me is that if a game sucks you should give it a 9 just because the franchise as a whole is good? That doesn't really help out any, it still sucks underneath that 9.

The games that have Ganon/dorf IN it you say? I believe there are 10 (or 9 if you include OoS/OoA to be one game). The Legend of Zelda, Zelda II, A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time, Oracles of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, Four Swords Adventures and Twilight Princess...Wind Waker.

 

[finalark]

Link's Awakening didn't have Gannon in it barring a cameo when Nightmare briefly transfromed into him. I don't remember him in FSA or the Orcale series, though.... you sure that he was in those? Because I could have sworn that Vaati was the main antagonist in FSA and that Onyx and that other guy (name slipped my mind) were the big bads in Ages and Seasons.

 

[Yink]

Link's Awakening didn't have Gannon in it barring a cameo when Nightmare briefly transfromed into him. I don't remember him in FSA or the Orcale series, though.... you sure that he was in those? Because I could have sworn that Vaati was the main antagonist in FSA and that Onyx and that other guy (name slipped my mind) were the big bads in Ages and Seasons.

The cameo is true for LA, but he's still "in" the game as you said.

SPOILER just in case...

Spoiler

For FSA it's Vaati but then after you face him Ganon attacks you.

In Oracle of Seasons/Ages Twinrova sacrifices herself instead of Zelda to bring Ganon back, he's just a lesser form.

 

[Firus]

He didn't technically appear in Zelda 2, either.

And in regards to ratings, I think finalark was explaining why they get good scores, not why they SHOULD get good scores.

 

[finalark]

The cameo is true for LA, but he's still "in" the game as you said.

SPOILER just in case...

Spoiler

For FSA it's Vaati but then after you face him Ganon attacks you.

In Oracle of Seasons/Ages Twinrova sacrifices herself instead of Zelda to bring Ganon back, he's just a lesser form.

I don't know, I really don't count a little cameo as being "in" the game.

Hmmm.... don't remember that from the game.... then again, it's been about eight years since I last played them.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I'm going to move this to the TP thread.I do not wish to discourage threads for game reviews in this room - in fact, I encourage people to make their own threads for them! However, by the OPs own admission, this is a series of nitpicks, and not a review. A review is much longer and doesn't actively search for what is wrong. So uh, while I don't mean to discourage reviewing, I do discourage posting short stuff like this outside of their proper threads.

Going to merge this with the TP thread now.

 

[Yink]

I'm going to move this to the TP thread.I do not wish to discourage threads for game reviews in this room - in fact, I encourage people to make their own threads for them! However, by the OPs own admission, this is a series of nitpicks, and not a review. A review is much longer and doesn't actively search for what is wrong. So uh, while I don't mean to discourage reviewing, I do discourage posting short stuff like this outside of their proper threads.

Going to merge this with the TP thread now.

That's funny, because Spire told me to NOT put this in the thread and make a topic after he saw the post. :/

 

[SkylerOcon]

That's funny, because Spire told me to NOT put this in the thread and make a topic after he saw the post. :/

Well, I already merged the threads after reading that so it's too late to un-merge, but in that case it was just a miscommunication on Spire and I's part. It's not a big deal that it's getting merged anyway, the TP thread needed the bump.

 

[finalark]

And in regards to ratings, I think finalark was explaining why they get good scores, not why they SHOULD get good scores.

Exactly this. I personally think that if the Zelda series wasn't as popular as it is, many of the games would be somewhere in the neighborhood of about 8-ish.

So three reasons why I loved TP:

Story

Dungeons

Bosses

Those three words more or less summerize why I loved TP.

 

[Phantom7]

My opinion on Ganon: Not overused. He is as much of the main villain as Link is the hero. He just so happens to be excluded from a few titles, so for some odd reason, many fans consider him "overused" in the titles he does appear in. Besides, his inclusion was necessary, and maybe even mandatory, in TP because it's parallel to WW in the timeline (as stated by Miyamoto himself), so the events regarding the Triforce must be linked.

 

[Spire]

Hmm...

