OOT isn't the only thing TP "ripped-off"

Before I start, I've read a few posts about TP and how it "rips-off" OoT. (I feel indifferent about it), so let's not get into an arguement about whether it did or not.

Many have voiced their dissapointment over Zant going crazy, but maybe the developers had inspiration for it. What other "crazy" enemies have we had? Majora's Mask seemed to be "crazy". Perhaps they borrowed a leaf from that game as well to make TP.

Thoughts?

This seems a little vague to get any rip off parts from Majora's Mask out of this. I 'v been playing the game for awhile and haven't found many more references than skullkid. There probably may be some small ones here and there but I believe there is nothing signifigant.

People do say that the tribe from Termina that created Majora's Mask is actually the same tribe that Zant is from, basically they became the Shadow People or whatever. If I can find the video I will post it because it gave very good arguments as to how the two games are linked. It is still mainly speculation by someone but people use it as an argument in a lot of places, mostly because this guy backed himself up with a ton of facts.

So from that, you can gather that I think it does have something to do with MM. To me, it doesn't really even rip off OoT. Its just another game in Hyrule, something we hadn't seen since OoT. Sure you have repeated items but in that scenario you could say OoT ripped off Zelda I and II as well as ALttP, and every game after OoT ripped off those games. The entire series rips of each other game basically. But in this case, it does show similarities to MM.

OoT ripped off ALttP more than TP ripped off OoT

Still, claiming that the games ripped off another just because they have similar elements is ridiculous

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

OoT ripped off ALttP more than TP ripped off OoT

Still, claiming that the games ripped off another just because they have similar elements is ridiculous

That's why the term 'ripping off' is simply too strong a word. These games simply went in the same formulaic direction, as in they worked on doing what the series does best.

Anyway, I'd say the whole craziness thing in this case is simply a coincidence at best. Even then, I feel that they represented two different kinds of insanity. Where Majora's erratic mannerisms and such (which were really only all that prominent during Majora's incarnation) seem to represent that he was some mindless, unintelligent beast to begin with (which is still contradicted by his clear sentience shown during the climax of the story, though in a game where you can turn back time at any point you wish, the term climax is a loose one), Zan't's seemed more like the kind that, beyond a cold and calculating facade, represented the 'lust for power' that all saw in his eyes and how it effected him when he finally realized he was denied kingship, and when he finally gained an even greater power-Ganondorf's power-that may be how his outer persona may have surfaced over his latent insanity. That, and his supposed desire for power most likely may have had to do with how he viewed the life of the twili in the Twilight Realm ("like insects in a forgotten cage" who "knew neither anger or hatred, or even the faintest sense of desire" and had "resigned themselves to a miserable half-existence").

Or something like that.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

That's why the term 'ripping off' is simply too strong a word. These games simply went in the same formulaic direction, as in they worked on doing what the series does best.

No, LttP getting copied by OoT was simply going in the same formulaic direction. TP was way more than that.

What LttP and OoT had in common was the progression of 3 dungeons -> Master Sword -> More dungeons to complete a newly discovered second objective -> opening a way to Ganon's lair -> Fighting Ganon. That and some returning items and landmarks and main characters that most Zelda games do anyways.

What OoT and TP had in common was a lot more specific. On top of that exact same formula: the progression of dungeons from Forest (home) -> Fire (Death Mountain) -> Water (Lake Hylia) -> Spirit (Gerudo Desert), having the first dungeon after obtaining the Master Sword have the objective of hunting down the four poes that stole the fire from the torches of the main room and sealed the way forward, starting the game by having Link get woken up in his tree-house in a small forest village, Link not being allowed to progress to the first major objective because an obnoxious little person won't let him through an entrance without his sword and shield, Death Mountain acting up due to a monster trapped inside, Zora's Domain being frozen and Lake Hylia being diminished, hunting golden bugs (for bigger wallets) and hunting for items to cure a greedy man of his curse (for the ultimate prize of a full wallet every time you go see him) both of them clearly derived from the same Gold Skulltula quest, an annoying "helper" character who never shuts up and won't let you think for yourself...
I've more than likely missed a lot of things but this should give you an idea.


