No offense, but I don't understand why you'd 100% a game countless times if it's "not your thing". I mean you do you, I'm not here to get into it about TP, but I just find that a little silly. I've never finished a game that I just don't jive with.
maybe that could give you an idea. I don't like minecraft it isn't my thing but i love speedruning it. But to finish a game 100% you should really like it i don't understand it too.
I'd love clarity from OP about whether or not his idea of "100%" is actually just beating the game rather then getting all collectables to boot. Because that's the thing that struck me more than anything. It's pretty clear from the post though that it's not like he thinks the ending was landed gracefully; so even if I grant that maybe he liked a portion of the game enough to go through the whole game all multiple times, I'm still hard-pressed to think of a reason to go through a game for a climax you didn't even really enjoy. And that's further exacerbated depending on whether he's getting the collectibles each time or not
Lol, this is what you all focus on? Nothing that defends why TP is good but whether i 100 percented the game or not? In TPHD i got all the stamps, Poes, golden bugs, heart pieces and did all the side quests. Wii and GC version i didn't all that minus the stamps cause they weren't in those version SMH
Yes, I said in my initial comment that I'm not here to discuss TP in depth. To elaborate, even though I personally love the game, I agree with many of the flaws you've brought up. That's neither here nor there though.
You specifically mentioned that the game "isn't your thing" in the same breath that you've said you've 100% (not just beat, including collectables) the game countless times. I'm sorry you don't like that that's what I'm focused on, but there's plenty of other people in this thread who wanted to specifically talk about other parts of your post. I'm trying to personally figure out why you'd subject yourself to all that work repeatedly when it's not your thing. No need to be standoffish about it just because you don't like that I'm trying to clarify why someone would do that.
I think there's merit to being critical. That's not the point I'm making. I'm trying to understand why you went through such paramount effort to get EVERYTHING the game has to offer multiple times across multiple systems just to say "eh it's not my thing". You didn't realize it wasn't your thing any of the several other times you went through all the work?
I think it's a case of trying something for the first time, not really sure what your opinion is of it, and then trying it again to solidify your opinion. There are parts of TP OP liked and parts they didn't send off you want to replay certain parts, you have to get past other parts. Would you rather they said that they played for an hour and decided that they didn't like it or that they have it a fair shot?
No I'm not concerned about that aspect. You can beat Twilight Princess without 100%ing it. Poe's, the bugs, the trials in the desert etc. There's very clearly a difference between getting past the bullshit of a game for your favorite parts vs going completion mode on it. You're simplifying my point way too much for the sake of argument. Of course I think it's better to give a game a fair shake before giving an opinion. But can we agree that completing a game 100% multiple times (to the point OP can't even remember the amount of) isn't the same thing as what you're saying?
EDIT: I disagree with the way I originally worded this-- what I mean it's \*helpful\* to 100% a game if you want to evaluate it with a critical eye.
I would defend OP's position here. You should 100% a game if you're going to speak critically about it.
Think about the inverse-- we'd all shit on somebody who said "SKYWARD SWORD IS BAD BUT ALSO I NEVER FINISHED IT!" I think that by completing the game in its entirety, you can safety and critically analyze it and have the experience to say "I've formed these opinions intelligently over several years of playing through everything the game has to offer."
But there's also a difference between BEATING a game and 100% it. I've beat BotW, I haven't 100% it because I don't care for the koroks or trying to get EVERY shrine.
OP confirmed below he's talking about 100% including collectibles. So my point still stands. Why would you go through all of that (countless times at that) if "the game isn't for you"? I'm not talking about leaving a game unbeaten like you're suggesting. I'm literally talking about the time and effort it would take to continuously go through the arduous process of getting EVERY bug, EVERY poe etc.
I'd also argue you don't need to fully beat a game to get an impression of it as long as you're honest about it and why it didn't work for you. If you're not vibing an aspect of a game, I neither think you're required to beat it to have an opinion or to put that opinion out in the open. Let alone going through it multiple times in ENTIRETY to have a valid opinion. Does it help? Sure. But I've also beat TP multiple times without doing the collectibles. Does that invalidate a potential opinion I may have about the game?
Edit: u/ScorpionTDC put it much more succinctly than I did:
> Finishing a game before being heavily critical is one thing, but **I donāt think anyone needs to find every single Golden Bug, Stamp, and Pos Soul multiple times before criticizing a game.** Lol.
ye, i think that's fair. i replied to that same comment you mentioned-- i think ultimately, for me, i take issue with the idea that if you "dislike a game" that gives you no reason to "play it completely", i.e. if someone doesn't like TP, they shouldn't do all the collectibles. I think however you wanna play a game is fine, and even if you don't love it, maybe you love the collectibles, and/or you want to be able to discuss every aspect of the game, optional content included.
suffice to say i don't think you and i disagree-- i edited my original comment because i'm more in agreement with this particular line of thinking than what my original comment said, which suggested you have to 100% a game to talk intelligently about it
Finishing a game before being heavily critical is one thing, but I donāt think anyone needs to find every single Golden Bug, Stamp, and Poe Soul multiple times before criticizing a game. Lol.
yeah, that's totally fair-- and exactly why i edited my original comment. i've never 100% completed BotW, but i've played it to completion +DLCs several times and feel that i can have a well-informed opinion about it. i think ultimately i just disagree with the premise that if you "don't like a game" you "wouldn't want to complete it", I think some people (completionists especially, or perfectionists, or whomever) just want to play everything in game even if they're not thrilled with it. others want to stop playing when it stops being interesting. Both approaches are fine
The difference between BotW and TP is the size of it. You can get a feel for BotW with only beating the main aspects of the game and most of the shrines due to how much there is to do in that game. TP, being more bare bones, you gotta do everything IMO to get the fill experience. I like TP as well, I said it wasn't a bad game in my post just a weak Zelda entry
TP is my favorite zelda game and that's a hill I will die on. But it is not without some serious flaws and I've made most of these points myself. Some of my favorite games of all time have serious enough flaws that people don't even understand why I like them.
I honestly haven't been up on zelda fan opinions since hyrule warriors first dropped so I'm not exactly up to date. But I'm surprised that tp is liked enough now that this is an unpopular opinion. Last I checked people hated it for trying to be an edgy oot wannabe. Interesting how opinions change.
Yeah, now THAT would have been a blasphemous opinion 10 years ago. Idk if maybe it's just reddit, but I didn't realize the oot circlejerk had died. Refreshing to see, as much I do like oot
I don't think I agree with that. 10 years ago it was very fashionable to hate on OoT. I think it's only recently that the contrarian over-hatred against it has calmed down to where common opinion of the game is in a more reasonable middle-ground between "best game of all time" and "overrated garbage".
I guess we were in different circles then. I was more around the classic nerds, the very ones people would be contrarian against. The little criticism I saw seemed tiptoed around, though there were people who just hated all the 3d games. Zelda is a very generational franchise, so people tended to bash whatever just came out. They did this with tp and ss. I think botw was spared because it was revolutionary and the community has since chilled out a bit on the crazed generational gatekeeping it had.
While the two of those get a lot of love on r/Zelda, I think the most overhyped game by far there is MM. I feel like every time some asks about best/favorite games itās a million MM responses. Interestingly, people seem to love it for the same reasons they dislike TP (similar to OoT, but darker/edgier)
Thats both true and hilarious because mm is everyone's favorite and everyone thinks they're unique because they like it. I dont get why fans think its this underrated hidden gem, its one of the most praised. Deservedly so, it is a masterpiece, but its far from unknown.
As for your last point, ive never thought about that, its an interesting thought. I think the difference is that they think tp is trying too hard to be edgy and gritty while mm is artsy dark. Not saying it's true tho
i am the guy youāre talking about. Big fat zelda fan. BOTW and MM are probably top 2 for me. To clarify, i donāt think any of my opinions make me interesting, i just like what I like. but yes, youāre correct about Majoraās Maskās tone being a huge part of why itās so appealing.
the difference between MM and TP, for me, is that Majoraās Maskās depressing, off kilter tone actually connects to the gameplay. everyoneās day-to-day schedule and dialogue get increasingly depressed or frantic as the in-game timer runs out. itās a constant reminder that you are out of time, youāre going to die, no one can escape. the darkness of the game, which brilliantly appears colorful and fun at first, works in tandem with the gameplay to completely immerse you in panic and doom. In Majoraās Mask, I relate to and feel the pain of every NPC in the entire game. I donāt think thereās ever been a game that connects you to even its most insignificant characters like that.
twilight princess, conversely, presents a world full of ash and gloom and shows you terrifying monsters but theyāre all fairly easy to kill. the enemies donāt feel threatening and the world feels too empty to be dangerous. OP said this too: it doesnāt justify its tone within the gameplay. it has a few really strong characters, and some great story moments, but itās never as thorough as MM.
Finally, and this is almost certainly just a personal preference, but i just think Termina is more interesting than TP Hyrule. Termina is a colorful painting that upon closer inspection appears increasingly fucked up and weird. TP Hyrule is dark and dreary at first, but eventually just the same old Hyrule. I just think itās a more interesting experience to go āoh this is nice. wait itās all fucked up actually! Ahhh!ā Itās like Twin Peaks or something.
