Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Possible Small Edit?

I was reading through the beginning of the page, and found this:

"(actually, there have been no reported sightings of any blood in the game)"

This doesn't sound right to me. Shouldn't it be edited to be something like "There haven't been any reported sightings of blood in the game." And another thing is that there is blood in the game. :/

And thazz it. Tell me what you guys think. Lea-chan (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination

After watching goings-on here for quite awhile, I have decided that most of the major controversies and inconsistencies have been ironed out. As such, I believe that we should take the time now to nominate LOZ:TP for featured article status. I would do it now, but I haven't really edited this article much and would like to have some opinions from those who have taken the time to develop the article to what it is now. Any opinions? Sageofwisdom 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Official site

I dunno if anyone wants to add it, but the NA TP flash site is up, I found it when messing with the url. http://www.zelda.com/tp/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crimalex (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Ohhh boy, now I'm confused!

Who's the main antagonist of this game? Shouldn't that be on this article? If anyone responds, please tell me (if you know) if the main villain is Zant or Ganondorf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.74.35.72 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

If you read the plot section it will become clear. I see no need to add more.--70.48.173.151 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ganon is the last boss and is behind all of the wrongdoings that take place; he is the main antagonist.Purplepurplepurple 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I must say, that I read this entire article and the entire Ganon article. Though it did speak of things like Ganondorf's importance in the game, it seemed that Zant was the main antagonist for about 99/100 of the entire game. Ganondorf wasn't revealed (presently) until the game's ending. I'm sure several people (who didn't learn much about this game) thought the game was going to be over after the final battle with Zant. Though Ganondorf gave Zant his power, he wasn't revealed until you collected all the Mirror Shards, defeated Zant, and destroyed the barrier on Hyrule Castle. So I suppose Ganondorf was actually in Hyrule Castle all along...but that's another story. Also, Ganondorf didn't seem to make too much trouble this time around, as everyone was happy for the entire game, unlike Ocarina of Time, where everything was ruined between Link's age transitions...but that's another story, too. All I'm trying to say is that Zant is the main villain, not Ganondorf. Ganondorf didn't ruin Hyrule, but Zant ruined the Twilight World. Now is it more clear for you? Because if it's not just tell me...

Considering that Ganondorf gave Zant his powers and made Zant think that he was a god means that he was directing Zant's actions. Zant also called Ganondorf his master furthering proving that Ganondorf was the real power behind Zant. In shor Zant was not the main villian. --67.71.77.213 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You still aren't catching my drift, guys! Zant (like mentioned before) was the main for villain for almost the entire time! He ruined the Twilight World, and he was the "greater evil" that Midna was talking about! Zant's power DID come from Ganondorf, but Ganondorf didn't cause the trouble, that was Zant's desire for power! Though I will admit that Ganondorf was more devilish and evil than Zant, Zant ruined the Twilight World, unleashed the Twilight Beings, turned that world's living force into demons, and splattered darkness where ever he went! He was the one who was causing all of the evil. Not Ganondorf. He used King Bulblin. Not Ganondorf. He nearly killed Midna. He turned Link into a wolf nearly permanently. His desires to rule the Twilight World was stronger than Ganondorf's control. If you can remember at the ending, Zant snapped his own neck to end Ganondorf's life force which was living on Zant. Now do you FINALLY understand? No? Let me say it again. Didn't ZANT cause all of the mischief? I most certainly like Ganondorf more than Zant, but Zant was the insane, lust-for-power man. Please tell me you understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.74.35.72 (talk • contribs)

I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. I see it similar to the original Star Wars Trilogy. Zant is like Darth Vader in that he appears to be the main villain and enemy, and Ganon is like the Emperor in that he is the real power and the one responsible for everything. So do you use the villian who does most of the evil/damage or the one controlling him? TJ Spyke 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I use the one who CAUSES the damage. But I still want to prove to some of you that, indeed, Zant is the antagonist. I've always seen Darth Vader as the primary villain of the Star Wars saga, and I see Zant that same way. You know what I mean? I can see what TJ is trying to say, but, I think Zant deserves the title "main antagonist", while Ganondorf deserves the title "supporting villain". Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.167.161 (talk • contribs)

Techo 09:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Ganon, hes the last boss in the game, so usualy that means that is the main bad guy...

So...none of you understand what antagonist means. It's Zant. By all definitions, it's Zant. And the "final boss" argument? Play AoL - that "final boss", indeed all of them in the game, are merely tests for Link. No evil or villainy, except the myriad servants of Ganon WHO ARE NOT BOSSES.

In any case - while Ganondorf may have been SUPPORTING Zant (and in turn, being supported), he is NOT the mover and shaker of the game - that is Zant, no matter how you look at it. If, for example, someone donated to bin Laden in terrorist attacks, and got something back from him, that does NOT make them the principal antagonist to the United States. bin Laden, as the active operator, is still the main threat. You've got to remember, Zant accepted Ganon's aid - he already had this goal. Ganon did not hire him in any way. Like FSA, Ganon was behind the main villain, but was NOT the main villain.KrytenKoro 13:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Zant is the main villain of the game; Ganondorf, in my opinion, is only a filler for the game.200.71.186.240 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the main thing everyone is missing is that Ganondorf IS infact reviled to have a main part in the game as early as after the 4th dungeon where the scene of his execution is showen. Thus from that point on it is clear that Ganondorf was the one who inspired all the chaos to happen. Ganondorf is the main antagonist, Zant was simply a puppet doing his bidding to him.212.219.254.158 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You people just don't get the point, do you? Zant took over a realm, sieged a kingdom, assaulted a castle, and royaly f-ed up everything. That should be enough to put him in the main antagonist category. On the other hand, Ganondorf completey manipulated Zant, making all sorts of things happen just so he could obtain some revenge, that should also but him in the main antagonist category. they are both the MAIN ANTAGONIST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazaan (talk • contribs) 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Alertss

Sorry, as I am a fairly new wikipedian I don't myself know how to do this (and I don't want to risk seeing these things since I haven't played through the game) but the main article (and perhaps this discussion thread) definitely needs spoiler alerts, for sure around the "Plot" section and maybe in others as well. The "Music" section contains some info (boss names, etc.) that is not necessarily of a "spoiler" nature, but we might want to check over the sections to make sure (I'm just citing that one because it's the only one I read). Thanks! Aaeamdar 10:13 PM GMT Aug 6 2007

"Critically Disabled"?