What the series does best is change. It changes more than any other series besides maybe Final Fantasy or Mario if you include all their spin-offs. Every good Zelda (and also Phantom Hourglass) does something new with its gameplay. Twilight Princess was afraid to do anything new except an original storyline and about two dungeons; every time it started to do something, anything, new with gameplay it just introduced it and then never touched the concept again.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

an annoying "helper" character who never shuts up and won't let you think for yourself...

Midna never speaks unless something important is about to happen or you actually speak to her first. She doesn't interrupt you in the middle of gameplay like Navi does. And Midna had character development.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

Twilight Princess was afraid to do anything new except an original storyline and about two dungeons; every time it started to do something, anything, new with gameplay it just introduced it and then never touched the concept again.

That bolded part is actually entirely untrue. Everything it introduces is used multiple times.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

No, LttP getting copied by OoT was simply going in the same formulaic direction. TP was way more than that.

What LttP and OoT had in common was the progression of 3 dungeons -> Master Sword -> More dungeons to complete a newly discovered second objective -> opening a way to Ganon's lair -> Fighting Ganon. That and some returning items and landmarks and main characters that most Zelda games do anyways.

No, that's just the simple modernization of the games. What you're referring to is simply a coincidence of that. ALTTP came in at a time when games were not as advanced as when OOT came out. TP came out when games were technologically more advanced, but funtionally similar.

What OoT and TP had in common was a lot more specific. On top of that exact same formula: the progression of dungeons from Forest (home) -> Fire (Death Mountain) -> Water (Lake Hylia) -> Spirit (Gerudo Desert), having the first dungeon after obtaining the Master Sword have the objective of hunting down the four poes that stole the fire from the torches of the main room and sealed the way forward, starting the game by having Link get woken up in his tree-house in a small forest village, Link not being allowed to progress to the first major objective because an obnoxious little person won't let him through an entrance without his sword and shield, Death Mountain acting up due to a monster trapped inside, Zora's Domain being frozen and Lake Hylia being diminished, hunting golden bugs (for bigger wallets) and hunting for items to cure a greedy man of his curse (for the ultimate prize of a full wallet every time you go see him) both of them clearly derived from the same Gold Skulltula quest, an annoying "helper" character who never shuts up and won't let you think for yourself...

That 'specification' is as I've said, little more than coincidential. It'd been said from the beginning that TP was intended to adhere more to what OOT did, and even beyond the formulaic similarities, what was done was done so as to be evolutionary, which is best done before ever trying to take a chance and change the formula.

I've more than likely missed a lot of things but this should give you an idea.

It has long since given me the idea that if it ain't broke don't fix it. Although fixing what AoL/MM broke is all that ALTTP and TP did. WW really is the closest thing to a healthy medium, but even that was held back by it's over reliance on what becomes tedius far too soon.

What the series does best is change. It changes more than any other series besides maybe Final Fantasy or Mario if you include all their spin-offs. Every good Zelda (and also Phantom Hourglass) does something new with its gameplay. Twilight Princess was afraid to do anything new except an original storyline and about two dungeons; every time it started to do something, anything, new with gameplay it just introduced it and then never touched the concept again.

Change is where Zelda has always failed, and the more significant changes are what brinig forth the worse games in the series. With AoL, we got a pitifully paced pseudo-action RPG that has since never been touched upon again sans the infamous CD-i games. Guess what they did after that hell-ride? They did the exact same thing TP did--switched the priorities back to where they belonged keeping the unique elements secondary. With MM, we got half a Zelda game tacked onto a glorified spin-off with stock characters that got too much screen time for their own good, and a nigh-non-existant focus on the main story. ALTTP and TP are examples of how if anything, they learned NOT to put changes to the formula in place of the refining the main elements of the formula as the main focus.