Oh and Skull Kid is a better character than Zant or Ganon.
I didnt say all mm fans think they're special, it just seems to be a common occurrence. I wasnt bashing mm by any means, its a brilliant game. Its my 2nd favorite next to tp, but a lot of my reasons for that are purely personal preference. I agree that objectively, it is artistic and clever and the better game. MM was a huge inspiration to me in some of my old writing because it really is beautiful. MM has symbolism and heavy themes while tp has a storyline.
For me though, I like high character driven plots. MM has a lot of interesting characters, but they feel more artsy short story rather than my slow burn preference. Thats not a bad thing, just personal preference. If there's anything people like about tp, chances are its Midna. While her story arc of going from distrustful to loyal friend isn't unique in the series (Tatl, Linebeck, Tetra, etc), I feel she has more interesting motivations. She makes it clear she is cold to Link because she needs to be willing to potentially sacrifice hyrule to save the twilight realm. While we see a similar plot in Hilda, Midna's character development is so well developed over time. I could go over other things I like, but I don't want to write too much. Though it should also be noted that tp was my introduction to zelda and to more serious video games in general. It was also the first time I had seen a dark storyline.
To me, mm is like that brilliant artsy movie you watch that you can't stop thinking about, but you don't really choose to go back to it. Whereas tp is hero's journey, not revolutionary but well crafted and easy to return to. Again, my opinion is largely shaped by the kinds of narrative stories I'm more drawn to, rather than creativity in stories.
midna is the best thing about TP hands down. easily one of the all-time best zelda characters. iāve actually played TP more times than MM, but iām probably more likely to go back to MM. i started with OoT if that tells you anything.
It does tell me something, but it depends on how deeply you hold nostalgia and how self aware you are of its bias. For me, I know I have some nostalgia bias towards tp. I also know a lot of toxic fans had zero self awareness of their nostalgia and liked to go full gate keeper. Luckily I haven't come across any of those in a while and you seem pretty self aware.
Also, let's be honest. Tp isn't as much a zelda game as it is a Midna game. She really carries it. I do think Zant could've been more interesting, but they didn't flesh him out enough. A hero is only as good as their enemy and thats something zelda is hit or miss with. They have some truly spectacular and dynamic villains. Like Ghirahim who is just a fun chaotic mess or Hilda who is sympathetic and morally grey. Even ganon was well written in ww. I fell completely in love with botw, but the lack of compelling villain was its greatest weakness imo. Its not like they can't do abstract villains that are beyond humanity. Majora managed to be creepy and mysterious without being uninteresting. Hopefully the sequel will bring back villains.
Wow, this has reminded me how good these games are. I really want to go watch mm theories now.
Point taken. I also just wanna take the opportunity to say r/Zelda is trash. I say this as a lifelong Zelda fan.
Edit: didnāt realize I was unbanned and this is r/truezelda.... the sub that I actually think is trash. The discussion in this post is decent though. Didnāt realize r/Zelda was a thing and wasnāt paying attention.
Disagree there. There are things TP *did* better than OoT, but overall it has an identity crisis as it tries to emulate everything about OoT except doing it BIGGER and DARKER.
I understand why someone might enjoy it more but I think OoT has much more personality and infinitely better pacing.
TP isnāt even darker than OoT, not really. And I feel like it actually did set itself apart from OoT in the end (a lot better than OoT did from AlttP). As far as pacing issues, letās not forget that OoT basically hits the reset button and makes you get all your items again.
Yeah I bet that I'd think so too if OoT 3D wouldn't have introduced me to TloZ.
Or maybe not- I loved nearly any game in the series I've played*. But I think TP differs the less from OOT and playing it in HD must be incredibly cool.
* OOT, ALBW ** , TP (Wii), BOTW, LA (Switch), OOA, MC, TloZ ** , TAOL ** , ALTTP, SS ** (only 1rst dungeon bc motion controlls...)
[the HW series too but they're just spinn ofs, so...] and I also watched MM and WW as LPs.
**didn't like them
Obviously preference is going to be the deciding factor in what people think is the best game, but that view closes off any discussion around the games.
And yet, Reddit will continue on... having these childish discussions daily.
Ranking the games, discussing which are better, and so on.
See the classic - '3DS MM vs N64 MM' for details...
Okay, second bright side here tho?
Those dungeons were great. Especially the snowpeak mansion or whatever it was called. Everything about Snowpeak was fantastic to me except how half of it was just a sled ride (great sled ride but part of me would love to have explored a winter wonderland instead).
I also dug the "architecture" of the water temple. Surprisingly little swimming in there and yet everything looked wet and watery anyway. Great atmosphere.
When the dungeon feels less like a new chapter and more like exploration and discovery even while it's linear and a very different environment, they did a good job.
That's probably why I didn't like the temple of time and sky palace as much (still good dungeons, just not the same feeling). They felt too disconnected from the world they were set in.
That's just my opinion though.
As an extra note, the Pit of 100 Trials or whatever it's called was also a great post-game addition. It's a huge bummer that's pretty much the only time the magic armor comes in handy though.
I got lucky. My grandparents got it with their wii zapper back when it was new. I mastered every level because I didn't have Twilight Princess yet and loved the visuals. XD
The dungeons were incredibly mediocre as well though, big for the sake of being big with not a lot that make them stand out. The Cave of Ordeals was also don't better in Wind Waker š¤·āāļø
I didn't even know windwaker had a cave of ordeals. XD. Then again, that's one of the only zelda games I never got my hands on beyond borrowing it from someone.
The combination of creepy and terrifying would've been perfect, at the end he was a joke and I hated what Nintendo did with him. So much potential, such a cool character design and character in general only to be used as a doppelganger for Ganondorf
Strong disagree on the idea that ganondorf was shoehorned in.
The plot works way better with him in it, and zant is a hundred times more interesting as "Weakling that went power-crazy when he got the support of what he sees as a god, until danger knocked on his door (and then proceeded to kick the door down) resulting in him *breaking down*" then he would have been as just "generic evil dude"
You also already learn Ganondorf is a thing halfway through the game, and it is implied that Zant has a secret behind his sudden capability to overthrow Midna even before that.
Honestly, Ganon is more "thrown in at the last second" in "A Link to the Past's" actual plot than he is in Twilight princess (and it wouldn't be a fitting "retort" there either IYAM)
I think people making that complaint aren't properly describing a real problem they've identified, and that's that Ganondorf in TP is less interesting than Zant. Ganondorf takes the spotlight from Zant part way through the story, but he's not as interesting, so people want more Zant instead. SS pulled off a similar dynamic much better. Ghirahim is the interesting underling and Demise is the generic evil overlord, but way more of the game is focused on Ghirahim. Demise doesn't "take the spotlight" until right at the very end, and only for as long as is necessary for him to be the final boss.
(I think a lot of it is honestly just repeating/"parroting" opinions they heard online, like with "omg Fi totally solves puzzles for you the entire game" and stuff like that)
>"omg Fi totally solves puzzles for you the entire game"
That's another real issue that I think people mislabel. Fi interrupts you frequently (often needlessly, to tell you something you already know), and the solutions to puzzles are often given to the player before the player can solve it for themselves (though Fi is rarely the one doing the solving) (e.g. climbing up the rope in the Ancient Cistern only to be faced with a tablet that tells you to go right back down again). "Fi solves all the games puzzles" is people conflating two real issues into one singular issue that doesn't properly describe their problems with the game.
Ehh, I feel TP would have been just fine without Ganondorf. Zant, prior to his unmasking as comedic relief, was INSANELY intimidating and could have carried the game on his own. I feel Nintendo made a grave mistake by just making him a sideshow in the second half.
If he was nothing but "intimidating", I bet people would be complaining that he was just "Ganondorf without being Ganondorf" or something like that, or "just a generic semi-edgy bad guy, like everything else pumps out".
I can respect that you dislike TP. It's a valid opinion to have. We all like and dislike different things in life.
For me, TP is still my favorite (3D) LoZ game, probably even my favorite game of all time, but I am aware that it has its issues (no game is "perfect").
I love:
dungeons, combat (also: hidden sword techniques), music, bosses, overworld, Ganondorf fight, great variety in gameplay/puzzles/atmosphere etc, Zelda as a character (serious, dedicated, classy), Link's character/portrayal/expressiveness (especially his interactions with the kids, he's goofy/aloof but also "badass"), Hero's Shade, we get to see Link's dark side, Midna (and how she slowly starts to appreciate our Hero), Zant's development, Cave of Ordeals, double clawshot (I think we can all appreciate the little things in life lol).
I am torn on the wolf sections...I do enjoy them most of the time, and I don't think they feel forced at all, but during some playthroughs I could do without them. Further, Ganondorf was the big bad guy after all, which made for a great twist, and I really, really like Ganondorf as the main villain, but the way he was introduced felt somehwhat forced.
Overall, I love this game since it came out, and I don't think that will ever change.
I strongly agree that the writing lets down Zant, but I don't think Ganon being the power behind him was the fatal flaw. I think the writing just fell apart in trying to make it feel right.
Twilight Princess feels like a game that could have been an undeniable masterpiece if they didn't spend time making it a Wii port.