First of all, this isn't really a review (though the original thread's title suggests otherwise, so I'll give you that). This is an analysis of Twilight Princess's weak points. You guys seemed to harp for the wrong reasons There are strong points, but I feel the weak overshadow it and I'll explain in the following text:

Twilight Princess in comparison to most other Zelda games for their time of release did have a lackluster composition in its overall design. I've felt this way since its release. The only thing that the game really has going for it is the lore. Graphically, the game should have come out earlier to stay with its time, but debuting as a major game for the GCN in the advent of the 360, PS3, and their slew of games kind of puts a damper on the looks. I personally think Wind Waker looks better than Twilight Princess. Yeah, TP may be more realistic in its approach, but that does not grant it the "best graphics award". In fact, I feel that OoT and MM's graphics are timeless in their own right and when still compared to TP, come out the victors -- taking into account their time of release of course.

I understand that some may find it shallow to dog on graphics, but so long as you do not dismiss the game entirely BECAUSE of them, spending time to learn the gameplay mechanics, then you've the right to critique them. I'm a very visual and audible person, and TP really didn't deliver well in either the visual or audible departments for me. I found some of the concepts in the world design to be interesting, but the execution was weak. And about the score, yes, Koji Kondo could have used full orchestration, but just as many other ideas were cut and rushed for its release, so too was the music done in MIDI format. While full orchestration may have helped the game a bit more, it was the pseudo-realistic look that carried out the so-so score and kept it uniform.

Twilight Princess feels like a ton of different ideas crammed together; a solid Zelda game with well-jointed designs for their caliber. But that's it. It's just solid. Everything in the game is on the same level. The ideas taken from past games have been diluted to match one another, and not exactly for the better. Sure, most, if not all Zelda games borrow from their predecessors, but TP did so in a trying-too-hard manner. It's designed simply to move you from point a to point b to point c, and on and on til the end of the game. It is not an innovative and "great" game such as OoT, MM, and WW. It should be because it completes the quartet of OoT-styled 3D Zeldas prior to Zelda Wii's reinvention of the series, but it's rather on par, not above, not below. Twilight Princess draws heavily on elements from past games and presents them in a very rudimentary way. Not even the T-rating shows any real progression other than a more fleshed out dark setting due in part to its graphical style.

I think some ten years from now, we're going to look back on the series and in conversation, kind of jump over TP often. It's an oddball because it's not a GCN game or a Wii game, it's both, and it's not both at the same time. It plays on both systems, but was made for GCN. That being said, it's simply another factoid suggesting the game has a misplaced or odd placed feel in the series.

I've noticed that there are three very powerful and recurring elements in the series: Time, Wind, and Darkness. Each game portrays at least one of them in a fairly strong fashion. Twilight Princess does not. OoT portrayed Time and Darkness; MM portrayed Time and Darkness heavily; WW portrayed Wind and somewhat Time with the suspended Hyrule beneath the ocean; TP portrays a balance of the three, but a balance not needed for the focus of the game. The game focuses on Darkness, what with the cloaking Twilight Realm and and ominous, frightening Zant. Though with the Forest Temple, The City in the Sky, and other such commodoties, we're given a sense of Wind. With the Temple of Time and the suspended, timeless feeling while in Twilight, we're given a sense of Time. But, these two extra senses are so well-rooted (or by another point of view, crammed) in the game that the titular "Twilight" and its dark appeal are taken lightly as both OoT's world design and the many borrowed elements from WW (such as its engine and general musical composition) make this game feel far too dependent on past titles to hold its own.

So perhaps that's the word I've been looking for this whole time. Twilight Princess is none other than dependent.

 

[Maaaaaaaaaan]

Out of curiosity though, since everyone pretty much agrees TP didn't live up to OoT, obviously...

Is anyone going to let that stop them from buying the next game?


Also, I agree on the dependent comment, but I still think TP was originally pushed forward as a reboot of Zelda platforming. Being dependent was the best thing it could have done in my opinion. Nostalgia is powerful, no?

 

[Spire]

Out of curiosity though, since everyone pretty much agrees TP didn't live up to OoT, obviously...

Is anyone going to let that stop them from buying the next game?


