Fulcon's Review of Twilight Princess (there's good in there somewhere)

...I watched the early trailers of TP. I was also one of the few to play the demo years before its release. It was awesome! When I beat TP, yeah I was disapointed, but I was also disappointed when I beat TWW and MM. All three games were nothing like how I had invisioned them. But that by no means makes them bad. I generally think people sound like little babies when they cry about "it didn't have this!" "I wanted thiiis!" I mean come on. Play th game for what it is. In no way does any Zelda game lack content. Look up the definition.

TWW felt like half of a game to me, it was missing half of what a Zelda game absolutely needed, and TP brought everything TWW lacked. Even so, I felt TP was also just half of a Zelda game. And together TWW and TP make one heck of a pair.

The Great Sea music is horribly repetitive, and you have to listen to it for half the game, it's tormenting. I like it, but it's my least favorite overworld song. OoT's was amazing, it had almost 10 minutes worth of different sectional songs. TP's was great too. In any of the 3D Zeldas the "dawn" music always brings a tear to my eye, I love it. I can't tell you how long I'd spend riding Epona on the overworld in OoT, I found myself doing he same exact thing in TP. It's just awesome being on an overworld where you can turn around without playing a song.

Since Link92 is basically saying everything I'd like to say, I'd like to reinforce what he's saying again.

Quit reviewing this game with bias, and stating your opinion as fact.

Originally Posted by Link92

Not until now.

Now stop harping about them.

It's not a flaw to decry a game based on things that were never promised. Do people complain about Mario games for Mario not having a gun? No.

They were promised in a very round-about way: By simply being there. You'd think that there'd be at least one rail puzzle in the city in the sky, based just on merit of where it was at. It was practically obligatory. (And before you whine about the this argument because you can't really use logic to argue with it: IMO).

That's your opinion. And you're stating it as fact. If you arguing with somebody about facts, you can't use your opinion to give your argument strength. You have to use facts. And again, if you didn't enjoy it, that's your loss.

DUH. Of course it's my opinion. And you've been stating quite a few things as fact yourself so stop harping about people stating their opinions as fact. Because if you honestly have a problem with this, I can't how you function in reality because EVERYONE DOES IT.

It was hardly any fun because the dungeon wasn't big enough. Isn't the final dungeon supposed to be, you'd think, much, much bigger than the previous dungeons. There was only one or two puzzles per room, and while the rooms were pretty big (and I'm not counting the court yard sections because, those, actually, were alot of fun IMO).

No, because I really didn't care about magnetic surfaces.

Well I did, dang it. And this review is my opinion and I can say what I like about them.

This is Zelda. Roller coaster rails do not exist. And if you're talking about spinner puzzles, there are 3 of them in the overworld alone.

The spinner puzzles WERE roller coaster rails, practically. I meant ones on par (though getting progressively rarer) of the ones in the spirit temple.

Wow, you're pathetic. I can't vary my methods of killing enemies? Because I can clearly see you didn't pay attention to the game, enemies respawn every time you leave the area. You can snipe them from the bridge one day and fight them on horseback another day. You've actually just proved my point that you lack the creativity to find more than one way to fight enemies and use items.

I'm not saying you can't. You can. Go ahead. I just don't understand why when the enemies respawn to fast to make a difference and I don't know how wailing on weak enemies is fun because they don't present a challenge (IMO).

When you decry the game based on flaws that don't exist, your opinion is wrong. If you were to say "I hate ice cream because it's too hot" when you are constantly putting hot sauce on food, your opinion is moot and worthless. To say that you don't like something is just fine. To flat out say that something is good or bad requires objectivity and facts.

But they do exist IMO (and I like hot sauce). That's why I pointed them out. That's why the review is called 'FULCON'S REVIEW', thus indicating that everything inside is 'FULCON'S OPINION'. You seem to use the 'stating opinion is fact' whenever you see an opinion you don't like even if it doesn't apply and then say that their wrong.