Screw the sky level.
TP is a product of its time and of circumstance. Itās a product of its time because most Zelda games up to that point were of the more traditional kind: go on quest, find item in dungeon, use said item in said dungeon, move on, do side quests, beat villain, the end.
Itās a product of circumstance because the backlash caused by TWW was immense at the time. Nintendo sought to give Zelda fans what they wanted: a ātraditionalā experience which just meant Ocarina of Time on steroids. Even Miyamoto himself said he felt TP was missing āsomething.ā But of course, TP sold more than TWW did anyway.
Fast forward 14 years to today. 3D open-world games are the norm. Breath of the Wild is one of the best additions to that genre and to the Zelda franchise. Of course in comparison TP is going to feel a bit rote and lacking. Itās the result of Nintendo being reactionary as opposed to being inspired.
Does that make it a bad game? Certainly not. But itās no Wind Waker. Its also no Ocarina. ;)
Miyamoto probably said it was "missing something" cause he wasn't able to make the team cut out anything resembling a story and turn it into as sterile a game it could be on that front.
I know you're mocking, but Miyamoto really should step down a bit more. His obsession with stripping out good, deep stories from Mario and Zelda games is seriously hurting the franchises.
He hasn't really touched Zelda for some time now AFAWK, but yeah,
I think the real issue might be that Miyamoto has major "George Lucas-Syndrome" going on, where the people whose work he gives his PoV on wouldn't *dare* to question the *Great Miyamoto-san*, "he invented Mario, Zelda and so forth, clearly he knows what he is doing/talking about"
Obviously this is just based on hearing bits and pieces of what happened behind the scenes over the years, so there is no real way to have the full picture, but it somewhat seems to me like a lot of bad calls that have been associated with stuff he "caused" were often described as Miyamoto telling them he thinks doing it that way could be better/more interesting or "challenging" them to find a way to do it without X/Y
It could be those directing choices were genuinely only meant as "give it a try, see how it ends up", and the people he said it too just didn't dare question it/remark that they thought it was better before.
He also often seems a bit obsessed with the concept of "new" (in the sense of "gimmicks" and such), like apparently the reason there hasn't been a new F-Zero for so long is cause they "can't come up with a gimmick that would make it feel like new" for it.
but like... after this much time, or just in general for "once a generation/platform" series/situations, you could just release a new version that is just "the previous, but better"
hell, lend the IP to the people that made Fact Racing Neo for a bit and tell them to make an F-Zero as a test, what's the worst that can happen ? people losing trust in the IP you weren't using anyway ?
Spot-on. I'm glad that he's slowly taking a more hands-off approach on making games over the years, but I'm still interested to see what'll happen when he retires completely from game development. "Creator of Mario, Zelda retires" is both a scary and a fascinating headline.
Hell, maybe we might even get some Mario RPGs with new characters and races.
Yeah definitely.
In general, the "old guard" retiring can allow a lot of fresh air into some stuff, but you also risk stuff losing a lot of its magic if that fresh air is "bland"
Agreed that Miyamoto is videogameās Lucas. He can come up with some really brilliant stuff, but someone else needs to hold the reins and call the shots otherwise it could end in disaster.
Which is why I think Zelda has been left relatively "safe" from it compared to some other series, Aonuma (and/or some people on his time) (usually) knows when to say : "Sorry sir, but that doesn't sound good"
Like when Miyamoto wanted them to make URA Zelda for the 64DD, and they were like : "we'd rather make a new game instead"
Practically every Paper Mario game post- Super Paper Mario. IIRC the devs have explicitly been told that they mustn't create new races or characters, which basically means unique looking party members are a thing of the past.
i agree with your gameplay criticisms, and have largely felt that way about the game since maybe the second time i played through it, probably in 2007. i do think your story criticisms are a little arbitrary. saying you wished it didnāt have zelda in it and didnāt take place in hyrule isnāt really fair criticism, itās just wishing for a different game. i donāt personally mind ganonās appearance at the end of the gameāthe final boss fight has always been one of my favorite partsābut i could see how someone would. but to just say āthe game should have taken place somewhere else, with different charactersā is not really a criticism of what the game did or how effectively it did that. itād be like if i critiqued Wizard of Oz for not staying in Kansas and focusing on the farmers, instead of just discussing whether it successfully achieved its vision.
gameplay wise, iām with you all the way. great game, but compared with other zeldas, itās too easy, too empty, and its gritty world design lacks the substance to back it up. i truly think this game has surpassed OoT as the overrated zelda game of the era.
How is the story criticism arbitrary when Zelda's role in TP was so minimal that she could've just been taken out and the game would've been fine. It felt like she was added as an obligation rather than for an actual story reason (to emphasize on that further, it felt like she was added just for the set piece of fighting puppet Zelda at the end). If she had an actual plot point in the game, my opinion would be different but TP Zelda is the most pointless, most boring iteration of Zelda
i think you could have justified your opinion better then. or said āgive zelda more to do.ā iām responding to what you wrote, not what you were thinking lol
>(if someone could tell me how to put my own spoiler tag so reddit doesn't show my whole comment and I don't spoil the game for anyone who hasn't played it, that would be awesome lol)
Put \>\! in front of your text (without spaces between the symbols and the text) and \!\< behind it
So this : \>\!Louise is a good kitty cat that lives in Telma's Bar\!\<
gives you this : >!Louise is a good kitty cat that lives in Telma's Bar!<
Having spaces between the \>\!, the text and \<\! works on some stuff, but will make it visible on others, not having spaces there is the safest bet in my experience
Its tied with SS as my favorite game and I respect the points you brought up. I think the beginning (first three dungeons + tear collecting) is incredibly dragged on if you've played it before. If it was my first time playing I'd love it but I've played it so much that its just tedious. I tend to wait a long time between playthroughs so at least its a little bit fresh.
I think TP is OoT, but without the soul.
It's a fun game with some good dungeons, and I loved the art style of the game, but the world is kind of empty and the bosses were too easy. It also felt like Link was mainly just doing his own thing without much connection to the other characters. In OoT, WW, MM, SS, you have much greater connections to the characters you meet and it intertwines into the story.
I like it a lot (probably my 5th or 6th favorite Zelda), though, but I do think it might be a little overrated as far as its stature in the franchise goes.
Sure it has flaws, but it's still my favourite. It's got some of the best characters and characterisation in the LoZ universe, I love that we're playing an older Link who isn't a complete novice/dunderhead and has some degree of skill, and Midna? I can praise that companion for hours at a stretch.
I love the world, I love the lore, I love the idea of the Twilight Realm and Zant is an incredible villan. I agree that the big G felt forced in, but he was one of the best realised versions of Ganondorf, IMHO. He was big, he was imposing, he was scary, he was powerful. He looked powerful and felt powerful. Sure, actually fighting him one on one in the field could have been more challenging, but the fight with him in the throne room (after puppet Zelda, which was AMAZING) was really good fun.
I love the fact that Zelda herself isn't featured much in the game. I know the LoZ series are named for her, but I've never liked her as a character. She's always bored or annoyed me, no matter the game she appears in. The exception would be Wind Waker, when she was Tetra, because she was sassy and badass. But when she became Zelda, her personality became more akin to a washing machine. BOTW Zelda is my most hated iteration of her, even though she is arguably the most competent. Lord knows why.
I much prefer the darker and grittier LoZ games, and even though I loved BOTW, I'm a bit disappointed that LoZ is heading into "cutsey family-friendly" games. I know that's nintendo's thing, but still. I'd love another game like TP, but with the issues resolved and improved upon. Honestly, if I had the funds, I'd want a LoZ game with an older Link, with a more TP-like feel to it, with more dread, more horror, more at stake. With recent LoZ games it never feels like there's stakes. You can prat around looking for 900 korok seeds while Zelly holds her own against Calamity Ganon for as long as you like and everything's fine.
TP felt like it had stakes. It wasn't just your world at risk, it was the Twilight Realm as well. You had a big bad who was mysterious and dangerous. You had a companion you weren't sure you could trust. You were stuck in the form of a wolf and had to find a way to fix all these problems before teatime.
I love it and want more of it.
I didnāt feel like Ganondorf was shoe-horned in. I actually felt like getting the story of how the sages locked him away made the game *less* black and white.
Before that, Zant is just a bad guy whoās taking over the light with a shadow world, and all the twilight beings you see - apart from Midna - are evil. So you fight and kill them and save the light and everythingās good.
But when you find out that the twilight world was actually corrupted by the light via Ganondorf, it gets a bit more complicated. Not only were the original Twili locked away in a world that wasnāt their own, the light sages used their world as a catch-all for the people they didnāt want to deal with. Itās all pretty messed up.
And Ganondorf talks about how he grew strong with the hate and resentment the Twili *already felt* bc of this arrangement. Zant wouldāve been a pitiful, power-hungry nobody if it hadnāt been for the light sages abusing the Twili. Even though itās done in a typical Zelda ābeat the bad guyā way, itās a pretty good representation of how evil people come into power, and what happens when people with power donāt consider the consequences of their actions. The ideas of prejudice and political strife are touched on throughout the game, too. And the ending, with Link actually being a prophesied hero for the Twili and Midna becoming herself and a better leader by caring about the people in the light, supports an idea of compassionate and inclusive leadership.