What does the phrase "critically disabled" mean? A predominant theory seems to be that Zant is incapable of death as long as Ganondorf is alive, which is probably the source of this line instead of simply "killed". But when I read this phrase, I think "He was beaten into a persistent vegitative state", not the more accurate "He was ripped asunder by magic tendrils from Midna's head". Is there a way to reflect that? Bucky 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Zant can be killed. What he said was he wouldn't matter since Ganon could just keep reviving him (although once he got defeated, I can't see Ganon wanting to reserect him). I will look into fixing it tomorrow (unless someone else deals with it by then). TJ Spyke 07:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone is with me! Angelic voices reign from the heavens, because I thought I was alone in this! People kept telling me that Zant was immortal as long as Ganon was alive, but it made no sense. Thank you, TJ Spyke! Or do you prefer TJ? Or Spyke? Bucky 23:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Either is fine, :). TJ Spyke 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it has been changed to simply "disabled." I'd still prefer "killed", because even if you're of the mind that he is immortal as long as Ganondorf lives, he was at least functionally dead, as he never appeared alive again in the game. I'm gonna change it right now, but if you don't like it, go ahead and change it back. It's possible you could talk me into "disabled", because technically, death does have a tendency to handicap people, but I'd still prefer "killed". Bucky 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Images should be of Gamecube footage

I think the box art is fine, but for the images of the gameplay version, especially as the captions describe aspects, we are giving characters/areas a misleading description if the images are flipped. (for example Link is shown right handed)The Conscience 17:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The descriptions on the page are of the Wii version. Besides the only real visual difference is that the Wii version supports 480p and 16:9. TJ Spyke 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article for AoL for example makes sure that Link sprite is not flipped (when facing east). So I think the same should be done in this article by using gamecube version images. For now I'll add the fact that it is the wii version in the captions.The Conscience 08:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What advantages do GC images have over Wii images for illustrating this game? Tim (Xevious) 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It shows the correct dexterity of the characters, the correct relative geography of the mapsThe Conscience 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that this Link isn't the same Link as any other Link, and the place in which the game occurs isn't the same place as in any other game, there is no "correct" dexterity, nor a "correct relative geography". Tim (Xevious) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Link's parting is a left parting in the cover and a right parting in the screenshots because its a wii image. Besides on another note, we are supposed to use the latest image, which is that of the gamecube version.The Conscience 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no guideline about using a newer image if the older image is not obselete. And my parting is sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right ... Tim (Xevious) 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I've just checked the offical art on the offical site and it seems there is a bit more than that, for example the way the fused shadow is cracked (on midna's art) seems not to coincide with the images in this article.The Conscience 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The current images are fine though, they are just to show people the game. It doesn't matter which version, which means the current ones are fine (besides, Nintendo themselves are acting like the Wii version is the main one). TJ Spyke 21:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Eiji Aonuma said at GDC 2007 the "Wii" version is "mirrored". The GCN version is the "original, intended" orientation of Twilight Princess. The reason the Wii version seems to be the "main" version is because Nintendo was pushing a new console, the Wii, and as such didn't push the GCN version more than the Wii version. I do not care which screens are used, but please do not spread misinformation. The GCN version is the "original, intdended" version, and the geographical locations and orientations of all things is correct in the GCN version, and mirrored in the Wii one. [1] --TSA 01:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair the only image I want changing is the one of Link and Midna, the others ones are fine since they come under the gameplay section, and there is more content about the wii's gameplay. In fact if one wanted to keep the widescreen image of the Link and Midna image, they can just flip it since there is no HUD, however it might not be considered gamefootage then.The Conscience 09:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I think there should be at least one picture of the GC version, rather than it all being purely Wii version screens. I'm not saying remove any of the current pictures, just saying someone should add a screenshot of the GC version...it's a GC game, too.-Mega Man 5 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no real difference though. If someone wants to add a pic they can, but it doesn't have to be GameCube. TJ Spyke 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to all be the Wii version either.-Mega Man 5 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are gonna post, why not log in? "User: Mega Man 5" did not make that post, an IP did. TJ Spyke 00:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm lazy. Anyway, I've added a screenshot of the GameCube version in the gameplay section.-Mega Man 5 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion from Midna page

I'm interested in hearing your theory. After Ganondorf was defeated, Zant snapped his own etherial neck for unstated reasons, but this didn't kill Ganondorf. Instead, it made him unable to exsist in Hyrule. So he was forced...somewhere else. Is this about right, and can you elaborate on the parts I'm not getting? Bucky 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, someone is finally on my side. Zant killed himself and broke gannondorf's link to hyrule. He killed himself (from what I belive) because he was insane. That's my theory. 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I was on your side, but you may be able to convince me. So, insanity drove him to kill himself. Okay, convoluted, but I'll let it go. Insane people have done more illogical things. What I'm having trouble with is why Ganondorf would put himself in that kind of situation. I figured that once he was fully recharged, he broke all life ties he had with Zant so that something like that couldn't happen. Your theory is that de didn't break them in time? Also, did he go back into the Twilight Zone or into the Dark World? Bucky 21:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "convoluted"? I never said that Gannon was gonna break the ties with Zant. No, he's too smart for that. I think he knows that if Zant dies that his link to reside in Hyrule would be broken, thus he revives his spirit because Midna destroyed his body...I'm starting to confuse myself. Coments anyone? 72.134.69.228 21:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ganon only needed Zant to get his power back. Once Ganon was back to full power, he had no more use for Zant and that is why he didn't revive Zant after Midna killed him. Zant was never immortal, he just said it wouldn't matter because Ganon could keep reviving him. This whole discussion is moot though since it's all original research. TJ Spyke 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any proof that Gannon revived him. There is no proof that Gannon didn't revive him. Just sayin. Thecolourrose

There's no proof Gane did revive him, and the evidence suggests Ganon didn't revive him. TJ Spyke 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna maintain my original stance on this one. Zant died, he didn't come back, and I don't think he sent Ganon to another world. 72.134.69.228, you never got around to answering where Ganon went, so I'll hold out the possibility that you can convince me. Also, just a side note, the biggest piece of evidence that people use in support of the Zant-and-Ganon-were-connected theory was that scene with Zant's neck snapping. I figured that was some kind of metaphore for something. It makes sense to me, since the game had a history of doing really wierd psychedelic stuff with the visuals, Exibit A being that entire back story for the Fused Shadows. Anyone with me? Bucky 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of trying to prove my point that is truth. Thecolourrose

It's not the "truth", it's your opinion. TJ Spyke 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to correct me. Thecolourrose