#1: Everyone states their opinion as fact. EVERYONE. Even you.

#2: Opinion's are subjective and thus cannot be wrong unless directly contradicted by facts. Now before you jump on this, your "facts" had very little to do with my game-play (not enough enemies and they wern't tough enough/plain not a threat for me to want to engage them, ect. ect.)

An adventure game is a game where you explore. And TP gave you that option. The genre of the game has absolutely nothing to do with side quests.

What I SHOULD'VE said was that 'there isn't a reason for me to explore'. Side quests, really, are there to point you to rewards and give you some direction on where to go (IMO).

Lol wut? Do you realize what you just said? If it has the same control scheme, it has the same controls.

You summed up what I meant below.

And of course it has a different manner of play. It's a transformation. And this is especially hypocritical because you sing the never-ending praises of MM's transformations, which play differently than normal Link.

Hey, the difference between MM's transformations and TP's transformation is this: MM's transformations were a pleasure to transform into, and they were varied and different enough to make me like each of them. Wolf Link tries to take several roles away from 'main' Link, thus making it not much different beyond the 'main Link' beyond the crappy combat controls, enhanced senses, ability to dig and a dark energy field that takes almost all the challenge out of combat. (IMO IMO IMO).

So was TP. And better gameplay certainly adds to how fun a game is.

Normally it does, but everything else wasn't as fun as I thought because there wasn't enough fun content to make up for all the boring bits.

If you could read, you would see that I listed far more than just controls. Stop ignoring one point in my argument in order to only argue against another.

No, that's all you did list was controls and how combat functioned (which is tied rather closely to controls, if not defined by how well the controls work).

I find uses for every single one of the sword techniques, and again, learn how to read. I also listed variations in sword combos, judging by what direction you move the control stick in while swinging your sword. Or, you can use the standard combo without moving the control stick.

Well goody for you. I, on the other hand just breeze through combat without getting hit because I already what works and what doesn't. I just listed what I thought was functional and what wasn't.

Epona can go anywhere in the overworld. And you're still wrong because you also use horseback combat in the Faron and Lanayru provinces during the escort mission.

I was talking about the option to go back and beat those enemies again. They arn't there. And what do I care if Epona can anywhere in the overworld? How does that change your argument at all other than distorting the original one? The original argument was that horsemounted combat wasn't used enough for me. FOR ME.

I'm not in any way being a fanboy. I already acknowledged flaws in TP. I am merely defending TP from unwarranted criticism from people like you who feel fit to hunt for flaws in the game.

You're defending a game which has quite a few flaws and your ignoring them. Hunting for flaws is nessescary for formulating an objective view point, because if you don't know everything, how can you view something objectively?

You did not just say this. Fighting enemies doesn't have an impact on gameplay? It IS gameplay.

And thus you ignore my meaning: There wern't enough of them and they wern't tough enough to be worth my time (note the my) if I'm not fighting as much as you'd think I'd be in favor of doing something else, then combat isn't as prominant as you'd think it'd be.

It wasn't that big of an issue for most people.

It is for me, thus why it's in the review.

I never said it was bad. I merely said it's difficulty mainly comes from being a side scroller.

I'm going to trust you've never plaid the game, because the AI in this game extremely good. Enemies dodged you and while attacking, Darknuts blocked (this isn't really unusual, but it requires a large amount of skill to get past their shield, IMO).

Maybe because you ignore OoT's gameplay flaws in favor of exploiting TP's?

You be fair to both games, you have to judge the games by the time period they were made and released in (there's that content inflation thing again). OoT was made in early 2000. It had more than enough content to be considered 'filled'. TP was made in 2006 and didn't have enough content to be considered 'filled'.

"Better" is a manner of perspective.

I'm amazed you figured that out.

Every un-skippable cutscene had to do with gameplay.

