Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Good article The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is part of the "The Legend of Zelda titles" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] Fair use images

I was going to add the Image:GanondorfTP.jpg picture to the article but noticed that there appears to be some unneeded images. Per WP:NFCC#Policy and WP:FUC, we're supposed to be using the minimal amount possible. Example, I see two images in Gameplay depicting gameplay when only one can suffice and two in Plot, where one is Link and someone else in the Wii version (hasn't the top already demonstrated that?) and the other shows a statue. Further, I'm tagging this page so image experts can take a look at it. Discuss, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC):

I think we could do away with one of the gameplay images to satisfy minimal use. Unless the two in-game screenshots were meant to compare the Wii/Gamecube versions, they should be the same scene. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Which are you considering removal? Top or bottom? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the two images were meant to exhibit Gamecube and Wii gameplay. It might be enough to satisfy fair use, but I think as an improvement, the gameplay images should be of the same scene for comparison purposes. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. Think you can obtain such screenshots? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have the set-up to obtain proper screenshots. The only comparison I can think of is combat between the two versions. Besides the layout and the graphics, attacking with the sword is a major difference that could be represented with screenshots. This comparison should be better than the two random screenshots, which would satisfy that template concern. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess. Let's see what others think. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fan Dissapointment

On March 18/08, I added in a paragraph of some fan criticism in the reception area, but it got deleted. I assumed it was because of fanboyish purposes. But I actually wrote some reasonable complaints that some fans have stated in reviews and forums. Here's a list of some things I wrote that got deleted: 1) Some fans have been dissapointed in the lack of innovation and overused gameplay concepts that were used in Twilight Princess. 2) Some fans have also stated that Twilight Princess lacks a certain amount difficulty and challenge found in previous Zelda games. The biggest issue being that of the boss battle difficulty. Many have stated that none of the bosses in the game required any real strategy or threat. 3) The game was also accused by some, as being rather repetetive, most likely due to the lack of new gameplay structure and concepts.

Well, those are some complaints I've noticed alot from fans. If anybody would like to expand on these fan complaints that they've also noticed from forums and reviews, please feel free to do so. The only reason why I think this got deleted was from fanboyism. --S200048 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)s200048

It was more likely deleted for lack of sourcing.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
They were deleted by me for several reasons. The two maine reasobs are "Some fans" are weasel words and none of those complaints (which I personally have not seen too often, and not enough to warrant mention) are sourced. Also, messageboards are not reliable sources (see WP:V). This has nothing to do with fanboyism, but this is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to just come and complain because they didn't like a game. TJ Spyke 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually a huge zelda fan. I'm also surprised you haven't seen these complaints from fans who are tired of the same old used concepts that Nintendo refuses to give up. Also, if fans complain about a game, I don't think it should be sourced. What's wrong with putting some negative reception for this game? It's not like this is a perfect game, and if you can tell me how I should source these fan complaints, please do tell. All the critics who rated this game with such high reception is probably the reason why you haven't seen negative complaints. So I know as a fact that there were quite a number who are dissapointed in the lack of innovation. I'm not saying I don't like this game. --S200048 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)s200048

Again, take a look at WP:V for why random fan complaints (which every game has no matter how good it is) can't go into the article. No game is perfect. The only complaints I have seen have been on messagboards (which doesn't mean much since my experience on messageboards has been that most people just bitch about games). TJ Spyke 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh.... are you telling me that you don't find this game to virtually carbon copy Ocarina of Time in so many ways? It has the exact same formula. Forest, Fire, Water, then get Master Sword, then fight Ganon. On a game on its own its technically advanced and almost flawless in terms of programming. But as a zelda game, it's dissapointing to see these tired out concepts with nothing really new being offered to us. I don't want to keep arguing about this with you, because I don't want to feel like a jerk. Just keep in mind, that if there are other wikipedia members that will one day also want to add in some negative fan reception, have more of an open mind on the issue, okay ^_^ --S200048 (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)s200048