Why don't you guys try snapping your own necks? I'm tired of hearing about this stupid theory. The cutscene was crystal clear: it was Ganon's Triforce that was keeping him alive, and the neck snap was symbolic of Ganon's own death. That's all the cutscene was ever meant to be: any other interpretation is over-analyzing it. Wikipedian06 11:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would the Triforce of Power abandon him? Wouldn't it make sense that Zant would snap his own neck? Yes, Gannondorf's piece of the Triforce is keeping him alive but I just don't think it would let him die...It's an inatimate object...Gannondorf didn't die when Zant snaped his neck, it only took him back to the Twilight realm. Sorry, I know we're annoying you. Thecolourrose

The Triforce never abandoned him. It's never abandoned it's holder until after the holder died, the only exception being in WindWaker. Yeah, the Triforce was keeping him alive, otherwise he would have died from old age or, in this game, impalation by now; however, that doesn't mean that he can't die while he holds the Triforce. I remember hearing either in Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time that the Master Sword was specifically designed to fight Triforce-powered evil. Out of curiosity, to Thecolourrose, he went back to the Twilight Realm? Why would Midna destroy the ability to get Ganondorf out of the Twilight Realm if that was where he was, and where she wanted to live? Bucky 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I never thought of that...I guess we really don't know where he went...Thanks for bringing that up...Hmm...I've got noo idea...heh heh, YouTube time. Thecolourrose

umm... i thought that him snapping his neck, was just metephorical, because with Ganon dead, he also died, Or any chance of returning was gone. Saint Edge 22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, he could be dead. Seriously. The Wind Waker was parallel to the Twilight Princess. He could be. And maybe he isn't. Just thought I would throw that in.Thecolourrose

TP and TWW aren't parallel. TP takes place before TWW (in the same timeline), as stated by Anouma when asked where in the Zelda timelime TP took place. Unless you are talking about the endings of the game. Ganon wasn't killed in TWW, he was turned to stone when Link drove the Master Sword into him. TJ Spyke 22:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean they were parrallel like that, I ment they were.... Have you ever seen Back to the Future? It's kinda like that. Since there was alot of time traveling in OoT, there was a parallel similare to that of the new 1985 in BttF. Get it? Thecolourrose

SPOILERS!!!

If not, it's kind of like there's one parallel universe where Link went to Termina, and a few (unknown) years later Ganondorf commited a crime and was eventually sent to the Twilight realm and the events of Twilight Princess take place and Ganondorf either dies or doesn't. Let's call that universe one. And, there's another universe, or dimension, were Ganondorf tried to kidnap Zelda before she could help Link do it herself along side him. Eventualy they were able to seal him up and (unknown) years passed and the seal broke. Din, Nayru, and Farore did their thing and flooded Hyrule with only chosen few survived. Ganondorf emerged and started looking for Zelda. An attempted kidnaping happend with Tetra and Aryl was kidnaped in her stead. Yada, yada, yada. Zelda and Link turns Ganondorf to stone and go off to find "New Hyrule" in the "Phantom Hourglass". Let's call that universe two.

Now, what don't you understand? Hm? Thecolourrose

Your theory is interesting. However, Aonouma said the game takes place after OOT but before TWW, which seems to disprove your theory. TJ Spyke 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There was also an interview where he says that it's parallel to it, here: [2] (and use the translater here [3] if you want.)Thecolourrose

What Aonouma sais is that there are 2 parallel universes in TP, but they are not WW and TP, but a light world and a twilight world. /ph NEWCOMBER APPEARS lol anyway from what you guys said theres a theory where theres a paraellel world from the result of the time traveling and one theory is where theres no time traveling rite? so can anyone tell me if TP and WW was in the same time line how'd gannon escaped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.98.189 (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

NIntendo policy

I was reading the nitendo poicy that prevent the sale of "naughty" games in the u.s. or it censors what naughty. But if you look closely at the goddesses, you can notice that they have .......... well look for yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.67.168 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The only games Nintendo won't allow are AO rated games (however, Sony and Microsoft have the same policy). They are also nowhere near as strict as they used to be. TJ Spyke 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

LOOK AT THE PAGE WITH THEM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.67.168 (talk • contribs)

I just looked and it wasn't offensive or anything (of course I'm a guy) but i don't remember that shot in the game unless it was when Zant forced Zelda to surrender the castle, keep in mind i havent beatt he game yet though. 216.12.83.154 01:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

Why are some of the screenshots released to the public domain? Considering that they're property of Nintendo, this seems like it would be illegal. --Tristam 06:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They are Nintendo's pics. It's just that you can't sell them or reproduce them in any manner. Understand? Thecolourrose

Simply releasing them into the public domain allows ANYONE to do whatever they want with them. Unless there's been a massive change in copyright laws that I was unaware of, slapping the "public domain" rationale is completely illegal. Read the label's description: "I, the creator of this work..." The user that uploaded the images most certainly was NOT the creator of the work. EDIT: Jesus, people, change the license tag on that image before I remove it: "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." The user has absolutely no right to grant any entity the right to use Nintendo's work for any purpose. --Tristam 03:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:BOLD, you can change the tag yourself as well. TJ Spyke 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

TJ: I'm aware of that as an editor of Wikipedia since 2005, but because there was opposition (however illegitimate it may be), I wanted further validation of my opinion that the public domain image tag was completely illegal. Thanks all the same for changing it though. --Tristam 03:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion was right, a user can not claim something like a screenshot as a free pic (a now retired poster who used to be a respected member of the wrestling Wikiproject just got banned for claiming many WWE published pictures as ones that he took). TJ Spyke 04:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why no interpretation of the game's plot?

I feel a game with a plot such as Twilight Princess allows for a lot of interpretation on the plot and ending. Why not have some after the plot summary, explaining the meaning of most of the actions (which the plot summary sucks badly at right now, if you allow me to say; those who aren't zelda fans would have trouble following it.) 201.215.193.13 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Because interpetation would be original research, which is not allowed (see WP:OR). TJ Spyke 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Research is a big no-no, but if you're concerned about it being to in-universe for the layman, go ahead and reword it. I point to WP:BOLD. Be careful about sections that, for one reason or another, have become controversial, though, like whether or not Zant died. Bucky 17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalizing, huh?