No it didn't. Some just told you that a bridge collapsed under your feet. And what if I didn't want to see that cut-scene? What if I already knew what to do?

This is your point of view, so it's not even worth arguing about. I highly prefer to actually see it happening. If the you hear the sound, that means it already happened.

No, if you hear the sound, that would me that it's happening as the sound plays. It gives you the option of turning around or simply continuing on your way.

If you're referring to the Mary Sue test, no, I haven't taken it, because it's horribly inaccurate and lists characters with any importance or interesting traits as Mary Sues by default.

Ummm...you realise a lot of original fiction authors use this test to ensure that their character is believable? Including me? And how would you know, you've never taken it.

Link is the savior of the game. He's still the main character. Midna is a person in need. She's only there to represent the effect kindness can have on even the meanest characters. Except Ganon. And Zant. And every major Zelda villain.

Is he the savior? Yes. Is he the one the plot focuses on (as it should)? No.

If he didn't know Link existed, why would he be waiting at the Castle? He knew Midna wasn't alone.

And what on Earth could convince you of this? What evidence do you have that Ganondorf wasn't simply waiting at the castle because he considered it to be his castle?

Wrong. The Triforce was mentioned many times since pretty much the beginning of the game.

But never a focus of the plot, which is what I meant. And besides, it was only mentioned a couple of times but not really in very important conversations (except the one with Ganondorf). Unless you have a counting to try to prove me wrong again...

That makes no sense. He wasn't referring to Zelda's soul moving Midna around or affect her decisions. Learn how to interpret quotes. He was referring to Zelda and Link turning Midna into a better person. Midna herself even states this to be the exact case right before you go into the Twilight Realm to kill Zant.

And now you've lost me, or proven that you're critical reading skills need work. I would say he KNEW (beyond a doubt) that Zelda transfered her essence to Midna (he had her body and he knew magic; it's a safe bet). He did not know about Link. There was nothing in the game to indicate this. He never saw Link before, so how could he know?

To kill Zant. They were powerless against Ganon to show that the game belongs to the Triforce bearers and the fact that the goddesses are and always have been significantly more powerful than the power of the Interlopers.

But you didn't really need to kill Zant, you needed to kill Ganondorf, which is why the Fused Shadow is a pointless artifact.

All of the story-related cut scenes are skippable.

#1: Most story related cut scenes have to much dialogue for my tastes, saying things that could easily be said by facial expression.

#2: I wasn't talking about those anyway.

Almost every one of your points has been about how the game failed from a gameplay standpoint. That's not an opinion, it's false.

*buzzer sounds*

Oh, yes it is. If I'm not having fun, and I have reasons for not having fun, that's an opinion. Yes, it's my opinion, just like how TP was the best Zelda game ever is your opinion.

And almost everything you said was wrong with the game was either biased or just simply wrong.

Biased by my own opinion? Yeah, pretty much. Nothing wrong with that. I have high expectations (IMO).

Simply wrong? No such thing as a wrong opinion unless previously disproved by facts. Your so called facts did nothing to my opinion.

I wasn't referring to you in my final paragraph. I was referring to the fact that the vast majority of those who make complaints about TP are biased and nostalgia-blinded, although you do fit the former label right now.

Yes, bias toward what I expect from a game vs what I got is definantly a bad bias.

All of the above can be summed up as "I don't like the game that much." But if you're going to broadcast your opinion on a forum of fans who are willing to defend this game, subjectivity has to be thrown out the window in favor of objectivity and facts.

See also; PRACTICE. And there's plenty of critics of this game on this site. I side with them. Reviewers and critics are expected and meant to go into serious detail of what bugs them and what doesn't. That's what I did.

Because it perfected the gameplay formula introduced in OoT just as ALTTP perfected the gameplay formula introduced in LoZ, I'd have to disagree with you completely on this one.

Parts of the formula shouldn't have been used at all, repetetive bits that out class and out number the previous titles have caused me to think I'm right.