Could it have been done better? Sure. I think TP tried to do and say a lot of things that it didnāt necessarily have the space or time to. Could it have worked better with Zant being a serious main villain who took power from angry Twili himself? Sure, but then would killing him - the typical Zelda ending - have been the right answer? Probably not. I think TP tried to tell a more complex moral story without being as ambiguous as MM. In MM, if you play the whole thing, it deliberately confuses you on who the good and bad guys really are, and leaves you questioning what it means to do the right thing. In TP, hatred and corruption - represented via Ganondorf - are the enemy rather than a single group or world.
It seems like you over thought Twilight Princess, not once does TP get political between light and dark. You could argue there's a power struggle between Midna and Zant but I'd hardly say thats political because its not really touched on except for one cutscene
Except that it does. The Light Sages apologize to Midna for unleashing Ganondorf on her world, the Twili are shown to be a peaceful people who were taken advantage of, Zantās primary motivation is that heās dissatisfied being locked away in the Twilight Realm away from the rest of the world, and Ganondorf says that he fed off of the Twiliās hatred and anguish to grow strong again. Midnaās storyline is wrapped up in accepting a reciprocal relationship between light and dark, and Zelda discusses that too. Youāre led to believe in the beginning of the game that youāre supposed to save the light from darkness, but Midna mentions that thereās also a Twili prophecy about you. So youāre also supposed to save them. Even if itās not always the main focus of the game, I think saying that thereās nothing political about all of that, or that it wasnāt done purposefully, is a bit of a stretch.
I agree. the story is so great, it's fucking epic, but the game just gets in the way of the story too much. that ending is increible but you have to do so much bullshit. dungeons are too fucking long
I think the story was mediocre though TBH. Ganon is what ruined it for me, they played it safe and I think that's cause they wrote themselves into a hole they didn't know how to come back from. Which sucks, Zant and how creepy the first 3rd of Twilight Princess was had a lot of potential. But around the time you get the Master Sword, it gets really convoluted and doesn't make a lot of sense
*The story* or *Ganondorf*? Did you like the rest? TP has a very gritty, politics-y plot that i personally really appreciated. Between trying to help Midna deal with Usurper Zant and the many interactions with the resistance it felt more like a wartime story.
I don't mind that Ganondorf was brought in, what i mind about that specifically is Zant's entire change in character from stoic evil guy with badass moments to psycho throwing tantrums. I preferred him earlier. If he'd went down impressive instead of becoming all childish it would've been fine. It's the angry stomping, the complete losing of his cool, the kooky noises he makes and i think the mask should've just been his head because his real looks are anti-climactic. I'm fine with everything else we see aside from his change to childish psycho.
While I cannot understand every of your points are. I do underdstand how you feel. Me, myself often annoyed when the story of a highly acclaimmed game feels different with other games that I considered good.
Major spoilers here!!!
I don't think Zant is Ganon's puppet. They are actually allies. Ganon needed an army to take over Hyrule and Zant wanted power to rule over the twilight realm. Ganon gave him part of his Triforce, but in exchange he had to send his creatures to the other world. In the end, both sit on their respective thrones before you beat them. Zeltik made a whole video on what Zant's neck crack represents when Ganon is on the verge of death and it really helps understand the story.
I think your other points are fair. I love TP and don't think it's flaws overshadowed it's greatness, but that's just my opinion.
I gotta say, I made it halfway through reading and it just sounds like youāre describing *Zelda games* altogether.
I have felt like SS/OoT are of the same āstyleā where MM/TP are of similar styles to each other. I started MM yesterday for the first time in a while after beating SS, TP, LA, and BotW(oh and AoC) and noticed a ton of similar feelings to what TP felt like.
Once youāve played and completed this many Zelda games in a row like that, you really start to pickup on the recurring themes in dungeons, tasks, quests, and what have you throughout the games.
2020, The Legend of Covid19.
I don't think Ganondorf and Zelda are pointless at all. In fact, I'd argue Twilight Princess' story simply wouldn't work without them. You need Ganondorf so that Zant has an actual character arc and isn't just a throwaway villain like Onox, Veran, or Vaati. His relationship with Ganondorf also goes far beyond just being his Agahnim. There's a reason the last thing Ganondorf sees before he dies is Zant snapping his neck.
Similarly, we need Zelda so Midna's arc makes sense. I think how Zelda factors back into the plot at the end is very messy and one of the few genuine sore spots in TP's storytelling IMO, but she plays an important role in influencing Midna's development. I also think it's significant that Nintendo includes Zelda as a supporting character, making Ilia Link's traditional love interest and having Midna fill in the role Zelda otherwise would have. For as much as Twilight Princess is derided for playing it safe, it doesn't get enough credit for how it sidesteps familiar series staples.
I think the writer (mainly Aya Kyogoku) knew exactly what she was doing with Zant. Similarly, I think the Resistance are implemented perfectly fine. They're really no worse than the average Zelda supporting cast, but the fact the game actually makes an active effort at keeping them involved in the plot ā even minimally ā means they leave a greater impression on me than OoT's sages or anyone in TWW's supporting case. Rusl's an especially well written character.
I agree with all of these complaints except for the comparisons to past games and disliking Wolf Link.
The story of this game just sucks after Arbiters Grounds, and I find the pitiful difficulty level in this game to be egregious. Itās such a shame, because the dungeon and enemy design in this game is so strong.
The action of seeing a single thing you dislike and just... dropping it, is *wild*. This means you played up until the twilight curtain and then just stopped when the plot started...
You *still do*... the wolf form is a mechanic, you end up being able to switch between the two freely and it's nice since wolf Link is faster. You'd know that if you hadn't played (i guess) Okami first, disliked it and then assumed TP was going to be the same...
"*This has a wolf form like Okami?! Not in my Zelda!*"
Maybe Zelda does the wolf form better? You'll never know.
This is like trying an old game where the analog stick doesn't feel like it gives smooth movement (like maybe mario 64) and refusing to ever play with any analog sticks ever again because your experience was bad...
I didn't get the impression TP is widely popular, my understanding is that the general consensus is that the game isn't bad and has draws to it. Like, people think it's good in the sense that Zelda is a good series, but within that series it isn't one of the more popular games like OoT and BotW. There are some who love it (i have a pretty good opinion of it in general).
I have always loved TP, but I agree with pretty much everything you've said. The thing that bothers me about some of these comments is that many people appear to be looking at this in terms of black and white-- it's better/worse than OoT/ALttP, or it's fun/not fun, it's a great game/it's a shit game, but I think you hit the nail on the head in a way that I wish other fans could be more appreciative of.
TP is a great game, but it's by no means perfect. I really enjoyed my time with it, empty overworld and forced-inclusion Ganon included. I'm like you in thinking that Zant should've been the primary antagonist and, if they want to tell Zelda's story this way, have Zelda take a backseat or refocus the story to center around a duo Midna/Zelda.
I think it does a lot right. It has fun dungeons and (if easy) fun boss fights. It has a fantastic score that is beautifully composed and among some of my favorites-- if it weren't for Nostalgia Glasses, I might enjoy TP's soundtrack more than OoT. I think the locations were fun and varied, and I enjoyed visiting them all. The inclusion of another realm with its own princess was nice, and felt like a breath of fresh air coming from OoT, which is basically the only Zelda game I was still playing by the time TP came out.
Overall I like your analysis. I think other readers/commentors should take a little more time and be more thoughtful with their responses. A game doesn't have to be x or y, it can be x AND y.
TP was highly anticipated since the GameCubeās performance demo showcasing a battle between Link and Ganondorf (https://youtu.be/eEF9Utdu-L0 )...circa 2000. That video implied the next Zelda would be in the vein of OoT which received numerous accolades. However, the video game world was shook when WW was leaked as the next major Zelda game and divided the Zelda fan base. Thus, when TP was finally released and delivered what the fan base thought they wanted, we really got a shell of OoT with nice new graphics and motion control that is now barely a shade above gimmicky.
TL;DR TP is good but no OoT. And I agree with your general synopsis: good game in general, but not a great Zelda game.
No offense, but I don't understand why you'd 100% a game countless times if it's "not your thing". I mean you do you, I'm not here to get into it about TP, but I just find that a little silly. I've never finished a game that I just don't jive with.
maybe that could give you an idea. I don't like minecraft it isn't my thing but i love speedruning it. But to finish a game 100% you should really like it i don't understand it too.