"Open mind" aside, there's protocol to follow. Find a reputable website/magazine with the same complaints as you and we'll put it up. Seriously. This isn't anti-fanboyism.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. While the complaints may be valid, this is an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedias are not formed of opinions (well, the good ones aren't, anyway). If you can back up these fan opinions by citing some magazine articles or reviews, then that would be fine, but "some fans" is just not good enough for an encyclopaedia. I know it can be frustrating sometimes, but those are the rules. Kelvingreen (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to say to S200048 that just because it's similar to OOT (and since most people consider OOT the greatest game of all time, how is that bad?) doesn't mean anything. Halo 3 is the exact same basic game as Halo 2. Sports games are the same basic game every year (especially Madden) with the only real change being an updated roster. TJ Spyke 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And how was OoT not a 3D clone of ALttP? Same stupid story (7 maidens --> 7 sages) and same old items (bow&arrow, hookshot, hammer, mirror shield, etc. etc.) OoT didn't bring to the table nearly as much as you might think -- fanboys only praise it for being "new" because many of them grew up with the N64 generation and didn't play ALttP back when it was released. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To the person above: Look, I find Ocarina of Time to be the most amazing, nostalgic game I've ever played in my life up to this day. But it has been 10 years since Ocarina came out, and I'm surprised at how little the concept has changed for TP. Twilight Princess just feels more like an easier, more scripted version of Ocarina except with updated graphics and physics. I feel like this game tries to be like Ocarina so badly, but just fails in my eyes. TP got rid of the challenging boss battles, the dungeons didn't have that bone-chilling sense of fear you got when you entered a dungeon in Ocarina, Nintendo put too much emotion into Link, trying to make him look like some kind of guy who cares so much about those annoying children and Ilia. Give me a break, Adult Link is supposed to be cool. I can understand the Wind Waker Link with emotion, but they overdid it in TP. Most of the graphics in the game were dull, gray, brown and drab. The game litterly told you what to do and never gave you a decent amount of oppurtunity to think things through. The overworld litterely has nothing to for you to actually explore. While Hyrule Field looks big, it's actually just a wasteland with green grass. And even if you do find something, your reward comes out to be useless rupees. The mini-games were lacking as well. These are the reasons why TP doesn't fool me as being superior to Ocarina. I hope I find a magazine scan with info on this criticism.--S200048 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)s200048

If this keeps up I will remove this entire section. We are supposed to be discussing improvements to the article: not how much better one game was than this or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
And I played OoT and TP back-to-back, in the same year and I found the former to be an overrated pile of garbage. OoT simply felt like an uninspired 3D port of ALttP, while TP actually had new and innovative dungeon items (Spinner, Double Clawshots), interesting sidequests (snowboarding, jousting, goat herding, ROLLGOAL, etc.) and a heartwarming story with great cinematics and character development, as opposed to a rehashed, half-baked children's fairy tale. OoT had the crouching stab move, and whether intentional or not, it allowed all the dungeon bosses to be killed in 5-30 seconds each, as shown in this example. OoT had the most generic, bland dungeons ever, with different wallpapers but always rehashing the same old, tired puzzle elements such as torch-lighting, block-pushing, and switch-shooting. (By comparison, block puzzles didn't show up in TP until Snowpeak Ruins, the fifth dungeon.) The overworld was even more soulless, a giant empty field with a few secret grottos and patches of grass with peahats here and there. Navi shouted "HEY! LISTEN!" at you all the time, which was extremely annoying and in-your-face. The mini-games consisted only of shooting and fishing, and both got old fast. These are the reasons why the critics can't fool me into thinking OoT is a great game despite the courtesy scores they may have awarded it due to all the hype. In any case, I hope to find an OoT review with criticisms like these. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think one may look for "official" complaints within the reviews of reliable sites, which generally explain every aspect of the game by parts. See, for example, The Wind Waker: The reviews were positive, yes, yet they dedicated some lines to complaint about the difficulty and sailing problems.--Twicemost (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the criticism your blind. IGN, otherwise lyrical about the game, states:

When the game opens to a sweeping view of Link as he rides Epona across a vast landscape, you can't help conjuring memories of Ocarina's epic beginnings. And at least for the first half of the adventure, Twilight Princess does indeed feel very much like Ocarina of Time for a new generation of players. Not only does Link start his quest from a small village on the outskirts of Hyrule proper, but he eventually makes his way to cities and temples that have all been seen before - in less detail, of course - almost a decade ago.