So yes, we agree to disagree.

And yet you, along with almost every other Zelda fan, completely ignores the flaws of older games while complaining endlessly about them in newer ones. This behavior is not okay at all. It only shows bias. If TP didn't fix those flaws, that in and of itself could be seen as a flaw, but if you're going to call it a flaw, you damn well better say the same about every previous Zelda with that flaw.

Hey, now. You've never seen me review OoT. You've never seen me review Majora's Mask and you've never read a review of me looking at Wind Waker. How do you know I'm biased? I'd say your biased because you arn't taking into account that all of those games were made quite a while ago, thus, while the flaws are still there, that just means they arn't as bad as they are now (This flaw was excusable back then, but not now, when we have the power to fix it).

On a side note, I might download 3D game studios and start on that Zelda fangame that I've been thinking about making. Might take a while, buuuut...

Originally Posted by Fulcon

No it didn't. Some just told you that a bridge collapsed under your feet. And what if I didn't want to see that cut-scene? What if I already knew what to do?

Oh no! Heaven forbid you might see the same 5-second cutscene once each time you play the game... >_>

Whether you knew what to do or not is irrelevant. Everyone plays the game for a first time - do you think Nintendo should have just axed that cutscene just because people might decide to play the game again?

I get the feeling you're just playing the game for the sake of playing it - not for the fun and the experience. The cutscenes are part of the experience. Get over it.

Combat was rather boring once you got past the first half of the game, because so little actually challenged you. Darknuts were especially challenging, but you don't see them everywhere. Ergo, I was hoping for some more challenging mooks to keep me busy, but Nintendo didn't provide.

+1

The biggest problem with TP is that there was no challenge at all with the enemies or bosses, with few exceptions (like the ball-and-chain knight in the Snowpeak Temple and horseback Ganondorf, in my opinion). The simplicity of the game was insulting to me as a Zelda fan. I was expecting a challenge. Instead, I felt like I was getting laughed at.

The enemies were the most pathetic of any Zelda game.
The hearts provided to replenish your health was way too genrous.
The special sword skills, though they were "cool," gave the enemies even less of a chance against Link.

My second time through the game, I decided to 1.) avoid heart containers after bosses and 2.) avoid the special sword skills. And I still never died.

But that's not all, I got more to say later, but I don't have time now. I got alot to say about TP and how it's the reason the Zelda series is in jeopardy of going stale and dying.

Originally Posted by calc84maniac

Oh no! Heaven forbid you might see the same 5-second cutscene once each time you play the game... >_>

Whether you knew what to do or not is irrelevant. Everyone plays the game for a first time - do you think Nintendo should have just axed that cutscene just because people might decide to play the game again?

I get the feeling you're just playing the game for the sake of playing it - not for the fun and the experience. The cutscenes are part of the experience. Get over it.

But see, it got to insulting levels where they hit you over the head with the solution even when it's blatantly obvious. Isn't the point of a puzzle to figure it out?

I thought those cut scenes were jarring the first time I played.

And no, I don't think I will get over it.

Originally Posted by MrBaconsock

I believe that one's opinion on TP depends heavily on weather or not they watched the early trailers for the game.

I can't believe that some people actually HATED it.

No it doesn't. I first finished TP completely unaware of the trailers, and it was STILL disappointing.

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

You have no idea what content is, do you?

Well the overworld lacked SOMETHING, and it felt quite empty to me.

Originally Posted by Ramza

Since Link92 is basically saying everything I'd like to say, I'd like to reinforce what he's saying again.

Quit reviewing this game with bias, and stating your opinion as fact.

We're smart enough to know that our opinions are opinions. Stop telling us that our opinions are wrong.

Double A, I do believe you have a friend request coming your way.

Damn bro, whenever there is a slight complaint about TP, Link92 ALWAYS has to jump in to start a never ending debate.