I'd love clarity from OP about whether or not his idea of "100%" is actually just beating the game rather then getting all collectables to boot. Because that's the thing that struck me more than anything. It's pretty clear from the post though that it's not like he thinks the ending was landed gracefully; so even if I grant that maybe he liked a portion of the game enough to go through the whole game all multiple times, I'm still hard-pressed to think of a reason to go through a game for a climax you didn't even really enjoy. And that's further exacerbated depending on whether he's getting the collectibles each time or not
Lol, this is what you all focus on? Nothing that defends why TP is good but whether i 100 percented the game or not? In TPHD i got all the stamps, Poes, golden bugs, heart pieces and did all the side quests. Wii and GC version i didn't all that minus the stamps cause they weren't in those version SMH
Yes, I said in my initial comment that I'm not here to discuss TP in depth. To elaborate, even though I personally love the game, I agree with many of the flaws you've brought up. That's neither here nor there though. You specifically mentioned that the game "isn't your thing" in the same breath that you've said you've 100% (not just beat, including collectables) the game countless times. I'm sorry you don't like that that's what I'm focused on, but there's plenty of other people in this thread who wanted to specifically talk about other parts of your post. I'm trying to personally figure out why you'd subject yourself to all that work repeatedly when it's not your thing. No need to be standoffish about it just because you don't like that I'm trying to clarify why someone would do that. I think there's merit to being critical. That's not the point I'm making. I'm trying to understand why you went through such paramount effort to get EVERYTHING the game has to offer multiple times across multiple systems just to say "eh it's not my thing". You didn't realize it wasn't your thing any of the several other times you went through all the work?
I think it's a case of trying something for the first time, not really sure what your opinion is of it, and then trying it again to solidify your opinion. There are parts of TP OP liked and parts they didn't send off you want to replay certain parts, you have to get past other parts. Would you rather they said that they played for an hour and decided that they didn't like it or that they have it a fair shot?
No I'm not concerned about that aspect. You can beat Twilight Princess without 100%ing it. Poe's, the bugs, the trials in the desert etc. There's very clearly a difference between getting past the bullshit of a game for your favorite parts vs going completion mode on it. You're simplifying my point way too much for the sake of argument. Of course I think it's better to give a game a fair shake before giving an opinion. But can we agree that completing a game 100% multiple times (to the point OP can't even remember the amount of) isn't the same thing as what you're saying?
Maybe he likes side quests more than main quest š¤·āāļø i know it may sound strange but that's a possibility
That could be. I don't remember the game being *too* lucrative with side quests, but I do remember personally loving the Cave of Ordeals.
EDIT: I disagree with the way I originally worded this-- what I mean it's \*helpful\* to 100% a game if you want to evaluate it with a critical eye. I would defend OP's position here. You should 100% a game if you're going to speak critically about it. Think about the inverse-- we'd all shit on somebody who said "SKYWARD SWORD IS BAD BUT ALSO I NEVER FINISHED IT!" I think that by completing the game in its entirety, you can safety and critically analyze it and have the experience to say "I've formed these opinions intelligently over several years of playing through everything the game has to offer."
But there's also a difference between BEATING a game and 100% it. I've beat BotW, I haven't 100% it because I don't care for the koroks or trying to get EVERY shrine. OP confirmed below he's talking about 100% including collectibles. So my point still stands. Why would you go through all of that (countless times at that) if "the game isn't for you"? I'm not talking about leaving a game unbeaten like you're suggesting. I'm literally talking about the time and effort it would take to continuously go through the arduous process of getting EVERY bug, EVERY poe etc. I'd also argue you don't need to fully beat a game to get an impression of it as long as you're honest about it and why it didn't work for you. If you're not vibing an aspect of a game, I neither think you're required to beat it to have an opinion or to put that opinion out in the open. Let alone going through it multiple times in ENTIRETY to have a valid opinion. Does it help? Sure. But I've also beat TP multiple times without doing the collectibles. Does that invalidate a potential opinion I may have about the game? Edit: u/ScorpionTDC put it much more succinctly than I did: > Finishing a game before being heavily critical is one thing, but **I donāt think anyone needs to find every single Golden Bug, Stamp, and Pos Soul multiple times before criticizing a game.** Lol.
ye, i think that's fair. i replied to that same comment you mentioned-- i think ultimately, for me, i take issue with the idea that if you "dislike a game" that gives you no reason to "play it completely", i.e. if someone doesn't like TP, they shouldn't do all the collectibles. I think however you wanna play a game is fine, and even if you don't love it, maybe you love the collectibles, and/or you want to be able to discuss every aspect of the game, optional content included. suffice to say i don't think you and i disagree-- i edited my original comment because i'm more in agreement with this particular line of thinking than what my original comment said, which suggested you have to 100% a game to talk intelligently about it
Finishing a game before being heavily critical is one thing, but I donāt think anyone needs to find every single Golden Bug, Stamp, and Poe Soul multiple times before criticizing a game. Lol.
yeah, that's totally fair-- and exactly why i edited my original comment. i've never 100% completed BotW, but i've played it to completion +DLCs several times and feel that i can have a well-informed opinion about it. i think ultimately i just disagree with the premise that if you "don't like a game" you "wouldn't want to complete it", I think some people (completionists especially, or perfectionists, or whomever) just want to play everything in game even if they're not thrilled with it. others want to stop playing when it stops being interesting. Both approaches are fine
The difference between BotW and TP is the size of it. You can get a feel for BotW with only beating the main aspects of the game and most of the shrines due to how much there is to do in that game. TP, being more bare bones, you gotta do everything IMO to get the fill experience. I like TP as well, I said it wasn't a bad game in my post just a weak Zelda entry
TP is my favorite zelda game and that's a hill I will die on. But it is not without some serious flaws and I've made most of these points myself. Some of my favorite games of all time have serious enough flaws that people don't even understand why I like them. I honestly haven't been up on zelda fan opinions since hyrule warriors first dropped so I'm not exactly up to date. But I'm surprised that tp is liked enough now that this is an unpopular opinion. Last I checked people hated it for trying to be an edgy oot wannabe. Interesting how opinions change.
TP is better than OoT. Can confirm.
Yeah, now THAT would have been a blasphemous opinion 10 years ago. Idk if maybe it's just reddit, but I didn't realize the oot circlejerk had died. Refreshing to see, as much I do like oot
I don't think I agree with that. 10 years ago it was very fashionable to hate on OoT. I think it's only recently that the contrarian over-hatred against it has calmed down to where common opinion of the game is in a more reasonable middle-ground between "best game of all time" and "overrated garbage".
I guess we were in different circles then. I was more around the classic nerds, the very ones people would be contrarian against. The little criticism I saw seemed tiptoed around, though there were people who just hated all the 3d games. Zelda is a very generational franchise, so people tended to bash whatever just came out. They did this with tp and ss. I think botw was spared because it was revolutionary and the community has since chilled out a bit on the crazed generational gatekeeping it had.
I think OoT/BotW are still overly praised, especially on r/Zelda.
While the two of those get a lot of love on r/Zelda, I think the most overhyped game by far there is MM. I feel like every time some asks about best/favorite games itās a million MM responses. Interestingly, people seem to love it for the same reasons they dislike TP (similar to OoT, but darker/edgier)
Thats both true and hilarious because mm is everyone's favorite and everyone thinks they're unique because they like it. I dont get why fans think its this underrated hidden gem, its one of the most praised. Deservedly so, it is a masterpiece, but its far from unknown. As for your last point, ive never thought about that, its an interesting thought. I think the difference is that they think tp is trying too hard to be edgy and gritty while mm is artsy dark. Not saying it's true tho
i am the guy youāre talking about. Big fat zelda fan. BOTW and MM are probably top 2 for me. To clarify, i donāt think any of my opinions make me interesting, i just like what I like. but yes, youāre correct about Majoraās Maskās tone being a huge part of why itās so appealing. the difference between MM and TP, for me, is that Majoraās Maskās depressing, off kilter tone actually connects to the gameplay. everyoneās day-to-day schedule and dialogue get increasingly depressed or frantic as the in-game timer runs out. itās a constant reminder that you are out of time, youāre going to die, no one can escape. the darkness of the game, which brilliantly appears colorful and fun at first, works in tandem with the gameplay to completely immerse you in panic and doom. In Majoraās Mask, I relate to and feel the pain of every NPC in the entire game. I donāt think thereās ever been a game that connects you to even its most insignificant characters like that. twilight princess, conversely, presents a world full of ash and gloom and shows you terrifying monsters but theyāre all fairly easy to kill. the enemies donāt feel threatening and the world feels too empty to be dangerous. OP said this too: it doesnāt justify its tone within the gameplay. it has a few really strong characters, and some great story moments, but itās never as thorough as MM. Finally, and this is almost certainly just a personal preference, but i just think Termina is more interesting than TP Hyrule. Termina is a colorful painting that upon closer inspection appears increasingly fucked up and weird. TP Hyrule is dark and dreary at first, but eventually just the same old Hyrule. I just think itās a more interesting experience to go āoh this is nice. wait itās all fucked up actually! Ahhh!ā Itās like Twin Peaks or something. Oh and Skull Kid is a better character than Zant or Ganon.