Also, I agree on the dependent comment, but I still think TP was originally pushed forward as a reboot of Zelda platforming. Being dependent was the best thing it could have done in my opinion. Nostalgia is powerful, no?

Zelda platforming? I think TP was the worst in the platforming department. Why? Because Midna would often help you through the most challenging instances of what would otherwise be really great platforming. All you had to do was lock on and jump-jump-jump. No precision required whatsoever.

But I will most definitely be purchasing Zelda Wii.

 

[Maaaaaaaaaan]

Zelda platforming? I think TP was the worst in the platforming department. Why? Because Midna would often help you through the most challenging instances of what would otherwise be really great platforming. All you had to do was lock on and jump-jump-jump. No precision required whatsoever.

But I will most definitely be purchasing Zelda Wii.

Ouch...

Haha, I'm not arguing that point with you. I'm just saying, the game was enjoyable to me. I agreed that the best aspect of it was the storyline, but the rest of it was playable, albeit average.

 

[Phantom7]

Ouch...

Haha, I'm not arguing that point with you. I'm just saying, the game was enjoyable to me. I agreed that the best aspect of it was the storyline, but the rest of it was playable, albeit average.

Nearly all of its issues for me were because of its low level of difficulty. It was far too easy, and I was never intimidated by upcoming challenges (if there were any actual challenges), like I was in OoT, MM, and somewhat WW. However, the gameplay, regardless, is brilliant, exceeding that of all past Zelda titles, by a pretty decent amount. I really enjoyed horse-back combat, the new weapons (like spinner, ball and chain, and bomb-arrows), Link's new sword techniques (like the hidden skills, etc.), and not to mention, the enemy fights. It was rather easy, and a bit too similar to its predecessors, but to me it was more fun than WW, and almost as fun as OoT.

Also Spire, your "misplaced between GC and Wii" argument seemed invalid and irrelevant (to how good the game is), and honestly, I didn't find your "darkness, time and wind" argument very convincing at all. It isn't a requirement to include those three features, and it actually makes the game a little more different not to. Besides, I thought the whole game fit directly into your "darkness" category, with the twilight, and the fact that Hyrule was basically completely clouded with darkness itself.

 

[finalark]

Out of curiosity though, since everyone pretty much agrees TP didn't live up to OoT, obviously...

I disagree. OoT was good, but every Zelda game that has come after it is better. Most of OoT's praise is nostalgia-based.

 

[Maaaaaaaaaan]

Nearly all of its issues for me were because of its low level of difficulty. It was far too easy, and I was never intimidated by upcoming challenges (if there were any actual challenges), like I was in OoT, MM, and somewhat WW. However, the gameplay, regardless, is brilliant, exceeding that of all past Zelda titles, by a pretty decent amount. I really enjoyed horse-back combat, the new weapons (like spinner, ball and chain, and bomb-arrows), Link's new sword techniques (like the hidden skills, etc.), and not to mention, the enemy fights. It was rather easy, and a bit too similar to its predecessors, but to me it was more fun than WW, and almost as fun as OoT.

Also Spire, your "misplaced between GC and Wii" argument seemed invalid and irrelevant (to how good the game is), and honestly, I didn't find your "darkness, time and wind" argument very convincing at all. It isn't a requirement to include those three features, and it actually makes the game a little more different not to. Besides, I thought the whole game fit directly into your "darkness" category, with the twilight, and the fact that Hyrule was basically completely clouded with darkness itself.

I disagree. OoT was good, but every Zelda game that has come after it is better. Most of OoT's praise is nostalgia-based.

Gah, I can't win for losing! My thing about it being "playable, albeit average" was about the difficulty, not the gameplay. I should've been more clear, but meh, I already made a fairly lengthy post when this thing started about how much I loved the changes to gameplay, and the game itself. I agree it was more fun than WW, and depending on the day, I flip between OoT and TP.

And finalark, while I slightly disagree on OoT being purely good from nostalgia, my saying everyone thinks TP is worse was about the people before who said it was worse. That's not my opinion, I already agreed with you. lol

Just because OoT came out forever ago doesn't excuse how much more smooth TP was.


So bottom line, I loved TP, like I said before.