Seriously, is it your goal to humiliate all TP-haters? I realize that some complaints are nonsensical but why waste your time arguing against someone/people who you know will NEVER LISTEN?

P.S. I'm not taking sides, this is just a question that I HAD to ask

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Double A, I do believe you have a friend request coming your way.

Wonder who it could be from...

I've had a few unanswered requests, and I've decided to befriend them all today.

Just because we're die-hard Zelda fans doesn't mean we have to bow down to every game like it's a product from the gods and throw perfect scores at it. Twilight Princess was a pointless game. For a series that is have been around longer than I have, for TP to do nothing unique and be "just another Zelda game" was just heart breaking to me. For it to not be the truly epic game could have been to be was disappointing. For it to be such lacking in challenge was insulting. Though it was a good game, I feel like Nintendo shouldn't have bothered making it.

Originally Posted by MYK1217

Just because we're die-hard Zelda fans doesn't mean we have to bow down to every game like it's a product from the gods and throw perfect scores at it. Twilight Princess was a pointless game. For a series that is have been around longer than I have, for TP to do nothing unique and be "just another Zelda game" was just heart breaking to me. For it to not be the truly epic game could have been to be was disappointing. For it to be such lacking in challenge was insulting. Though it was a good game, I feel like Nintendo shouldn't have bothered making it.

****ing marry me, right now.

This guy has it.

However, about the difficulty, while it was too easy, it wasn't so by far.

Twilight Princess wasn't that easy. It didn't give you 99 force fairies which would automatically heal you fully when you died. Not that easy. Infact fairies only heal 8 in TP...there was a point in TP where I died and a fairy rose up, and just as I healed I died again....all in one single swift hit, I lost 2 fairies. It was pretty shocking.

But either way TWW holds all the problems TP did. It was a major flaw in 2003 and it still is now. People have called Zelda stale for maaaany years, and they've been callin every addition more of the same since forever. So, I don't give a crap. It's a freakin' series. If I didn't want an overworld with a healther amount of dungeons I wouldn't play Zelda at all. If TP was unnecessary than so is the entire series's continuation. So is Nintendo in general. Give it a freakin' break before the Zelda team throws another Crossbow training/Adventure of Link at us.

If your comparing Zelda to Oblivion then that's crap. They're completely different genres and from what I can tell, Zelda seems to be a more pick-up-and-play more indepth, classic and pure experience anyways.

Sidequests are great. Yeah, I know. Not everyone plays a game so they can find every bonus glowy gem. I actually play games for the raw substance, I wanna play the game for the main reason of its existence. If that's some horrible god forsaken way to play a game then I'm sorry. Go play sims then.

Zeldablue. Take a few deep breaths.

... and look up the word opinion...

Originally Posted by Fulcon

DUH. Of course it's my opinion. And you've been stating quite a few things as fact yourself so stop harping about people stating their opinions as fact. Because if you honestly have a problem with this, I can't how you function in reality because EVERYONE DOES IT.

The only things I have been stating as facts were facts.

FACT: TP's overworld has many enemies and overworld puzzles, more than any previous 3D Zelda title.

FACT: TP's horseback riding is more fluid than that of OoT and offers more options.

FACT: Sword combat in TP contains more variety than any previous Zelda game.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

It was hardly any fun because the dungeon wasn't big enough. Isn't the final dungeon supposed to be, you'd think, much, much bigger than the previous dungeons. There was only one or two puzzles per room, and while the rooms were pretty big (and I'm not counting the court yard sections because, those, actually, were alot of fun IMO).

Since when has any Zelda dungeon contained more than two or three different puzzles in a single room?

Originally Posted by Fulcon

I'm not saying you can't. You can. Go ahead. I just don't understand why when the enemies respawn to fast to make a difference and I don't know how wailing on weak enemies is fun because they don't present a challenge (IMO).