Look, someone changed the timeline placement to a few decades--they most have overlooked the fact that it was changed to "about 100 years after OoT". I'm going to change it to the right info, unless told not to(and with good reason).--Superbub 16:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You changed it from a few decades (which we have a source for) to "about 100 years" (which you don't have a source for). So we have a sourced date vs. an unsourced date. Which do you think we should use? If you can provide a source for Nintendo saying 100 years, then you can change it back. TJ Spyke 22:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

there's no exact canon timeline for the LoZ series. we know the order and general time span between games, but it's still pretty vague. don't fight over it. FyreNWater 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fighting. I just was wondering why he wanted to change it from a sourced date to an unsourced date. TJ Spyke 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Eiji Aonuma, game director for TP, said in issue 211 of Nintendo Power that the game was about 100 years after OoT...there. Source. Purplepurplepurple 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yet the source it points to says "a few decades" so therefore that is what it should say. Otherwise put up that source with original text 60.242.25.74 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Animated Blood

sorry if i'm beating a dead horse, but i wanted to clarify this in case people were still arguing about this. the animated blood as the glowing white stuff or the rust-like stuff on the Kakiriko gates can be arguable. however, there's definitely animated blood in the Water Temple. some monsters leave a purple cloud of blood when you hit/kill them. also, the temple boss bleeds purple blood when you stab it (it's hard to miss). if this has already been settled, feel free to delete this section. FyreNWater 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, like S200048 said, Rusl is badly bleeding during the time he was wounded near the beginning of the game. Unknownlight 04:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

FA?

I said it a bit ago but I'm more sure of it now that looking at the work that's gone in and the quality of the article this should be nominatied for FA status. Anyone else care to comment on this?BigHairRef | Talk 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it a shot, it looks like it could pass (or at least is very close). TJ Spyke 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, at a glance. All five screenshots need fair-use rationales, though. --Herald Alberich 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added FURs and put the page up on WP:FAC. Hopefully should be able to get any necessary feedback soon. BigHairRef | Talk

FAC

Think we can update this article in order to become the FA? This reminds me of the FFXII FA push. Good luck everyone and may the force be with you! This article needs a lot of work and copyediting in order to meet the FA standards. Sjones23 20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rusl in Blood!!

I think after you find all of the tears of light in Faron Woods. Go immediatly to Ordon Village, and go into Rusl's house. You'll find His wife caring for Rusl while he is covered in blood. I have the gamecube version, so I don't know if this in the Wii version. After you beat the forest temple you wont be able to see this.--131.125.66.219 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)s200048

picture/video proof? FyreNWater 09:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am serious. Go start the game over for yourself and you'll be surprised. I am new to wiki, so i dont know how to upload pictures.--S200048 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)s200048

Um, wow! What can I say? I really didn't belive you S200048 but I tried it anyway. And, um, yeah you're (weirdly) right. I'll try to get a picture uploaded soon. And, oh yeah, it is in the Wii version. Unknownlight 04:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I told you. I bet i'm the first person to find this. Boo Yah!--S200048 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)s200048

Anyone got a pic yet? 68.5.28.194 02:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Units sold?

How come theres nothing on tLoZTP units being sold? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheGreenLink (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a reliable source for the units sold? If not, that is why (and no, VG Charts is not reliable since they make up their numbers). TJ Spyke 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But Nintendo IS a reliable source, and the GC version has indeed manage to pass 1 million sold in North America alone. How do I know this? Nintendo recently released info about software sales.-Mega Man 5 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Source, as in a link or something the rest of us can check. 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the very bottom of the links list. You'll find a link to Nintendo's software sales chart there.-Mega Man 5 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn still VH Chartz when I replied before. TJ Spyke 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the edit history, the link was changed a good ten minutes before your request for a source ... Tim (Xevious) 09:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. It's still accurate.-Mega Man 5 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Game Glitches section?

There have been many notable and devastating glitches and tricks found in Twilight Princess, such as the Cannon room glitch (On the Wii version, If you save in the room where you acquire the Cannon, you can't progress further in the game), The Early Master Sword Glitch (A somewhat difficult trick involving Midna's superjump glitch and other simpler maneuvers aligned together to reach the sacred forest early), and The CD-Stream Glitch/trick I discovered for TP before MasterlinkX did (A trick that involves removing the Game CD from the console during gameplay and replacing it with another CD). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mzxrules (talk • contribs) 02:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't think so. Why? Because I suggested this an archive ago, is was debated, and I lost. Unknownlight 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In glitches, it is mentioned that if a player croses the bridge for the first time and saves it, he cannot progress. This is true only if Link does not take Epona over the bridge. If Link takes Epona over the bridge, this glitch is averted. Slyfield 08:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Failed FA

This FA for Twilight Princess unfortunately failed because of the explanations in the FAC review. Once these issues as explained in this review can be addressed and fixed up, I will self nominate it as an FA and we will go again for another FAC. Thanks, good luck and may the force be with you. Sjones23 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, can anyone use a rationale? Sjones23 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Once this article has become more of a Featured status, you may renominate it. This actually failed in accordance to the FA critera. Thanks. Sjones23 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

100 years

I read the source for this fact and it only says a couple of decades, but that not my point. the landscape is completly changed, and it looks to be at least 300 years in the future to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.66.167 (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Please see WP:OR, we can't add what the timeframe looks like without a reliable source. TJ Spyke 20:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

the landscape isn't all that different...its just mirrorred for the Wii version. MOST of the stuff is the same. Purplepurplepurple 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That, and I'm sure the designers were thinking technically on this. With the much more powerful memory and graphics of the GameCube over the N64, it was much easier to create broad, varied landscapes. I think they were really only going for the vague direction of previous towns and landmarks. Flutterby Lullaby 22:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The proper translation of the article as I remember it was 'centuries' which can get confused with 'a century' but certainly is NOT 'decades'

.. Btw, someone with an account wanna go create the article 'zelda 13' and have it redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs)

No because it's not a likely search term (so the redirect would be useless) and it's the 12th Zelda game. If anything, "Zelda 13" would redirect to Phantom Hourglass. TJ Spyke 22:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1. TLoZ
2. Z2:AoL
3. ALttP
4. LA/DX
5. OoT/MQ
6. MM
7. OoA
8. OoS
9. TWW
10. FS
11. FSA
12. TMC
13. TP

Thirteen. Not twelve.KrytenKoro 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It article now states not long after Ocarina of Time. It makes it sound like a direct sequel. That line sounds more like what someone might say for majora's mask. It couldn't be that early seeing as how the temple of time has crumbled.definitely more then one generation(at least 4 or more based on the girl that operates the fishing hole not being sure if someone is her ancestor). -Blues

However, the source says "a few decades". Add to that the fact that you can destroy a building quite easily if you have god-like powers, or just good bombs, and the Temple of Time could have reached that state over-night. Hell, the "Time Door's" creation might have ripped it apart - we can't know. Look at it this way - evolution, something that takes eons, was compressed to a few decades in the case of the Zora, who evolved from fish in a magic fountain. Gaean concepts of time and duration do not apply, in the least, to fantasy games.KrytenKoro 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The source that I had when it said 100 years was more recent than this new one that says decades. Shouldn't the more recent one be considered correct?--Shinin 11:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What source? The only word I know of is the producer/director's that it is a few decades.KrytenKoro 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Games considered the best ever?