Gamespot says:

Objectively speaking, it's still a little disappointing that the series hasn't evolved much at all with this latest installment. You'll almost certainly enjoy the game for its terrific puzzles, colorful characters, and compelling story, but at some point the feeling of nostalgia crosses the line and holds this game back from being as unbelievably good as some of its predecessors. So as impressive of a game as it is, Twilight Princess seems like it could have been so much more with a few presentational updates and more effective and interesting uses of the Wii's unique control scheme.

Those are just two major sites an this is just some of the criticism. Yes, in every review you can find some statement that this is a great game (which it is), but that doesn't change the fact that there are some (in my eyes serious) flaws. That should be noted as well, not just that critics say this is the greatest game ever, based on the very selective quotes in the section below. Might I add that the user who added that list, and added the bit about TP being the greatest Zelda game ever to the introduction, is the same person who said that OoT was an 'overrated pile of garbage'? I don't think that someone like that, apparently holding some sort of grudge against OoT, should (be allowed to) put his personal feelings into the article by ways of stating that "numerous critics [those are weasel words as well] agree that TP is the greatest Zelda ever". Because of these weasel words I've deleted that sentence. 80.126.49.93 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critics' opinions on Twilight vs. Ocarina

These are all actual quotes taken from Metacritic (Wii, GCN)

  • 1UP: It's not a reinvention of the genre like Ocarina was -- but it's much better, because it takes all its predecessors' raw ideas, perfects them, and creates an experience that's at once new and familiar. [1]
  • CVG: It's the biggest Zelda game ever without a doubt and the extra year of development has clearly done it a world of good. [2]
  • EGM: Between the immaculate gameplay, the devious puzzles, and the gripping story, it's simply the best Zelda ever. (January 2007 issue)
  • G4 TV: It’s the glorious world the N64 wanted to show us, but couldn't. [3]
  • Game Informer: The debate that has waged for decades over which Zelda game should stand as the series’ best will at long last come to a satisfying conclusion, as this is unquestionably the greatest Zelda yet. [4]
  • GamesRadar: It's still the most cinematic, engrossing Zelda we've ever played, and as such, deserves nothing but the absolute highest recommendation. [5]
  • IGN: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is, in my opinion, the greatest Zelda game ever created [6]
  • NGamer: The best Zelda ever made. Wii's off to a stunning start. (January 2007 issue)
  • Nintendo World Report: Twilight Princess refines and expands almost everything you already love about Zelda, and it looks damn good doing it...One of the best games of all time. [7]
  • PALGN: It's hard to imagine Zelda getting any better than this. Quite simply, one of the best games ever created. [8]
  • Cheat Code Central: Twilight Princess...manages to surpass the current benchmark, "Loz: Ocarina of Time," widely considered to be one of the best games of all time. [9]
  • Console Gameworld: If "Ocarina" was a great step forward from its Super Nintendo predecessor "Link to the Past" in terms of plot development, Twilight Princess is leaps and bounds ahead of "Ocarina." [10]
  • Deeko: If you add in the incredibly well designed control scheme, as well as Link's new ability to turn into a wolf, you've created an adventure that easily stands head and shoulders above that seen in "Ocarina" [11]
  • GameBrink: It truly is, in my opinion, the best and longest Zelda ever made. [12]
  • Gaming Nexus: The best the series has to offer up to this point. It gives a tantalizing taste of the Wii’s potential and an experience so big, only hardcore RPG’s can compare in depth and breadth. [13]
  • Kombo: It doesn't revolutionize the adventure genre. Instead, it takes everything about the Zelda universe and improves upon it. It is bigger, and it is better. [14]
  • Next Level Gaming: Without a doubt the best Zelda title ever. [15]
  • The Wiire: Does Twilight Princess surpass Ocarina of Time? Again, depends on your perspective, but this latest Zelda is bigger and deeper in every way imaginable, so I'm inclined to say yes. [16]

It's pretty much been agreed upon unanimously (among critics, at least) that Twilight is a better game than Ocarina. The only complaints have been about the lack of innovation and, on the Wii version, the dated graphics and sound. However, from a technical perspective, the critics clearly think that Twilight is the stronger game.

Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a blurb about this in the article lead. Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the blurb, but it has been added in again. I don't see why. The footnote for it does not provide a source for the statement (there are over a hundred criticquotes on metagames, and the majority does not contain a statement that TP is the greatest Zelda ever). Furthermore, there's argumentation as to why it's misleading in the section above (quote from IGN). The person who added it back in has not responded to that, and because the footnote does not back up the statement I've removed it again. 80.57.105.242 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it again because someone reverted my edit without bothering to reply here. I feel the sentence is incorrect, misleading and adds nothing to the article because there is a detailed section about the critiques TP received. In addition, it contains weasel words ('numerous') that are not even backed up by the source in the footnote. If you disagree with me, please reply here and do not just revert my edit saying that I'm the one that's not 'constructive'. 80.57.105.242 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't like that statement, either. It looks like it's been removed again. I think another anonymous editor was adding it after you removed it? Gary King (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Readded; provided 7 different sources, all from prominent media outlets. Instead of using weasel words, I named the sources. I think this is an important point to make because it's the first Zelda game with such a widespread agreement amongst critics (see the list of 20 or so quotes I posted above) in being the best in the series. If you look at MM and TWW reviews, reactions were mixed as to whether their gameplay innovations actually took the series forward. There weren't many reviews touting either as the best Zelda game. And one sentence that reiterates what's in the reception section isn't too much for an article lead. (Look at the OoT article, for example.) Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The 1UP review you linked says it's "arguably the best entry," the PALGN review says "Is it the best Zelda ever? Maybe...", the Next Level Gaming link doesn't even work, and I don't think "numerous" (my dictionary says "very many") applies to the other critics, when you only include two. Also, I would hardly call Gamebrink "prominent", although that's just me. --Ryajinor (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I don't mind either way if the statement stays or not, as long as good rationale is provided. I don't think this is a really big deal. With that said, there are good arguments for both sides. For instance, it isn't really encyclopedic in that it's an opinion formed after aggregating several reviews together. I think it might be better to just let readers draw their own opinions on the game by reading the Reception section rather than openly saying that it's the best Zelda game, especially right at the top. For instance, I, like many others, probably would still consider OoT to be the "best Zelda game" — it's certainly up for debate.
And even then, I'd still put the same material in the Reception section because those are actual critic quotations from reliable sources. We already recognize the complaints regarding lack of innovation and dated graphics/sound quality, and those, too, have been cited with sources. I agree that the original line wasn't encyclopedic, so instead, I named the publications directly, which removes the possible element of bias. If you still think this is biased, then the last paragraph in OoT's lead is even more biased, and would certainly constitute "forming opinions by aggregating several sources together."
If you're trying to play the numbers game, i.e. have users look at the reception section and notice that OoT has higher scores, and have them decide for themselves, that's an equally skewed perspective. From Gamespot's review policy: As the quality of gaming experiences naturally improves over time, we do not simply rate new games higher, even if they're technically better. Instead, we adjust our expectations and continually recalibrate our numeric rating scale accordingly. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. [17] However, Wikipedia's pages don't explicitly state this, either. It's clear that a considerable amount of criticism regarding TP stemmed from its dated graphics/sound (especially for a 2006 Wii game) -- that was Gamespot's main criticism [18], and this is wholly independent of gameplay. Therefore, it makes logical sense that some reviewers would dock points for "last-gen" graphics/sound while still putting it above others in the franchise owing to its more polished gameplay and presentation. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I just realized that you are seriously skewing things towards your point of view. You bring up a lot of valid reviews that state this is the best Zelda game ever, yet you fail to point out that many reviews do NOT state this. For instance, GameSpot doesn't, and I consider them to be a pretty popular review website (obviously this is subjective, though.) So, that's probably why a lot of people would prefer to have this statement omitted, as would I after giving it some thought. I'm going to remove it now per what I have said above, because it is better to not have it than have it there, especially because it is up for FAC right now, and then we can have this discussion here. Gary King (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not "skewing things" when I'm citing sources with properly backed up quotes. The main difference is that while numerous critics DO explicitly cite TP as the best game, the ones that didn't (Gamespot, etc.) never cited another installment as being superior. If you can find a prominent gaming outlet that explicitly states Ocarina of Time (or any other Zelda title) is a superior game to Twilight (and not by the technical score -- because, as per Gamespot's policy, standards evolve), feel free to quote it and add it in. I haven't been able to find one in over 70 reviews. Just think about it: why would two dozen publications specifically recognize TP is the best in the series, despite awarding lower technical scores relative to OoT? They're acknowledging that standards have changed over time, and that the numerical score should not be taken at face value. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I'm the not anonymous IP who's been adding the statements back for me. This means at least some other person(s) are agreeing with me here. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ok "numerous " is not appropriate.so let's use "many " and these websites state tp is the greatest zelda game.some reviews do not state this but it doesn't matter because it is a fact many reviews state this.the sentence doesn't say "all" reviews state tp is the greatest zelda game. the sentence say "many" reviews state tp is the greatest zelda game.this is not subjective but objective.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The demand to cite reviews which state TP is "inferior" to a previous game is a stretch. Reviewers do often compare games to the previous game in the series, favorably or unfavorably. They do not necessarily compare them to every previous game in the series, particularly if they think some long-past game was superior. The extremely high reviews OoT got means it's only noteworthy if you call a subsequent game superior or equal. Calling a subsequent game inferior is in many cases akin to saying "by the way, this is not the greatest game I've reviewed to date." Stating that "many reviewers consider Twilight Princess the greatest Zelda game" is a little trickier, because "many" is not particularly clear; looking at the quotes cited I see 11 which explictly state OoT is superior; only 4-5 of these from very notable reviewers. Many reviewers think that OoT innovated more than TP. Many reviewers think that OoT was more advanced for its time than TP. Many reviewers probably thought that TP was not as good as OoT, but simply didn't see it as worth noting - much as a few critics might say "Ronaldinho is the greatest soccer player ever," and other coaches think merely "Ronaldinho is a great soccer player," leaving off comparisons to players from a different era. I suggest we leave out contentious, wp:weaselly statements and simply state "Critics generally agree that TP gives the most polished gaming experience out of the Zelda series" or something similar. Coanda-1910 (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Quotes like this one from NGamer are extremely clear to me: "The best Zelda ever made." EGM said "simply the best Zelda ever." IGN said "the greatest Zelda game ever created." They're not weasel words when they're direct reviewer quotes, copied verbatim. Personally, I don't see much room for debating this. Wikipedian06 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Many reviewers probably thought that TP was not as good as OoT blah blah" is speculation, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedian06 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear; I have an (admittedly mild) concern about citing critics called TP "the best Zelda game," because it's likely that critics who felt otherwise wouldn't say so. I am not proposing a statement about how "many reviewers probably..." be included; I agree - that is not encyclopedic. I was just noting that in point of fact, many reviewers didn't address TP vs. OoT at all or did not render ultimate judgment; the most likely explanation is that they felt OoT remained the greatest Zelda game. To write a statement in the article which merely cites big-name reviewers who felt TP was best ignores the potential for selective publication. I'd be happier if not only was all the opening true (which it certainly is), but it also could not be construed in a misleading way either. That said - it seems most people feel otherwise, and I don't have any major problems with including what is, in point of fact, perfectly true and at most only marginally misleading. I'd be happier if someone could find a meta-review of some sort which noted these favorable comparisons for TP to cite instead, but barring that what we have now works I guess. Coanda-1910 (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see your points. However, I don't agree with this analysis: "the most likely explanation is that they felt OoT remained the greatest Zelda game." If they truly thought so, why wouldn't they just say it? Quite a few reviewers went ahead and stated outright that Apollo Justice didn't live up to its predecessors. Out of 70+ or however many reviewers are listed on Metacritic, I've yet to see one explicitly name another Zelda game as being better...and this ranges from the big corporate media sites (IGN, etc.) to the independent "no-name" reviewers who are not bound to appeasing advertisers or "fanboys." Whatever the case, your speculation would constitute original research, and it clearly has no place here. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally have very similar sentiments as User:Coanda-1910. At the end of the day, though, I don't really care about this very minor issue. Can we just stick a fork in its heart and move on? :) Gary King (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A new citation from IGN seems to suggest that TP was not better than OOT. In their review of GTA4, they say that it's the best game 'since Ocarina of Time'. The means it's better than TP as well, but not necesssarily better than OOT. I say we just remove this line because it's onesided and it's dealt with more extensively in the appropriate section. 80.126.49.93 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That was written by an Xbox editor who specializes in Xbox games and probably hasn't played a Zelda game since OoT. Matt C. has played every Zelda game and every major Nintendo release; I'd think his opinion on the matter is much more noteworthy. Besides, the GTAIV review doesn't even mention any other games in the franchise, whereas Matt's review directly compares TP against its predecessors. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
　To be consistent you should remove the line which says oot is the best zelda game from the oot article　because a citation from IGN says tp is better than oot.[19]It is you that are onesided.You are just a oot fanboy.and your comment is based on inference,which is not suitable for wikipedia.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to start a vote about this if you really want to, but by the looks of it most people here are against keeping the line there for the reasons I've mentioned. Undid your undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.49.93 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
you have not objected to what i said and Undid my undo.it is very self-centered.again, your comment is based on inference,which is not suitable for wikipedia and in the oot article there is a line which says oot is the best.in your logic, it is onesided.but you don't remove the line.it is not consistent at all.there are sources which say tp is the best zelda game.no reason to remove it.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