Because killing enemies in a Zelda game is fun. It'd be a pretty piss-poor Zelda game if common foot soldiers could kill you, and you'd be a pretty sucky player.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

But they do exist IMO (and I like hot sauce). That's why I pointed them out. That's why the review is called 'FULCON'S REVIEW', thus indicating that everything inside is 'FULCON'S OPINION'. You seem to use the 'stating opinion is fact' whenever you see an opinion you don't like even if it doesn't apply and then say that their wrong.

No. I call opinions wrong when the support for these opinions is comprised of incorrect statements. I'm sure you recall my hot sauce vs ice cream comparison. If you say that, in your opinion, ice cream sucks because it's too hot, despite the fact that you constantly put hot sauce on your food, your opinion is worthless because you used completely idiotic/wrong support for your opinion.

People say TP has "no soul" while completely choosing to forget Link's relationship with the village children, Midna's character development, Zant's craziness, etc, and at the same time claiming that all of OoT's characters were full of emotion and reason to sympathize with them.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

#1: Everyone states their opinion as fact. EVERYONE. Even you.

No, as I said before, I use facts to explain why somebody is wrong. That, or I simply point out the hypocrisy and bias in a person's complaints.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

#2: Opinion's are subjective and thus cannot be wrong unless directly contradicted by facts.

And it's a fact that TP's gameplay offers more variety and diversity as well as functionality than previous titles.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Now before you jump on this, your "facts" had very little to do with my game-play (not enough enemies and they wern't tough enough/plain not a threat for me to want to engage them, ect. ect.)

Who engages enemies in Zelda because they're a threat? You engage them in combat because it's fun.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

What I SHOULD'VE said was that 'there isn't a reason for me to explore'. Side quests, really, are there to point you to rewards and give you some direction on where to go (IMO).

Your loss. I explore every conceivable area because it's fun.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Hey, the difference between MM's transformations and TP's transformation is this: MM's transformations were a pleasure to transform into,

And you're not going to "convince" everyone that wolf form is NOT a pleasure to transform into, because many people like it. You're not just stating your opinions as fact anymore, you're telling people what their opinions should be.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

and they were varied and different enough to make me like each of them.

You're comparing 4 different mask transformations to one single wolf transformation. Not a fair comparison at all.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Wolf Link tries to take several roles away from 'main' Link, thus making it not much different beyond the 'main Link' beyond the crappy combat controls, enhanced senses, ability to dig and a dark energy field that takes almost all the challenge out of combat. (IMO IMO IMO).

Being forced to use the Dark Energy Field to kill the Shadow Beasts adds a lot of challenge, to the contrary. It takes time to load, time in which the Shadow Beasts will interrupt you by attacking. This is quite challenging early on.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Normally it does, but everything else wasn't as fun as I thought because there wasn't enough fun content to make up for all the boring bits.

This is an opinion I can defend, even though I don't even remotely agree with it. Do you see the difference between how you're stating your opinion here than everywhere else in your posts?

Originally Posted by Fulcon

No, that's all you did list was controls and how combat functioned (which is tied rather closely to controls, if not defined by how well the controls work).

Zelda's gameplay is, for the most part, about how well the combat functions. You can't deny with subjectivity that TP's gameplay is more polished and refined than earlier titles while being about on par with WW, although movement is much easier in TP because child Link (WW) has very short legs, making movement a bit slower.

This polish and refinement comes into play extremely well during projectile aiming with the Wii pointer. It's literally control perfection.

And gameplay is what real video game critics look at first, unlike Zelda fans, who mostly ignore it.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

You're defending a game which has quite a few flaws and your ignoring them.

No, you completely ignored my previous posts where I DID cite flaws in TP. Namely the lack of useful sidequest and exploration rewards, enemies and bosses not doing enough damage, and Zelda and Ganon not getting enough screen time. However, these flaws do not make me any less confident in my rating of this game being a 10/10. I don't consider a 10/10 to be a perfect game, merely a game of my absolute highest recommendation.