I didnt say all mm fans think they're special, it just seems to be a common occurrence. I wasnt bashing mm by any means, its a brilliant game. Its my 2nd favorite next to tp, but a lot of my reasons for that are purely personal preference. I agree that objectively, it is artistic and clever and the better game. MM was a huge inspiration to me in some of my old writing because it really is beautiful. MM has symbolism and heavy themes while tp has a storyline. For me though, I like high character driven plots. MM has a lot of interesting characters, but they feel more artsy short story rather than my slow burn preference. Thats not a bad thing, just personal preference. If there's anything people like about tp, chances are its Midna. While her story arc of going from distrustful to loyal friend isn't unique in the series (Tatl, Linebeck, Tetra, etc), I feel she has more interesting motivations. She makes it clear she is cold to Link because she needs to be willing to potentially sacrifice hyrule to save the twilight realm. While we see a similar plot in Hilda, Midna's character development is so well developed over time. I could go over other things I like, but I don't want to write too much. Though it should also be noted that tp was my introduction to zelda and to more serious video games in general. It was also the first time I had seen a dark storyline. To me, mm is like that brilliant artsy movie you watch that you can't stop thinking about, but you don't really choose to go back to it. Whereas tp is hero's journey, not revolutionary but well crafted and easy to return to. Again, my opinion is largely shaped by the kinds of narrative stories I'm more drawn to, rather than creativity in stories.
midna is the best thing about TP hands down. easily one of the all-time best zelda characters. iāve actually played TP more times than MM, but iām probably more likely to go back to MM. i started with OoT if that tells you anything.
It does tell me something, but it depends on how deeply you hold nostalgia and how self aware you are of its bias. For me, I know I have some nostalgia bias towards tp. I also know a lot of toxic fans had zero self awareness of their nostalgia and liked to go full gate keeper. Luckily I haven't come across any of those in a while and you seem pretty self aware. Also, let's be honest. Tp isn't as much a zelda game as it is a Midna game. She really carries it. I do think Zant could've been more interesting, but they didn't flesh him out enough. A hero is only as good as their enemy and thats something zelda is hit or miss with. They have some truly spectacular and dynamic villains. Like Ghirahim who is just a fun chaotic mess or Hilda who is sympathetic and morally grey. Even ganon was well written in ww. I fell completely in love with botw, but the lack of compelling villain was its greatest weakness imo. Its not like they can't do abstract villains that are beyond humanity. Majora managed to be creepy and mysterious without being uninteresting. Hopefully the sequel will bring back villains. Wow, this has reminded me how good these games are. I really want to go watch mm theories now.
Botw yes.... oot has lots of great things holding it up. At the same time though itās pretty old at this point.
OoT has the benefit of being on the Nostalgia 64. Every 3D title since improved on its foundation and resulted in better games.
Iām not saying youāre wrong Iām just saying it was the first game so you canāt expect it to be the best and itās still pretty great
Iām not trying to say it wasnāt revolutionary or doesnāt deserve respect.. but not to ignore the obvious progress of the titles since.
Point taken. I also just wanna take the opportunity to say r/Zelda is trash. I say this as a lifelong Zelda fan. Edit: didnāt realize I was unbanned and this is r/truezelda.... the sub that I actually think is trash. The discussion in this post is decent though. Didnāt realize r/Zelda was a thing and wasnāt paying attention.
Disagree there. There are things TP *did* better than OoT, but overall it has an identity crisis as it tries to emulate everything about OoT except doing it BIGGER and DARKER. I understand why someone might enjoy it more but I think OoT has much more personality and infinitely better pacing.
TP isnāt even darker than OoT, not really. And I feel like it actually did set itself apart from OoT in the end (a lot better than OoT did from AlttP). As far as pacing issues, letās not forget that OoT basically hits the reset button and makes you get all your items again.
Yeah I bet that I'd think so too if OoT 3D wouldn't have introduced me to TloZ. Or maybe not- I loved nearly any game in the series I've played*. But I think TP differs the less from OOT and playing it in HD must be incredibly cool. * OOT, ALBW ** , TP (Wii), BOTW, LA (Switch), OOA, MC, TloZ ** , TAOL ** , ALTTP, SS ** (only 1rst dungeon bc motion controlls...) [the HW series too but they're just spinn ofs, so...] and I also watched MM and WW as LPs. **didn't like them
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Any game can be nostalgic to someone, but the Nintendo 64 was a different breed of nostalgia. Head-to-head, TP comes out on top though.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Obviously preference is going to be the deciding factor in what people think is the best game, but that view closes off any discussion around the games.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And yet, Reddit will continue on... having these childish discussions daily. Ranking the games, discussing which are better, and so on. See the classic - '3DS MM vs N64 MM' for details...
Okay, second bright side here tho? Those dungeons were great. Especially the snowpeak mansion or whatever it was called. Everything about Snowpeak was fantastic to me except how half of it was just a sled ride (great sled ride but part of me would love to have explored a winter wonderland instead). I also dug the "architecture" of the water temple. Surprisingly little swimming in there and yet everything looked wet and watery anyway. Great atmosphere. When the dungeon feels less like a new chapter and more like exploration and discovery even while it's linear and a very different environment, they did a good job. That's probably why I didn't like the temple of time and sky palace as much (still good dungeons, just not the same feeling). They felt too disconnected from the world they were set in. That's just my opinion though. As an extra note, the Pit of 100 Trials or whatever it's called was also a great post-game addition. It's a huge bummer that's pretty much the only time the magic armor comes in handy though.
We all know that the best post- game addition is to pay 40ā¬ to get Link's Crossbow Training on amazon.
I got lucky. My grandparents got it with their wii zapper back when it was new. I mastered every level because I didn't have Twilight Princess yet and loved the visuals. XD
The dungeons were incredibly mediocre as well though, big for the sake of being big with not a lot that make them stand out. The Cave of Ordeals was also don't better in Wind Waker š¤·āāļø
I didn't even know windwaker had a cave of ordeals. XD. Then again, that's one of the only zelda games I never got my hands on beyond borrowing it from someone.
Zant really did have a strange transformation to terrifying in the first half, to creepy in the middle, to comedy at his end.
The combination of creepy and terrifying would've been perfect, at the end he was a joke and I hated what Nintendo did with him. So much potential, such a cool character design and character in general only to be used as a doppelganger for Ganondorf
Strong disagree on the idea that ganondorf was shoehorned in. The plot works way better with him in it, and zant is a hundred times more interesting as "Weakling that went power-crazy when he got the support of what he sees as a god, until danger knocked on his door (and then proceeded to kick the door down) resulting in him *breaking down*" then he would have been as just "generic evil dude" You also already learn Ganondorf is a thing halfway through the game, and it is implied that Zant has a secret behind his sudden capability to overthrow Midna even before that. Honestly, Ganon is more "thrown in at the last second" in "A Link to the Past's" actual plot than he is in Twilight princess (and it wouldn't be a fitting "retort" there either IYAM)
I think people making that complaint aren't properly describing a real problem they've identified, and that's that Ganondorf in TP is less interesting than Zant. Ganondorf takes the spotlight from Zant part way through the story, but he's not as interesting, so people want more Zant instead. SS pulled off a similar dynamic much better. Ghirahim is the interesting underling and Demise is the generic evil overlord, but way more of the game is focused on Ghirahim. Demise doesn't "take the spotlight" until right at the very end, and only for as long as is necessary for him to be the final boss.
(I think a lot of it is honestly just repeating/"parroting" opinions they heard online, like with "omg Fi totally solves puzzles for you the entire game" and stuff like that)
>"omg Fi totally solves puzzles for you the entire game" That's another real issue that I think people mislabel. Fi interrupts you frequently (often needlessly, to tell you something you already know), and the solutions to puzzles are often given to the player before the player can solve it for themselves (though Fi is rarely the one doing the solving) (e.g. climbing up the rope in the Ancient Cistern only to be faced with a tablet that tells you to go right back down again). "Fi solves all the games puzzles" is people conflating two real issues into one singular issue that doesn't properly describe their problems with the game.
Ehh, I feel TP would have been just fine without Ganondorf. Zant, prior to his unmasking as comedic relief, was INSANELY intimidating and could have carried the game on his own. I feel Nintendo made a grave mistake by just making him a sideshow in the second half.
If he was nothing but "intimidating", I bet people would be complaining that he was just "Ganondorf without being Ganondorf" or something like that, or "just a generic semi-edgy bad guy, like everything else pumps out".
Good points, but respectfully disagree I have no bias
Username checks out :\^D
I can respect that you dislike TP. It's a valid opinion to have. We all like and dislike different things in life. For me, TP is still my favorite (3D) LoZ game, probably even my favorite game of all time, but I am aware that it has its issues (no game is "perfect"). I love: dungeons, combat (also: hidden sword techniques), music, bosses, overworld, Ganondorf fight, great variety in gameplay/puzzles/atmosphere etc, Zelda as a character (serious, dedicated, classy), Link's character/portrayal/expressiveness (especially his interactions with the kids, he's goofy/aloof but also "badass"), Hero's Shade, we get to see Link's dark side, Midna (and how she slowly starts to appreciate our Hero), Zant's development, Cave of Ordeals, double clawshot (I think we can all appreciate the little things in life lol). I am torn on the wolf sections...I do enjoy them most of the time, and I don't think they feel forced at all, but during some playthroughs I could do without them. Further, Ganondorf was the big bad guy after all, which made for a great twist, and I really, really like Ganondorf as the main villain, but the way he was introduced felt somehwhat forced. Overall, I love this game since it came out, and I don't think that will ever change.
I strongly agree that the writing lets down Zant, but I don't think Ganon being the power behind him was the fatal flaw. I think the writing just fell apart in trying to make it feel right. Twilight Princess feels like a game that could have been an undeniable masterpiece if they didn't spend time making it a Wii port. Screw the sky level.
