Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Should we delete? 2 Spoiler warnings 3 Official Title confirmed! 4 The new boss: Manhandla, Deku Baba, or a mix of the two? 5 Hmm 5.1 Project History 6 Bad Edits? 7 Possible cover 8 Rating 9 Playeble Zelda? 10 Link's status in Toaru 11 Revert wars 12 Flash in trailer 2 and 3

Should we delete?

Should this article even exist? It's pure rumor. All the article text contains is a list of things we don't know about the game. I think we should just delete the page for now, and recreate it after E3, when we'll know the name of the game and more details about the game play/setting. Just look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/PictoChat. There were a lot of people jonesing to delete that page before the DS was released, and Pictochat was a demo-ed product!! --Carl 10:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. While according to the "technical" rules it's unreleased and thus should go, and about 90% of this content will be deleted, it's certainly a "big name" thing. If you remove it, people will suddenly clamour for its re-addition. As the most anticipated Zelda ever it's probably going to recieve a large number of hits, so maybe it should stay.

also E3 comes in the 3rd week of May, so that's about a month away. I can't see deleting this (mostly) rumour stuff just for one month. You may have also noticed that I added it to the games template, but this is because it was previously almost an orphan (only one or two links to it).

On another note, there's a bit of "Zelda 2005" content in the LOZ Series page, so if this page is to remain that should all be moved here with only the briefest of blurbs. Master Thief Garrett 11:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the Series info for now. Master Thief Garrett 03:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit by Tjalian -- Are you completely mad? The Majority of the Info shown on this TP Wiki is FACT, not speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.252.31 (talk • contribs).

Spoiler warnings

The description section is chock full of spoilers, and I'm really angry that I read them (specifically, the fact that it takes place between OoT and Wind Waker, and the fact that Zelda and Ganondorf return. There may be more, but I'm not reading it any more.) Either they need to be removed, or a warning should be placed on that section.

Official Title confirmed!

http://home.comcast.net/~lazie4351/NintendoE3.jpg Moved the page to reflect the new title.Jonny2x4 01:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: this *particular* magazine scan is apparently fake (from what I've read on GameFAQs) but the name itself is real. Master Thief Garrett 09:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems "Twilight Princess" is the name of a manga inspired by the movie Ladyhawke (Plot summary on IMDB), which is about a knight and his lady, who are cursed to turn into animals by day or night: the knight turns into a wolf in the night and the lady turns into a hawk in the day. Sound familiar? Link turns into a wolf in this game, and there is a hawk featured in the e3 2005 trailer. (I read this information in a magazine and found it interesting, to say the least.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.32.6 (talk • contribs).

The new boss: Manhandla, Deku Baba, or a mix of the two?

.. "Cross between a Mandhandla and a Deku Baba"?? Manhandla's heads are all the same as Deku Baba heads, so it's surely just Manhandla (whose real name escapes me at present, Manhandla being the English name) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.49.220.19 (talk • contribs).

Well the problem is it's got elements of both.

1. Manhandla in the sense of being multiple heads together BUT no visible "legs" section!
2. Deku Baba noise, "necks", and face appearance BUT don't seem to move individually!

If you look at this screencap you can see they're not attached to the ground OR to each other, and yet this and other footage shows them working seemingly in unison. Of course it could just be their homing-in skills made them *seem* to be joined due to the way Link moved, and that in reality they'd move on their own. Weird. On second thought, I think they look like individual uprooted Deku Babas and it's just their movement making them seem conjoined... there's certainly no visible bond. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm

Well, I gotta say, I don't see how this is appropriate for the article. Do you have a source showing that people expected TP to be cartoony? Or that the SW2K video influenced TP? -- A Link to the Past 02:40, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I added the part about the Spaceworld demo, but I understand why it would be considered irrelevant. Perhaps the Spaceworld demo could be less emphasized once more information comes in about the production of the game. Either that, or give the Spaceworld demo its own article. What do you think? I originally put it in there because the demo, in a certain way, hinted the Twilight Princess. User:Reyontoyeny

The demo was never actually going to be a game. It was created to show the power of the GameCube. -- A Link to the Past 05:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

At least in my experience, people who lived through the Spaceworld demo and "Cel-da" outcry will tend to examine the graphical aspect of Twilight Princess and ask, was it done in response to the initial backlash against cartoonish graphics? (Probably not) Was it based on the Spaceworld demo? (Probably not) How is it related to Wind Waker? (Adaptation of same cel-shading engine.) I think if we can answer that sort of question we get a lot of common fan misconceptions out of the way, although I'm not sure how this section could be adapted to do that correctly; as Past says, it has some questionable implications currently. Deco 08:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say this sort of debate could go on the Series page. SpaceWorld isn't really that related to this game. It could maybe have a little mention here with a link, but I think we might as well keep unrelated stuff here to a minimum ready for the impending influx of real info. Garrett^Talk 09:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I decided to take it out of the article. If anyone can shed some light about any possible connection: Feel free to cut/paste/edit this part back:

Project History

Speculation of a realistic Zelda game on the Nintendo GameCube goes back as early as Summer 2000. During Nintendo's 2000 Spaceworld convention, Nintendo unveiled the GameCube along with some demos for Luigi's Mansion, an unnamed Metroid game, Super Mario 128, an unnamed Pokémon game, and a Zelda demo where characters Link and Ganondorf fight. While Nintendo mentioned that the demos did not necesarily represent upcoming Nintendo projects accurately, the Zelda demo left a permanent impression on many fans.