And the rewards flaws do not make exploration any less fun in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Hunting for flaws is nessescary for formulating an objective view point, because if you don't know everything, how can you view something objectively?

No it's not necessary. It's just a sign of nitpicking. If a flaw is truly a serious flaw, it would be painfully obvious at first glance. If you have to "hunt" for flaws, that means they're not serious enough because, if they were, you wouldn't have to go out of your way to look for them.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

And thus you ignore my meaning: There wern't enough of them and they wern't tough enough to be worth my time (note the my) if I'm not fighting as much as you'd think I'd be in favor of doing something else, then combat isn't as prominant as you'd think it'd be.

You're using the wrong words. The enemies in Twilight Princess are more than prominent. You're just not making fun use of them. And if they weren't enough for you, I can't believe you were satisfied with them in OoT, WW, and MM, which all had far fewer enemies than TP.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

I'm going to trust you've never plaid the game, because the AI in this game extremely good. Enemies dodged you and while attacking, Darknuts blocked (this isn't really unusual, but it requires a large amount of skill to get past their shield, IMO).

I've played the game for about 2 minutes. However, in my experience, a game being a sidescroller alone makes it more difficult.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

You be fair to both games, you have to judge the games by the time period they were made and released in (there's that content inflation thing again). OoT was made in early 2000. It had more than enough content to be considered 'filled'.

1.) No, it was released in 1998.

2.) It had plenty of enemies in dungeons and plenty of NPCs in towns, as well as quite a few Stalchildren at night, even though night lasted for only about 2 minutes. If they were capable of all that, there is NO excuse for OoT's lack of overworld content during the latter half of the game. No excuse whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

TP was made in 2006 and didn't have enough content to be considered 'filled'.

According to your high standards. I have yet to play any video game with a greater level of overworld size, content, and exploration factor.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

And what if I didn't want to see that cut-scene? What if I already knew what to do?

You wouldn't know if it was your first playthrough, which you're not taking into consideration. Seriously, why are we even talking about this? It means nothing.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Ummm...you realise a lot of original fiction authors use this test to ensure that their character is believable? Including me? And how would you know, you've never taken it.

The test ensures that any character with any kind of power or interesting trait is classified as a Mary Sue. It also doesn't in any way measure HOW that character uses those traits, so it cannot identify a Mary Sue character.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Is he the savior? Yes. Is he the one the plot focuses on (as it should)? No.

I disagree. Many characters talk about him and the hero.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

And what on Earth could convince you of this? What evidence do you have that Ganondorf wasn't simply waiting at the castle because he considered it to be his castle?

Right, because it's not as if Ganondorf has anything better to do than randomly sit on a throne for no reason at all. He clearly knew about Link and Midna because as soon as they left after Zelda's sacrifice, he swooped in and took the Castle.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

But never a focus of the plot, which is what I meant. And besides, it was only mentioned a couple of times but not really in very important conversations (except the one with Ganondorf). Unless you have a counting to try to prove me wrong again...

Faron tells you about it after you gain your tunic, Zelda tells you about it in both cutscenes in which you meet her as a wolf, the Sages mention it after Arbiter's Grounds, and I could go on.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

And now you've lost me, or proven that you're critical reading skills need work. I would say he KNEW (beyond a doubt) that Zelda transfered her essence to Midna (he had her body and he knew magic; it's a safe bet). He did not know about Link. There was nothing in the game to indicate this. He never saw Link before, so how could he know?

Because I highly doubt so many soldiers like King Bulbin and the Shadow Beasts would get their asses handed to them by Link without telling their leader who did it. And Ganon had guards all over Hyrule Castle, including King Bulblin, who he trusted enough to give the key to the Castle, hoping he would be able to defeat Link. And Ganondorf knows as well as any important Hyrulean character that there are three pieces of the Triforce.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

But you didn't really need to kill Zant, you needed to kill Ganondorf, which is why the Fused Shadow is a pointless artifact.