I notice that in the "See Also" section one of them is "List of games that have been considered the best ever". The problem with that is that twilight princess isn't in that list. Should that "See Also" be deleted or should twilight princess be added to the list? Unknownlight 19:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a list with TP on it, I suppose it should be removed. Give it a week or so for people to try and find a source. TJ Spyke 20:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It was listed on a few when the link to this page was made but now it has dropped so it shouldn't be listed technicallly, however I can see some fanboy rejectig all critisism. Stabby Joe 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hearts is not a "depletable meter?"

The article says, "besides the Lantern Oil meter and the air meter underwater, has no depletable meter of any sort in the game".

Seems to me the hearts function as a very prominent meter in the game. Probably this just seemed too obvious to the author, but I'm new at this sort of game...

Dave Brown 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Go play Ocarina of Time. Hearts aren't a meter. And thats all i have to say.--S200048 14:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)s200048

your confusing the way it looks with its function, the hearts measure how much life force you have left but it is set up so you can easily tell the amount.71.65.34.160 01:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It means that they are things that u can deplete yourself, u cant go and stab yourself, u need somthing (eg. enemy, evil fog, fall off wall, etc.) to deplete your meter. Techo 10:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the special meanings of those words in this context. I see that further edits have made that more clear. Dave Brown 20:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you could technically use bombs or bomb arrows to deplete your hearts by yourself. But yeah, hearts aren't a meter. Link's Awakening (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism?

Shouldn't the criticism section just be lumped in with the reception section, since only one major publication is mentioned in the criticism section? Besides, the reception section even mentions some of the criticism Gamespot had with the game.

SolarisDeschain 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC) SolarisDeschain

Peer review?

I was considering a peer review and another FA nomination for this article. Any other things? Sjones23 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I will give it a go for Peer review. Fire away. Sjones23 17:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a request here. Sjones23 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FA push?

Hey, there. Think we can get this article up to FA status once more? This article is really coming together. Some things that I'm concerned about that in the lead section, this may need to be compressed into three or four paragraphs, but that's a simple fix. Also, there are some redundancies in some parts (i.e. "majority" should be "most", etc.). This article needs a lot of copyediting. This article needs a lot of work in order for that to become an FA. Thanks Sjones23 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannon room glitch fixed by latest Wii system update?

Can anyone confirm or disprove the cannon room glitch being fixed by the latest Wii system update? I have Version 2.2U on my Wii and the glitch does not happen using the game save from http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/wii/save/legend_of_zelda_i.bin (second save slot; use the book on the man and then use the dominion rod to move the statue, save once in the cannon room). As stated in the currently cited source, the replacement disc has a Wii system update included to fix the glitch. My copy of the game should be from the original release, but I had already updated my Wii system software to the latest version before testing. (Aroenai 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

I have verified the Eldin bridge glitch exists, even after the system updates as of Thursday, September 6, 2007. I would assume, since the bridge glitch was also targeted on the new disc, that you must mail it in. Needless to say, I think it would be stupid to trigger the glitch to get Nintendo to send us a new copy. (I tested mine after backing up my save files). Slyfield 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FA push

Hi, everyone. This article is coming together. We need to make another FA push, since the last FAC failed. A couple of issues are shown below (mostly from the most recent Peer review):

• Lead - The lead needs some work. It's currently one medium-big paragraph followed by a one-sentence paragraph, and basically says "It was delayed, released, released, and rated." The lead should cover all major points of the article, not just the development history. Sales numbers?
• Plot - There's a bit of difference between the "approximately 100 years" in the article and the "few decades" stated in the source it cites. Also, organizing the plot in a manner other than that revealed to the player (which leads to a lot of short, choppy "Link does this, Zelda explains that, Link and Midna go, etc" sentences, and often introduces characters before they've had a proper description) should be considered. Most of the plot-heavy FAs (for example, Final Fantasy XII) go setting, characters, story. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask goes setting, story. Trimming the plot section down even further, remove anything that is not needed or break it up into Setting and Plot section.
• Gameplay - Gameplay should be before plot, but this is mostly a style issue. Also, it is perhaps too devoted to specifics, particulary in the items section. A review said that one sentence per item is too much. How you go about condensing it is anyone's choice, but take a look at the FAs to get an idea of what detail is appropriate.
• Citations - A {{cite}} tag is in the TP on Wii section. Some sections lack adequate referencing, ex Game Play, Collectibles, Abilities, and Music. It would also be a good idea to cite the Wii/GC official guide. Consider ripping out the last section of the sales section, unless you can cite it.

Lastly, make sure everything from the previous FAC and previous peer review is covered.

Think we can do all of this for our second FA nomination? It would be much appreciated. Thanks. Sjones23 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No response yet, huh? I will work extensively on this article and I need some help. Thanks. Sjones23 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, see the recent comments on the peer review. Any other things left? Greg Jones II 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means, join me in making this an FA! Greg Jones II 19:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, my comment disappeared, but what do you need me to do? I can try looking up info on google, using the official websites/guides, etc.KrytenKoro 10:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You can do anything you want. Make sure you read WP:WIAFA just in case. Thanks. Greg Jones II 11:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

MIDI or Live Orchestra

There's a minor edit war going on about this. Could we get a consensus from a source?

MIDI or live orchestra? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Originally the game was gonna be full orchestra, but it ended up being MIDI (although I think parts of it was still orchestra). TJ Spyke 22:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source we could use for that? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaken, it's both. some are orchestrated, some are MIDI. i recall Nintendo discussing that when TP was still in development, but i have no idea where to find a source for that statement. FyreNWater 02:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I know where it came from, but it'll take a bit of time for me to find it. It was in the Satoru Iwata interviews on various Wii stuff, I'm sure you've seen it before. It's partly orchestrated, but stuff like BGM is MIDI, so it could be dynamic. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I might be wrong. I can't find any mention of it for some reason.. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

12th or 13th or 14th game in series?

To avoid the endless edit/revert cycle, here's details of the series' titles. I believe Twilight Princess is therefore 12th in the series.