When Nintendo unveiled a trailer for what would become The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker during the 2001 Electronic Entertainment Expo, many fans were surprised by the change in direction the Zelda series was taking on consoles. After the game was released in 2003, most of the criticsm of the new style dissappeared, as both reviews and word-of-mouth ratings for the game were generally positive. Many thought this acceptance signalled that the next Zelda console game, (not counting Four Swords Adventures) would continue in that style.

During E³ 2004, this misconception ended in a surprise announcement near the end of a Nintendo press conference. While the Twilight Princess was not a product of the 2000 Spaceworld demo, its influence on the game was apparent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyontoyeny (talk • contribs).

Bad Edits?

Can anyone confirm the things cited in 202.76.170.20's August 5 edits? If not, could someone revert them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.43.225 (talk • contribs).

Possible cover

I recently found this while browsing the swedish game shop "Webhallen". http://www.webhallen.com/prod.php?id=29337re Does anybody know if this is the real deal? And if so should it be added to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.64.150.101 (talk • contribs).

I wouldn't yet. That art (gorgeous, btw) was done by an LoZ:TP artist named Nakano, under art director Satoru Takizawa, for the cover of Nintendo Power a few months back. While I certainly wouldn't blame the big N if they went with it for the final cover, I think it's unlikely. I'd be surprised if they published the cover art so prominently months before the (then-November) release date, and doubly so if they didn't even mention it. The image on that site seems to have messed with the lighting and then superimposed the logo from the last trailer. If you get a chance, pick up a copy of NP Volume 193, there's an uncluttered version of the artwork on page 63. -- WikidSmaht 23:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Rating

When the game comes out what rating would the game game be..? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.24.241 (talk • contribs).

Um, no one knows. That's why it's RP. Additionally, the game is not even finished yet, the ESRB can't rate a game until it's complete. Knowing Nintendo( and Zelda) we can speculate that it will be rated E(, though a T might be possible if the violence and drama are strong enough), but it's impossible to be certain at this stage.. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be E10 or T. And he wasn't asking what it was, he was asking what it might be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

wiktionary:would wiktionary:might The rating might be anything, from eC to AO. But since s/he asked what it would be (not could or might), and that doesn't make sense without a clarificacation of the condition( "When the game comes out" is not the condition, based on tense, though "If the game came out" could have been), I answered the question's probable intended meaning, "what rating will the game have?", since would/will is a common mistake among those who speak English poorly. I see no reason to be so hostile( or if not hostile, contrary) towards opinions/stances/facts I present on talk pages. If you have a problem with me, sort it out in user talk. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Playeble Zelda?

i hardly belive so, who came up with such stupid rumor?

Now, now, be nice. People saw the picture of her with a sword and naturally wondered if she can fight. Note that the rumor is that she might be playable at some point, not that she would replace Link as the main chracter for large portions, or anything crazy like that. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

i know that people often come up with stupid ideas, so what that she come with a sword? she used a sword in wind waker and were u playing her? nope. i think that section should be removed, cause the odds it have anything to do with the game is insignifican. maybe 1 on 100 million at best

It's a common speculation, even if it's unlikely to be true. Since almost the entire article is currently speculation, I think it's worth including. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Link's status in Toaru

68.97.100.103, who has a history of vandalizing Princess Zelda with unsupported information about Sheik, keeps changing this article to say, among other things, that Link is only visiting Toaru Village. I'm changing it back because I haven't seen any word from Nintendo or gaming news sources confirming or even suggesting this. If anyone sees this reported by a reliable source, links would be appreciated. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars

I've twice changed a redirect from [[Legend of Zelda series]] to [[The Legend of Zelda series|Legend of Zelda series]], which is the correct article title. Is there some reason the protectors of this page keep changing it back? It states in Policies and Guidelines that redirects should be avoided whenever possible. ~ Hibana 20:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. I've change the article to avoid the redirect. --Pagrashtak 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Flash in trailer 2 and 3

I'm changing the comment about the flash that appears in trailer 2, which reveals ghosts. In trailer 3, the same flash appears while Link is in his wolf form. The creators have in several interviews stated how animals (in this case the wolf) can see elements humans can't. Also, no one is holding a lens of truth in the third trailer.

But he's in wolf form for the whole clip, so this doesn't adequately explain why the spectres appear suddenly. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is the dilemma (which is why I added the "likely"). I would assume that the would vision is activated as an ability, assigned for the y, x or z button, and not constantly active. I know this is a lot of guesswork, but as I said, I did add "likely" and it is quite obvious that no one is holden a lens of truth at least in the third trailer. Houratio 21:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)