You needed to kill Zant because of all the crap he put you through. The second half of the game basically goes:

Zant stole your stuff. Go kick his ass and then kill his daddy, Ganon.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Simply wrong? No such thing as a wrong opinion unless previously disproved by facts. Your so called facts did nothing to my opinion.

My facts proved that TP's overworld, which you considered in your first post was empty, is not actually empty. They also proved that TP has more gameplay options than many other games in the series.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

See also; PRACTICE. And there's plenty of critics of this game on this site. I side with them. Reviewers and critics are expected and meant to go into serious detail of what bugs them and what doesn't. That's what I did.

Fans are not critics by any professional measure of the word. They're whiny, complaining dip****s who will never be happy no matter what concession you make.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

I'd say your biased because you arn't taking into account that all of those games were made quite a while ago, thus, while the flaws are still there, that just means they arn't as bad as they are now (This flaw was excusable back then, but not now, when we have the power to fix it).

Every flaw I've ever cited about OoT, MM, and WW (although I never really talk about WW) have absolutely nothing to do with technological limitations. They had the technology to put more enemies in the overworld of OoT, as shown in the first half of the game, etc.

Originally Posted by Double A

Zeldablue. Take a few deep breaths.

... and look up the word opinion...

Hm, I already know what it means, and I don't really see why you want me to know what one is. Generally speaking though...How does one hate a Zelda game. Every Zelda game from 1986 to 2007 has been extremely similar, with maybe the exception on AoL. If you love one of them, hating another seems to be rather superficial. Wouldn't you agree?

Fans are not critics by any professional measure of the word. They're whiny, complaining dip****s who will never be happy no matter what concession you make.

You're the one that can't accept that somebody isn't bowing down to Twilight Princess like it's a product of the gods doused in holy water. Why are we not allowed to criticize this game? Where's the sin in criticizing this game?

What is the matter with you? He has an OPINION that differs from your OPINION. Deal with it and stop crying about it.

I think Link92 finds that Fulcon's reasons for not liking the game are not good enough to support a review. A review isn't really about an opinion it's an overview of how the game works and tells the reader if its a must buy or a pass.

But I mean, TP is a must buy on the Wii anyways...so.

Originally Posted by MYK1217

You're the one that can't accept that somebody isn't bowing down to Twilight Princess like it's a product of the gods doused in holy water.

Wrong on so many levels. I don't know how many times I have to explain this before you people understand. I have no problem with people disliking TP. But if you're going to state WHY you dislike TP, you'd better explain it as personal interest instead of telling people incorrect crap about how empty the overworld is.

Originally Posted by MYK1217

Why are we not allowed to criticize this game? Where's the sin in criticizing this game?

If you payed attention, you would see that I have already criticized TP's lack of proper rewards for side quests, lack of enough screen time for Zelda and Ganon, and enemies that don't do enough damage. If I was some idiotic fanboy, I would not be acknowledging TP's flaws. However, how I let these flaws affect my interest in the game is another story.

Originally Posted by MYK1217

What is the matter with you? He has an OPINION that differs from your OPINION. Deal with it and stop crying about it.

Or, maybe he should say "I don't like this aspect" and leave it at that instead of getting facts wrong.

Originally Posted by Zeldablue777

Hm, I already know what it means, and I don't really see why you want me to know what one is. Generally speaking though...How does one hate a Zelda game. Every Zelda game from 1986 to 2007 has been extremely similar, with maybe the exception on AoL. If you love one of them, hating another seems to be rather superficial. Wouldn't you agree?

Don't act as if similarity to past games isn't a flaw.

It was a flaw in OoT and every Zelda that followed it.

However, it was more so for TP, since TP was more of a "refinement" to Zelda's gameplay than a "bring something new to the table".

And don't act as if we hate TP. Again, disappointing, not bad.