1. The Legend of Zelda
2. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link
3. The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
4. The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening/DX
5. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Master Quest
6. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
7. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons
8. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages
9. The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords
10. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
11. The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
12. The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap
13. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
14. The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (DS) (2007)

--Oscarthecat 10:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And the Template:Zelda games template appears to corroborate this, showing Twilight Princess as the 12th game in the series. --Oscarthecat 11:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're missing Oracle of Ages DurinsBane87 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - list now updated. So TP is 13^th ? --Oscarthecat 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Greg Jones II 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Four Swords is not really a game though. If you count that (which you shouldn't), then why not the 3 CD-i games? TJ Spyke 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does it actually specify that Four Swords isn't a real game. I was wrong to say TP was the fourteenth, but it is definitely the thirteenth. www.zelda.com includes A Link to the Past/Four Swords in the list of Zelda titles. It doesn't include the CD-i games for obvious reasons. Four Swords is definitely a part of the series, despite it's differences. I think Twilight Princess should be the thirteenth game for this reason. User:Hero_of_Fire 8:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this important?--141.84.69.20 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of us still refer to them by number. TP is lucky number 13. Course it gets confusing since 9 and 10 were released in reverse order in the US and Japan, and 7 and 8 are interchangable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Some of us" is not enough to make it relevant to the world.--141.84.69.20 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Okami

Was this game's combat inspired by Ōkami? I'm discussing it on a forum right now. Maybe we should add a reference since Okami was released a couple years earlier....--Charizardpal 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, Ōkami was released only a few months before this game (Ōkami released in Japan in April 2006, Zelda in November 2006). TP had also been in development for several years and is based on the combat used in the N64 games, so I would say No. If anything, Ōkami was inspired by Zelda (which is what most reviewers think to since the game is almost always compared to the Zelda series). TJ Spyke 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Twilight Princess uses more or less the standard Zelda control scheme. (And for the obvious record: Okami and Twilight Princess were both released in 2006). --Stratadrake 12:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

um... aren't the attacks in Okami controlled with magic brushstrokes? i don't see any similarities besides the wolf-that-isn't-really-a-wolf thing. FyreNWater 02:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Awards and Reviews table

The critics table has gotten to large and makes the page look rather disorganised, if not badly presented. If you look at the wiki page for the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion notice that the awards and reviews table mentions all of the awards but is of a smaller size due to a different method of presentation. Stabby Joe 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, the table is smaller now. It was as simple as changing the table's code to

<div style="font-size:75%;float:right;border-left:1em solid white">

Scepia 05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Faron Woods

in the game when Zant covered twilight over the woods, it left a purple fog. once you clear the area the fog is still there. 67.164.35.55 07:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And your point is...? --Stratadrake 11:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(PS: You do remember the part where the monkey swiped Link's lantern and used it to clear away the fog, right?) --Stratadrake 11:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, anyway why is it still there even when I cleared twilight out of the area. is it even twilight? 67.164.35.55 22:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here at all, but no, it's not twilight, it's miasma. It's one of the curses, like Zora's Domain being frozen - not the fault of twilight, though possibly the fault of Zant.KrytenKoro 00:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

the purple fog is different from the purple twilight fog in the Twilight temple. the latter fog had little dark specks in it and made Link turn into a wolf. the Faron Woods fog "killed" Link and sent him back to the beginning of the area. besides all of that, it's not relevant to the article. FyreNWater 02:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

well, sorry to waste all of your time (not in a sarcastic way). 67.164.35.55 03:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zeldatp-screens (517).jpg

I'm concerned about how this image is represented. Image history shows that the image itself has been flipped, so the caption in the article says it's from the GameCube version. This is incorrect. Just because it's a flipped Wii image does not mean it's from the Gamecube version! Please leave it as is until a real Gamecube image is put in as a replacement. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Herring!

In Hyrule Castle-town, at the market section, there are two apple stands who you can compare apples between and a floral stand. You can interact with them, sort of. If you click on them it'll give you some info but you won't be able to do anything with them. What was the point of those things? Were they supposed to be part of some sort of minor quest but dropped?

I doubt that anyone here knows. Unless someone involved in the game makes a statment we will likely never find out. --70.48.175.243 22:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also meat, bread, and a fruit stand (non-apple). They're there as an easter egg, probably to make fun of Final Fantasy, where you find valuable items lying in the gutters or in odd places.KrytenKoro 23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Point of Interest

Has anyone noticed that in Link's house, there are photographs (in color) on the wall. How is it an agrarian society has access to kodak-level photo technology? This has nothing to do with the article, I just thought it was worth pointing out? Perhaps Hyrule is a third world country; that would explain the unlevel distribution of technology such as photographs and cannons, the paramilitary goblins, and the constant coups.

Or maybe, as the backstory tells, it's just a magical society that, like in Harry Potter, hasn't had to leave behind a lot of the stuff we did.KrytenKoro 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Pictograph is in Majora's Mask, which is years before Twilight Princess. Pineconn 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hyrule is in an entirely different universe from the one we inhabit, so technology will have evolved differently as well.72.190.111.150 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I painted those pictures for him awhile back. Don't you like them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.42 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Balloon challenge

After u use the boat from upper zora river to get to lake hylia, if u transform into the wolf and talk to the bird (possibly a parrot) he tells u about this challenge with balloons, is that the challenge where u get a chicken and fly into those diamonds in the sky or is there a challenge i missed? Techo 08:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

...That's the one where you fly into the fruit balloons, during the flight you had to do to get up the river in the first place.KrytenKoro 08:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

alternate timeline?

as the alternate timeline theory is a theory it shouldn't be all over this article like it's canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.188.248 (talk)

Sadly, it is canon. Check a zelda site for the full story.KrytenKoro 14:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Zelda fansites are not official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.54.176 (talk)

So who exactly is this? Please note to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) when posting on talk pages. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

....? I was saying that the fansites have the excerpt where Aonoma verifies the split timeline. And I was originally empathizing with you, so please don't mock me.KrytenKoro 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, there's something called page history... try using it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, real sorry that I didn't notice the anonymous guy mocking me wasn't the same as the one I was responding to.KrytenKoro 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

IT'S STILL IN THE ARTICLE! Seriously, remove that jazz. That is not canon.

Read this and that!--141.84.69.20 12:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And this. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Review Table restructure

Currently the table is large and not very well resented. It could go with either a restructure or being turned into a smaller image that viewers can select to blow up. Now I know most of you here, mostly die hard Zelda fans will get really defensive and will want to list everthing... kind of like gloating, I had to go through the same **** on the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Shadow of the Colossus reception section to, but both look fine. Notice the method of structure in the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion review awards table. Its small but has whats important listed. Its something to consider and wiki is supposed to have good articles and the table to be honest doesn't look very presentable.