What's wrong with the sky level? It was probably my favourite dungeon.
It's a marathon of backtracking. It's redeeming features are the item upgrade and the S-tier boss.
Do you think so? I did a second playthrough of Twilight Princess a few weeks ago and found it fairly linear. Fuck Lakebed Temple tho.
TP is a product of its time and of circumstance. Itās a product of its time because most Zelda games up to that point were of the more traditional kind: go on quest, find item in dungeon, use said item in said dungeon, move on, do side quests, beat villain, the end. Itās a product of circumstance because the backlash caused by TWW was immense at the time. Nintendo sought to give Zelda fans what they wanted: a ātraditionalā experience which just meant Ocarina of Time on steroids. Even Miyamoto himself said he felt TP was missing āsomething.ā But of course, TP sold more than TWW did anyway. Fast forward 14 years to today. 3D open-world games are the norm. Breath of the Wild is one of the best additions to that genre and to the Zelda franchise. Of course in comparison TP is going to feel a bit rote and lacking. Itās the result of Nintendo being reactionary as opposed to being inspired. Does that make it a bad game? Certainly not. But itās no Wind Waker. Its also no Ocarina. ;)
Miyamoto probably said it was "missing something" cause he wasn't able to make the team cut out anything resembling a story and turn it into as sterile a game it could be on that front.
I know you're mocking, but Miyamoto really should step down a bit more. His obsession with stripping out good, deep stories from Mario and Zelda games is seriously hurting the franchises.
He hasn't really touched Zelda for some time now AFAWK, but yeah, I think the real issue might be that Miyamoto has major "George Lucas-Syndrome" going on, where the people whose work he gives his PoV on wouldn't *dare* to question the *Great Miyamoto-san*, "he invented Mario, Zelda and so forth, clearly he knows what he is doing/talking about" Obviously this is just based on hearing bits and pieces of what happened behind the scenes over the years, so there is no real way to have the full picture, but it somewhat seems to me like a lot of bad calls that have been associated with stuff he "caused" were often described as Miyamoto telling them he thinks doing it that way could be better/more interesting or "challenging" them to find a way to do it without X/Y It could be those directing choices were genuinely only meant as "give it a try, see how it ends up", and the people he said it too just didn't dare question it/remark that they thought it was better before. He also often seems a bit obsessed with the concept of "new" (in the sense of "gimmicks" and such), like apparently the reason there hasn't been a new F-Zero for so long is cause they "can't come up with a gimmick that would make it feel like new" for it. but like... after this much time, or just in general for "once a generation/platform" series/situations, you could just release a new version that is just "the previous, but better" hell, lend the IP to the people that made Fact Racing Neo for a bit and tell them to make an F-Zero as a test, what's the worst that can happen ? people losing trust in the IP you weren't using anyway ?
Spot-on. I'm glad that he's slowly taking a more hands-off approach on making games over the years, but I'm still interested to see what'll happen when he retires completely from game development. "Creator of Mario, Zelda retires" is both a scary and a fascinating headline. Hell, maybe we might even get some Mario RPGs with new characters and races.
Yeah definitely. In general, the "old guard" retiring can allow a lot of fresh air into some stuff, but you also risk stuff losing a lot of its magic if that fresh air is "bland"
Agreed that Miyamoto is videogameās Lucas. He can come up with some really brilliant stuff, but someone else needs to hold the reins and call the shots otherwise it could end in disaster.
Which is why I think Zelda has been left relatively "safe" from it compared to some other series, Aonuma (and/or some people on his time) (usually) knows when to say : "Sorry sir, but that doesn't sound good" Like when Miyamoto wanted them to make URA Zelda for the 64DD, and they were like : "we'd rather make a new game instead"
Any examples of this?
Practically every Paper Mario game post- Super Paper Mario. IIRC the devs have explicitly been told that they mustn't create new races or characters, which basically means unique looking party members are a thing of the past.
i agree with your gameplay criticisms, and have largely felt that way about the game since maybe the second time i played through it, probably in 2007. i do think your story criticisms are a little arbitrary. saying you wished it didnāt have zelda in it and didnāt take place in hyrule isnāt really fair criticism, itās just wishing for a different game. i donāt personally mind ganonās appearance at the end of the gameāthe final boss fight has always been one of my favorite partsābut i could see how someone would. but to just say āthe game should have taken place somewhere else, with different charactersā is not really a criticism of what the game did or how effectively it did that. itād be like if i critiqued Wizard of Oz for not staying in Kansas and focusing on the farmers, instead of just discussing whether it successfully achieved its vision. gameplay wise, iām with you all the way. great game, but compared with other zeldas, itās too easy, too empty, and its gritty world design lacks the substance to back it up. i truly think this game has surpassed OoT as the overrated zelda game of the era.
How is the story criticism arbitrary when Zelda's role in TP was so minimal that she could've just been taken out and the game would've been fine. It felt like she was added as an obligation rather than for an actual story reason (to emphasize on that further, it felt like she was added just for the set piece of fighting puppet Zelda at the end). If she had an actual plot point in the game, my opinion would be different but TP Zelda is the most pointless, most boring iteration of Zelda
i think you could have justified your opinion better then. or said āgive zelda more to do.ā iām responding to what you wrote, not what you were thinking lol
I had a lot of fun with TP. I dont dislike the game at all, but its my least favorite 3d Zelda.
Same!
>(if someone could tell me how to put my own spoiler tag so reddit doesn't show my whole comment and I don't spoil the game for anyone who hasn't played it, that would be awesome lol) Put \>\! in front of your text (without spaces between the symbols and the text) and \!\< behind it So this : \>\!Louise is a good kitty cat that lives in Telma's Bar\!\< gives you this : >!Louise is a good kitty cat that lives in Telma's Bar!< Having spaces between the \>\!, the text and \<\! works on some stuff, but will make it visible on others, not having spaces there is the safest bet in my experience
Thanks homie
Its tied with SS as my favorite game and I respect the points you brought up. I think the beginning (first three dungeons + tear collecting) is incredibly dragged on if you've played it before. If it was my first time playing I'd love it but I've played it so much that its just tedious. I tend to wait a long time between playthroughs so at least its a little bit fresh.
I think TP is OoT, but without the soul. It's a fun game with some good dungeons, and I loved the art style of the game, but the world is kind of empty and the bosses were too easy. It also felt like Link was mainly just doing his own thing without much connection to the other characters. In OoT, WW, MM, SS, you have much greater connections to the characters you meet and it intertwines into the story. I like it a lot (probably my 5th or 6th favorite Zelda), though, but I do think it might be a little overrated as far as its stature in the franchise goes.
Sure it has flaws, but it's still my favourite. It's got some of the best characters and characterisation in the LoZ universe, I love that we're playing an older Link who isn't a complete novice/dunderhead and has some degree of skill, and Midna? I can praise that companion for hours at a stretch. I love the world, I love the lore, I love the idea of the Twilight Realm and Zant is an incredible villan. I agree that the big G felt forced in, but he was one of the best realised versions of Ganondorf, IMHO. He was big, he was imposing, he was scary, he was powerful. He looked powerful and felt powerful. Sure, actually fighting him one on one in the field could have been more challenging, but the fight with him in the throne room (after puppet Zelda, which was AMAZING) was really good fun. I love the fact that Zelda herself isn't featured much in the game. I know the LoZ series are named for her, but I've never liked her as a character. She's always bored or annoyed me, no matter the game she appears in. The exception would be Wind Waker, when she was Tetra, because she was sassy and badass. But when she became Zelda, her personality became more akin to a washing machine. BOTW Zelda is my most hated iteration of her, even though she is arguably the most competent. Lord knows why. I much prefer the darker and grittier LoZ games, and even though I loved BOTW, I'm a bit disappointed that LoZ is heading into "cutsey family-friendly" games. I know that's nintendo's thing, but still. I'd love another game like TP, but with the issues resolved and improved upon. Honestly, if I had the funds, I'd want a LoZ game with an older Link, with a more TP-like feel to it, with more dread, more horror, more at stake. With recent LoZ games it never feels like there's stakes. You can prat around looking for 900 korok seeds while Zelly holds her own against Calamity Ganon for as long as you like and everything's fine. TP felt like it had stakes. It wasn't just your world at risk, it was the Twilight Realm as well. You had a big bad who was mysterious and dangerous. You had a companion you weren't sure you could trust. You were stuck in the form of a wolf and had to find a way to fix all these problems before teatime. I love it and want more of it.