oot fanboy shouldn't come here.play only oot that is for little kids forever.--133.2.9.161 (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't OoT consistently been placed higher on 'Top 100' lists than TP though? And it has a higher average on Metacritic/gamerankings, which would counter the TP is best Zelda argument.Maybe the sentence should be changed to "Twilight Princess has been met with high critical acclaim and is widely regarded as one of the best game ever made" Using metacritic or top 100 lists as a source. This removes the whole OoT VS TP debate which is better suited in a forum, not an encyclopedia. :) Darrek Attilla (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the top 100 lists have any recent games. In fact, IGN's top 100 list has a requirement that games must be at least two years old before being allowed on the lists. Please stop using this as a pitiful excuse for an argument. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Metacritic average of oot is based on 22 reviews,and the gamerankings average of oot is based on 31 reviews,which are much fewer compared to that of recent games.Fewer reviews help higher average,so the average of oot is high.TP has a higher average on toptenreviews.com.[20]and higher voting average on Metacritic/gamerankings.--Dr90s (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; see Image:Gamerankings.png on GameRankings for an illustration. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

If you guys really want for FA push, I can give a simple suggestion that will make the article look just all that better. Equally divide the images. The top has Epona and the infobox squeezing the letters into one small column. You should put one image in the development section (preferably the Epona one), even if it has nothing to do with it.