Discuss. Stabby Joe 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge of Eldin glitch

I am almost certain that the Bridge of Eldin glitch was debunked shortly after it was claimed to exist. I remember that this was posted on The Hylia, and TSA did all he could to replicate it, having no luck. I do not own a Wii (obviously now, I have the GCN version), so I am unable to investigate this. Pineconn 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On the WII version (i have the GCN version, but have not progressed far enough to test), the glitch is triggered after completing the Goron Mines. The glitch is triggered when you cross over the brige on foot and then blow the rocks up, save the game, and re-load it. If Epona is on the North side of the brige as well, the glitch is not triggered. I did some testing to figure this out. Slyfield 04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Spoiler alert/template maybe?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.112.59 (talk) 00:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spoiler#When spoiler warnings should not be used; the possibility of spoilers is already implied by the section headings, so it would be redundant to put warnings in there. Haipa Doragon (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the Music section erroneously attribute the musical technique of "Leitmotif" to Nobuo Uematsu?

"Leitmotif" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitmotif) is a hundreds-of-years-old technique of recurring musical themes, which is what Uematsu makes use of in his composition for other video games. There's no source for the statement within the music section of the article that the composers for Twilight Princess deliberately imitated Nobuo Uematsu; as such, this statement could be extremely misleading if it is untrue. It is far more likely, that as professional musicians and composers, they are well-ware of this dramatic technique commonly used in dramatic commercial entertainment (as evidenced in Wikipedia's own article about leitmotif, section concerning its use today).

Unless there is an official or confirmed source where the composers or other members of the development admit to deliberately imitating another composer, or state any other speicif reason for recurring musical themes, I suggest this explanation should be struck and replaced with the more simple and broadly accurate explanation that they made use of leitmotif.

If the composers for Twilight Princess did in fact imitate a specific individual, it must be stated without misleading readers about several hundred years of musical history; it is pure fallacy to posessively attribute to any living individual a musical technique that is clearly known to have been in wide use at least two centuries prior. 131.107.0.73 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Music section rewrite

Composition credits

The game's head sound designer is Toru Minegishi, Kondo supervised his work. Minegishi did all field and dungeon music (see reference in the first paragraph), but we don't exactly know if he provided more tracks. With Kondo's and Ohta's work, we're almost completely left in the dark: The only thing we know is that Kondo composed the music for the demo movie after the title screen (as seen in the referenced interview).

Teaser and demo music composition

The game's staff roll gives Mahito Yokota as composer of the teaser music, under "Teaser Music Orchestration". The credit for the arrangement goes to Michiru Oshima. Since Koji Kondo stated that he composed the demo movie music (the movies name on the game ISO is "demo_movie98_00.thp") and that three musicians (Kondo included) composed a "different approach to the trailer’s music", we're lead to assume that Yokota composed the MIDI track for the first Twilight Princess trailer, which was later arranged by Michiru Oshima to The Legend of Zelda: Orchestra Piece #2 (that track was released on the mini soundtrack for the game that included seven tracks). Thus the demo music piece by Kondo is called The Legend of Zelda: Orchestra Piece #1. Since this is original research and we can't be 100% sure of that, I didn't include that in the article.

After having watched old trailers of the game, I think the third mentioned orchestrated musical track is included in the GDC 2005 trailer (the first ever teaser in 2004 used "Riddle of Steel" / "Riders of Doom" from the Conan the Barbarian soundtrack). This is again, speculation on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Blue (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Orchestrated music

Orchestrated music was not made possible through the GameCube's and Wii's hardware, but through the storage medium: Streaming music is just as possible for consoles using cartridges, the problem is that there is not enough space on the medium to effectively use that method. That's why a lot of older games use sequenced music in favor of streamed tracks. One prominent exception (for example) is Resident Evil 2 on the Nintendo 64, which used streamed music in its FMVs.

Recorded music

As there's only one orchestrated game (that isn't even used during normal gameplay) I changed that to "for all the other music in the game". There IS recorded music in the game, that however uses the game's original sound driver, just adding a few effects like reverb. Almost all of the cutscene tracks are prerecorded streamed music, whereas background music for areas is mainly sequenced.

Remixes

I don't see why we have to name all that titles, it's far too much. Either have all of them mentioned (good luck on compiling the list) or give just the most important ones. I also deleted the mentioning of newly composed track since it's pretty self explanatory that these are present.

Interactive music

Shortened that paragraphs, as it's basically repeating the same claim over, and over, and over.

Howling stone songs

The claim that one of the howling stone songs is from The Wind Waker is wrong. It merely uses the same style as the title theme of aforementioned game, but the melody is entirely new. Feel free to name the track if you recognize the tune from somewhere.

hm.....have an issue with this.

"They can be loaded into the game using specific Action Replay codes.[citation needed] Also, a beta Magic Potion item can be loaded into the item screen with an Action Replay. It can be used, but it has no effect on Link"

hmm.....does this seem encyclopedia-worthy? It comes off to as some cheat you would find on neoseeker for something. Unless this has been widely known (X-play talking about it for exmple), I have an issue with this. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 03:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

story/plot

I dont understand the story. I dont think the plot paragraph was wrote that well.

can somebody explain the following:

so.. the twilight king zant is trying to merge the twilight realm and hyrule.. what is twilight realm? where is it? describe it? the sages of hyrule sent people there. WHY? midna is trying to find the fused shadow to defeat zant. zant is a member of her own group and shes trying to kill him? im only in the goron mines so NO SPOILERS PLEASE! thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.193.103 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it. Midna knows that Zant is a usurper (meaning he seized control of the Twili people and is not the real king) and is trying to stop him, but knows that she needs Link's help. TJ Spyke 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you want to know what the hell the story is about...but you don't want spoilers.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

how is not the place to discuss it? the story/plot paragraph makes no sense. and dont be a smart ass urutapu. i meant stuff that happens past the goron mines

I'll answer your questions, Mr. IP address.

• What is the Twilighth realm? That would be a spoiler. Just be patient.
• Why did the sages sent people there? There is no answer in game, so any I give would be speculation, but it seems like it would be the same reason that the British Empire sent their prisoners overseas - so they wouldn't have to deal with them.
• Why is Midna trying to kill Zant? It should be fairly obvious that Zant is evil and Midna isn't. I think they've revealed by your point that Zant stole the throne of the Twilight realm from the true ruler of Twilight. If not, it's not as much of a spoiler as it could have been.