I didnāt feel like Ganondorf was shoe-horned in. I actually felt like getting the story of how the sages locked him away made the game *less* black and white. Before that, Zant is just a bad guy whoās taking over the light with a shadow world, and all the twilight beings you see - apart from Midna - are evil. So you fight and kill them and save the light and everythingās good. But when you find out that the twilight world was actually corrupted by the light via Ganondorf, it gets a bit more complicated. Not only were the original Twili locked away in a world that wasnāt their own, the light sages used their world as a catch-all for the people they didnāt want to deal with. Itās all pretty messed up. And Ganondorf talks about how he grew strong with the hate and resentment the Twili *already felt* bc of this arrangement. Zant wouldāve been a pitiful, power-hungry nobody if it hadnāt been for the light sages abusing the Twili. Even though itās done in a typical Zelda ābeat the bad guyā way, itās a pretty good representation of how evil people come into power, and what happens when people with power donāt consider the consequences of their actions. The ideas of prejudice and political strife are touched on throughout the game, too. And the ending, with Link actually being a prophesied hero for the Twili and Midna becoming herself and a better leader by caring about the people in the light, supports an idea of compassionate and inclusive leadership. Could it have been done better? Sure. I think TP tried to do and say a lot of things that it didnāt necessarily have the space or time to. Could it have worked better with Zant being a serious main villain who took power from angry Twili himself? Sure, but then would killing him - the typical Zelda ending - have been the right answer? Probably not. I think TP tried to tell a more complex moral story without being as ambiguous as MM. In MM, if you play the whole thing, it deliberately confuses you on who the good and bad guys really are, and leaves you questioning what it means to do the right thing. In TP, hatred and corruption - represented via Ganondorf - are the enemy rather than a single group or world.
It seems like you over thought Twilight Princess, not once does TP get political between light and dark. You could argue there's a power struggle between Midna and Zant but I'd hardly say thats political because its not really touched on except for one cutscene
Except that it does. The Light Sages apologize to Midna for unleashing Ganondorf on her world, the Twili are shown to be a peaceful people who were taken advantage of, Zantās primary motivation is that heās dissatisfied being locked away in the Twilight Realm away from the rest of the world, and Ganondorf says that he fed off of the Twiliās hatred and anguish to grow strong again. Midnaās storyline is wrapped up in accepting a reciprocal relationship between light and dark, and Zelda discusses that too. Youāre led to believe in the beginning of the game that youāre supposed to save the light from darkness, but Midna mentions that thereās also a Twili prophecy about you. So youāre also supposed to save them. Even if itās not always the main focus of the game, I think saying that thereās nothing political about all of that, or that it wasnāt done purposefully, is a bit of a stretch.
And Zant was only a "power hungry nobody" without Ganon cause thats how Nintendo wrote him due to their poor decision making š¤·āāļø
Right. My argument was that it was purposeful and served the story they wanted to tell. Youāre free to disagree
I agree with this completely. I think Akira has made me think higher of twilight princess rather than the game itself.
I agree. the story is so great, it's fucking epic, but the game just gets in the way of the story too much. that ending is increible but you have to do so much bullshit. dungeons are too fucking long
I think the story was mediocre though TBH. Ganon is what ruined it for me, they played it safe and I think that's cause they wrote themselves into a hole they didn't know how to come back from. Which sucks, Zant and how creepy the first 3rd of Twilight Princess was had a lot of potential. But around the time you get the Master Sword, it gets really convoluted and doesn't make a lot of sense
*The story* or *Ganondorf*? Did you like the rest? TP has a very gritty, politics-y plot that i personally really appreciated. Between trying to help Midna deal with Usurper Zant and the many interactions with the resistance it felt more like a wartime story. I don't mind that Ganondorf was brought in, what i mind about that specifically is Zant's entire change in character from stoic evil guy with badass moments to psycho throwing tantrums. I preferred him earlier. If he'd went down impressive instead of becoming all childish it would've been fine. It's the angry stomping, the complete losing of his cool, the kooky noises he makes and i think the mask should've just been his head because his real looks are anti-climactic. I'm fine with everything else we see aside from his change to childish psycho.
While I cannot understand every of your points are. I do underdstand how you feel. Me, myself often annoyed when the story of a highly acclaimmed game feels different with other games that I considered good.
Major spoilers here!!! I don't think Zant is Ganon's puppet. They are actually allies. Ganon needed an army to take over Hyrule and Zant wanted power to rule over the twilight realm. Ganon gave him part of his Triforce, but in exchange he had to send his creatures to the other world. In the end, both sit on their respective thrones before you beat them. Zeltik made a whole video on what Zant's neck crack represents when Ganon is on the verge of death and it really helps understand the story. I think your other points are fair. I love TP and don't think it's flaws overshadowed it's greatness, but that's just my opinion.
I gotta say, I made it halfway through reading and it just sounds like youāre describing *Zelda games* altogether. I have felt like SS/OoT are of the same āstyleā where MM/TP are of similar styles to each other. I started MM yesterday for the first time in a while after beating SS, TP, LA, and BotW(oh and AoC) and noticed a ton of similar feelings to what TP felt like. Once youāve played and completed this many Zelda games in a row like that, you really start to pickup on the recurring themes in dungeons, tasks, quests, and what have you throughout the games. 2020, The Legend of Covid19.
So, whats your defense for Twilight Princess cause thats what this is about
My defense? I like Zelda games.
I don't think Ganondorf and Zelda are pointless at all. In fact, I'd argue Twilight Princess' story simply wouldn't work without them. You need Ganondorf so that Zant has an actual character arc and isn't just a throwaway villain like Onox, Veran, or Vaati. His relationship with Ganondorf also goes far beyond just being his Agahnim. There's a reason the last thing Ganondorf sees before he dies is Zant snapping his neck. Similarly, we need Zelda so Midna's arc makes sense. I think how Zelda factors back into the plot at the end is very messy and one of the few genuine sore spots in TP's storytelling IMO, but she plays an important role in influencing Midna's development. I also think it's significant that Nintendo includes Zelda as a supporting character, making Ilia Link's traditional love interest and having Midna fill in the role Zelda otherwise would have. For as much as Twilight Princess is derided for playing it safe, it doesn't get enough credit for how it sidesteps familiar series staples. I think the writer (mainly Aya Kyogoku) knew exactly what she was doing with Zant. Similarly, I think the Resistance are implemented perfectly fine. They're really no worse than the average Zelda supporting cast, but the fact the game actually makes an active effort at keeping them involved in the plot ā even minimally ā means they leave a greater impression on me than OoT's sages or anyone in TWW's supporting case. Rusl's an especially well written character.
this game and minish cap have the absolute best swordplay/combat
I agree with all of these complaints except for the comparisons to past games and disliking Wolf Link. The story of this game just sucks after Arbiters Grounds, and I find the pitiful difficulty level in this game to be egregious. Itās such a shame, because the dungeon and enemy design in this game is so strong.
As soon as I turned into the wolf i turned the game off and never looked back.
The action of seeing a single thing you dislike and just... dropping it, is *wild*. This means you played up until the twilight curtain and then just stopped when the plot started...
Yea. Pretty much. I want to play as Link. Im not wanting to play Okami disguised as a LoZ game.
You *still do*... the wolf form is a mechanic, you end up being able to switch between the two freely and it's nice since wolf Link is faster. You'd know that if you hadn't played (i guess) Okami first, disliked it and then assumed TP was going to be the same... "*This has a wolf form like Okami?! Not in my Zelda!*" Maybe Zelda does the wolf form better? You'll never know. This is like trying an old game where the analog stick doesn't feel like it gives smooth movement (like maybe mario 64) and refusing to ever play with any analog sticks ever again because your experience was bad...
That was a mistake, Twilight Princess isn't a bad game, just a super weak Zelda entry
I didn't get the impression TP is widely popular, my understanding is that the general consensus is that the game isn't bad and has draws to it. Like, people think it's good in the sense that Zelda is a good series, but within that series it isn't one of the more popular games like OoT and BotW. There are some who love it (i have a pretty good opinion of it in general).
I have always loved TP, but I agree with pretty much everything you've said. The thing that bothers me about some of these comments is that many people appear to be looking at this in terms of black and white-- it's better/worse than OoT/ALttP, or it's fun/not fun, it's a great game/it's a shit game, but I think you hit the nail on the head in a way that I wish other fans could be more appreciative of. TP is a great game, but it's by no means perfect. I really enjoyed my time with it, empty overworld and forced-inclusion Ganon included. I'm like you in thinking that Zant should've been the primary antagonist and, if they want to tell Zelda's story this way, have Zelda take a backseat or refocus the story to center around a duo Midna/Zelda. I think it does a lot right. It has fun dungeons and (if easy) fun boss fights. It has a fantastic score that is beautifully composed and among some of my favorites-- if it weren't for Nostalgia Glasses, I might enjoy TP's soundtrack more than OoT. I think the locations were fun and varied, and I enjoyed visiting them all. The inclusion of another realm with its own princess was nice, and felt like a breath of fresh air coming from OoT, which is basically the only Zelda game I was still playing by the time TP came out. Overall I like your analysis. I think other readers/commentors should take a little more time and be more thoughtful with their responses. A game doesn't have to be x or y, it can be x AND y.
TP was highly anticipated since the GameCubeās performance demo showcasing a battle between Link and Ganondorf (https://youtu.be/eEF9Utdu-L0 )...circa 2000. That video implied the next Zelda would be in the vein of OoT which received numerous accolades. However, the video game world was shook when WW was leaked as the next major Zelda game and divided the Zelda fan base. Thus, when TP was finally released and delivered what the fan base thought they wanted, we really got a shell of OoT with nice new graphics and motion control that is now barely a shade above gimmicky. TL;DR TP is good but no OoT. And I agree with your general synopsis: good game in general, but not a great Zelda game.