For example, in the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article, which is also a GA article, the Gameplay section places the image several paragraphs down so the readers don't have a thin line of words to read from. There is also an image in the development section that doesn't have anything to do with developing, but equally distributes the images in the article. Good luck on the FA push! --haha169 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as fair use images should only be used to provide commentary, this is a bad idea and means the images won’t be defensible under fair use policy. So removing one is more important than random sprinkling. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Then remove one. Theres way too much here anyways. (I suggest that the Midna/Link image stays)--haha169 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I dont know if this is real or not

http://movies.ign.com/dor/articles/863515/legend-of-zelda-movie-trailer/videos/zelda_makingof_040308.html .--Lbrun12415 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the making of video is real. Can't say the same about the actual trailer though. And this has to do with TP because...? UnfriendlyFire (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Shut up about this. I've seen Zelda fanboys post about this stupid Fool's joke on every Zelda forum on the Internet. IGN confirmed it wasn't real last week. Let it die. Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You've got to be joking, right? At the end, it says "In theaters, APRIL 01, 2009. Hmm... And also, what does this have to do with TP? --haha169 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glitch Question

In the early NTSC release of the game, a glitch when saving in the broken cannon-room would force the player to restart the game from the beginning. In the GameCube and PAL releases of the game, the error was fixed prior to release. For players affected by the glitch, Nintendo offers an updated disc replacement through Customer Support.

That is what it says in the article. Can it be made a bit more clear? For example, it says that people effected by the glitch could get a replacement copy, but are they selling the glitched or the replacement copy in stores now? It is just not clear at all... Epass (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • They glitch no longer exists--read the first line again. "In the EARLY NTSC release..."

Since then the glitch has been removed from the game.Purplepurplepurple (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There recently has been some discussion as to wether or not the statement that some reviewers have called Twilight Princess the greatest Zelda ever should be included in the intro. I say it should not, because it is detailed extensively in the appropriate section of the article, and the single sentence that some have called it the greatest Zelda ever made is one-sided. Most people here on the talk page seem to agree. However, some people have persisently been adding it back in. In response to that I have also added some criticism that was already in the 'reception' section to the intro, backed with sources ofcourse. In response to that, Dr90s has removed those lines as well as negative aspects pointed out by major review sites from the 'reception' section, even though they are properly sourced, and has been adding nonsense, such as that it has a higher 'voter average' on Metacritics and Gamerankings, as if that's relevant. This kind of vandalism should stop right now. I've reverted his most recent edit, I suggest we leave it at that. 80.57.105.130 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

80.57.105.130 is vandalizing this page by including original research,and non relevant item,and he has removed positive aspects pointed out by many major review sites. Never vandalize this page again.--Dr90s (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, please stop accusing each other of vandalism! It's non-constructive in every way!Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be in the intro, just like how the "top 100 lists" and Famitsu's 40 are mentioned in OoT's lead. If it were just one opinion, it might not have been noteworthy, but when you have some of the biggest names in the gaming media all agreeing that this is the series' greatest masterpiece to date, it's definitely worth a note. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've left it in for now, but I don't see why it should be there. Several major sites do not say it's the greatest - naming only those who do is plain POV. Gamespot doesn't, Game Revolution doesn't, actually most websites don't. To be fair, you should include some criticism in the intro (I listed it, but some anonymous IP removed it), just for sake of adhering to WP:NPOV. In any case, I've re-added Game Revolution's comment, for that's a pretty major website as well. Cocytus Antenora (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to gamespot instead since (1) it's more well known and (2) there are actual quotable criticisms. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's alright with me. I believe this is about what it said in a previous revision. Cocytus Antenora (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music and Sountracks

It seems that until now, Nintendo have yet release any soundtrack for this game, except "The Legend of Zelda: Orchestra Piece #2". However this OST only consisted 7 tracks, and it is not for sale. Referring that "Official Soundtrack" seems unappropriate. The appropriate name should be "Official Promotion Soundtrack".

And, there seems to be rumors that Nintendo did released a Volumn 1 soundtrack titled "Twilight Princess OST Vol. 1" by Nintendo OST. It is not sure it is made by fans or it is official, as I cannot find any critical informations such as catalog number, publisher, price as such.

source: http://www.zeldawiki.org/Twilight_Princess_OST_Vol._1 http://www.mystrands.com/album/1498951

Can anyone clarify these facts? Rufas (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither are official. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)