Hope that helps. If anyone thinks that the plot summary should be checked for clarity, please do so. Larrythefunkyferret 16:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.206.41 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When Does This Game Take Place

According to the article it takes place 100 years after Ocarina of Time, but so does Wind Waker (as described in the game). So is this an alternative century later or does this take place before Wind Waker? The wiki article for Wind Waker says "hundreds", but if I remember correctly the game itself said just 100 years. Zachorious 05:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The Wind Waker intro does not specify how much time has passed since OoT. Not in the intro, at least. [4] --Optichan 20:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It says later on in the game, I think when Link meets the old king of Hyrule under the sea that it was 100 years. I haven't played it in a pretty long time though.....so maybe I am misremembering a quote. But I still remember them talking about the chronology being a century after OoT. If not, does TP take place before or after WW? Zachorious 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an official answer has been given, although I think they might have saif it was before WW (not 100% sure either way). TJ Spyke 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Twilight Princess takes place before Wind Waker, but in an alternate timeline. I remember several references to Wind Waker being set hundreds of years later contrast to TP's one hundred years. For the Wind Waker I think I even read 500 somewhere? .:Alex:. 10:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Eiji Aonuma said in that split timeline confirmation interview, or something like that, that TP and TWW are parallel, actually. Haipa Doragon (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's make one thing clear; the multiple timelines thing is something made up by some fans and is not in any way official. TJ Spyke 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It was confirmed in a December 2006 interview with Eiji Aonuma. Haipa Doragon (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. TJ Spyke 11:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[5] Well, I'm not entirely sure, to be honest, but I think it's generally accepted; does anyone know further of this? Haipa Doragon (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

the split is from the story after liink goes back (so the gannon took over for a bit time line, the one with "and the hero of time vanished") and the one you start in in witch there was no gagon (the one link was sent back to at the end of OoT) Shinigami Josh (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Or to be more specific...

After Ganon is defeated and banished to the Sacred Realm, Link goes back to his time (Young Link) and has a meeting with Zelda. This creates the split timeline. In the Young Link timeline, Ganondorf is subdued and tried by the sages to prevent him from taking over Hyrule in the first place. In the future (Adult Link), because Link is not there, he is unable to prevent Ganon from escaping the Sacred Realm and attempting to take over Hyrule. The two timelines are parallel, but not exactly at the same time from what I have heard. .:Alex:. 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(this is my first time doing this, so i apologize for any mistakes in layout) Sorry, but I think your timeline is flawed. In that timeline, Link never meets the sages and never defeats Ganon. What my understanding of the timeline split was is that it takes place when Link was sent back in time. He and Zelda, of course, make sure that Ganondorf is captured in that time (as you said). But in the future (Adult Link time), Link disappears, but Hyrule goes on. That accounts for why there was a huge statue of Link and stained glass windows of all the sages in Wind Waker. WW takes place after Adult Link time while TP follows the Majora's Mask line. By your explanation, yes, there would be no Link to stop Ganon in the future, but there would be no Ganon in the first place (because he's locked up.) Xerotheory142 (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

this makes a spilt time line but...they do not continue the young link time line and goes on with the story with the time line where gannon is sealed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.98.189 (talk • contribs)

Looking for a link to December 2006 history

Does anyone have anyway to quickly find the 2006 history for this article. About a month or so after Twilight Princess came out, I remember reading some very interesting theories at the end of the summary about some underlying aspects in the game may be important to the Zelda timeline and story. These were obviously removed from the summary for being "original research," but I just want to reread them for my own personal knowledge. Link's Awakening (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[6] I can't see much of such stuff there, but it's the right time. Haipa Doragon (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Darn. Yeah, I guess it must be on some later date than I thought. Thanks for trying to help though. Link's Awakening (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Vertical Lines?

Good folks, I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a forum but I just wanted to ask you all a question since you're all very expereienced with the game. If you look up at the sky in this game, especially in Ordon Village during the day, do you see a lot of faint vertical lines? I'm not sure if my Wii is defective or if it's just a quirk in the game's rendering engine. I'd appreciate it if anyone could post their honest replies. I know that Wind Waker had a similar issue when played on both my Wii and my old GameCube. Nintenboy01 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I never saw anything like that on mine. Anyways, it's probably just something with your TV if anything. 69.92.141.206 (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Try staring straight up at the sky in Ordon Village early in the morning or before dusk (in the game's time). It does it on both my TVs using an S-Video connection. There's like a faint grid of vertical lines. Other games look fine. Nintenboy01 (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I confirm this. I find it most obvious during the night, though. I believe this is simply due to the system's inability to produce the color of the sky that Nintendo wanted, so the system creates vertical lines to attempt to "mesh" the two colors into the proper one. Naturally, this is one of Twilight's numerous graphical blunders, such as Gerudo Desert at night, numerous flickering shadows, and blocky/polygonal lighting (especially in dungeons). Pineconn (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequel?

Didn't Nintendo announce a while ago that they had been developing a sequel alongside this game and if so, should we make a page for it or put the statement in this article? 86.142.216.62 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo has announced that the next Zelda game has been in development for a while. As far as I know, there hasn't been any mention about sequel status, or even the content of the next game at all. monkeygra (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. [7]

• 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. [8]

• 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. [9]

• 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. [10]

• GamesRadar: It's still the most cinematic, engrossing Zelda we've ever played, and as such, deserves nothing but the absolute highest recommendation. [11]

• IGN: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is, in my opinion, the greatest Zelda game ever created [12]

• 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. [13]

• PALGN: It's hard to imagine Zelda getting any better than this. Quite simply, one of the best games ever created. [14]

• 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. [15]

• 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." [16]

• 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" [17]

• GameBrink: It truly is, in my opinion, the best and longest Zelda ever made. [18]

• 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. [19]

• 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. [20]

• Next Level Gaming: Without a doubt the best Zelda title ever. [21]

• 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. [22]

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. [23] 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 [24], 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.[25]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.[26]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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

On a sidenote, the music section states: "As is common for The Legend of Zelda games, music plays an important role in Twilight Princess." Could anyone specify what role that is? Because I thought that, uncommon for The Legend of Zelda games, music plays virtually no role in this game. You can whistle birds and you can whistle your horse, and if I remember correctly you need to howl as a wolf at least once to complete the main storyline. Other than that, there's nothing. How's that an important role? Cocytus Antenora (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)