Back on topic; if Zant's a Majora rip-off, he sure was better at it.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

With MM, we got half a Zelda game tacked onto a glorified spin-off with stock characters that got too much screen time for their own good, and a nigh-non-existant focus on the main story.

Whoa, whoa, while I agreed with the rest of your post, I would fight you to the death on this point. (Figuratively speaking) The Zelda series has always been victim to shallow stories and lack of character development. MM is a shining exception to that.

MM is more the shining example. If not strictly of shallow characters and story, then still poor focus on such things as cahracters and story--if that's a clear enough rephrasal. Giving the supporting cast more prominence than the main characters to the point of nearly replacing them as the major focus is just short of convoluted were it not for how little they actually did focus on the main characters in MM. The same is basically applicable for the story itself. Spending more time on the side stories than the main one until you're 95% through the game simply makes for a weak story altogether. The characters did nothing for Link as a character (not even the ones directly involved with him like Tatl and the Happy Mask Salesman), and only in LA, TP, and (partially) WW was that ever done to a notable degree. I'm not about to say that one engaged couple and a cute little farm girl is a big enough exception to be regarded as an excuse, esepciallly since, like most other things awarded to you after the longer quests in MM, all the work was for a very useless reward.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

MM is more the shining example. If not strictly of shallow characters and story, then still poor focus on such things as cahracters and story--if that's a clear enough rephrasal.

I didn't have a problem with how your statement was phrased; I merely strongly disagreed with it.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

Giving the supporting cast more prominence than the main characters to the point of nearly replacing them as the major focus is just short of convoluted were it not for how little they actually did focus on the main characters in MM.

Main characters are nothing without a strong supporting cast. Without a strong supporting cast, the main characters have nothing to stand out against. MM's main characters didn't need much focus. Link is already probably traumatized by what he saw in Hyrule and Termina. He's practically a shell-shocked veteran inside a ten-year old's body. That much we can already infer. The fact is, placing more emphasis on supporting characters is what made MM so significant. For once it felt like the world was bigger than just Link and his adventures, something no other game since then has been able to emulate.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

The same is basically applicable for the story itself. Spending more time on the side stories than the main one until you're 95% through the game simply makes for a weak story altogether.

That's not really how it worked. Most of the sidequests occurred because of the harmful aftereffects of Skull Kid's evil deeds. Most of them were small scale, but they added to the main story collectively.

It's much like voting. Individually, a person's vote doesn't make much of a difference. But when you group all of those people together in one group, they DO make a difference. It's the same thing with MM's sidequests. Individually, they didn't add much to the main quest, but grouped together, you realize that they are all pieces to a much bigger world.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

The characters did nothing for Link as a character (not even the ones directly involved with him like Tatl and the Happy Mask Salesman), and only in LA, TP, and (partially) WW was that ever done to a notable degree.

But whether that's good or not is debateable (Did I spell that right?) Personally, I find the prominence of supporting characters in TP to be that game's biggest flaw. Games that center around the Triforce trio (Link, Zelda, and Ganon) should focus on those characters. Instead TP focused on Midna and Zant, which, while interesting for a while, became annoying when Midna became the first one Ganon spoke to in the final confrontation, and Zelda's appearances were limited to three cutscenes. With MM, this was okay, because it had a different story that changed things up.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

I'm not about to say that one engaged couple and a cute little farm girl is a big enough exception to be regarded as an excuse, esepciallly since, like most other things awarded to you after the longer quests in MM, all the work was for a very useless reward.

I won't really argue about that point because it's different for different people. That's why I hate getting into debates about whether items or rewards are useful or not. It all depends on the creativity of the player. Personally, I found all of those sidequests to be 100% worth it because of the Fierce Diety Mask.

I don't really define 'ripped off' as "the main villains are both crazy." That isn't really ripping off as much as a coincidence. No, TP primarily belongs to OoT. Your connection between the two stories is a little... vague.

Originally Posted by ngreenway

I don't really define 'ripped off' as "the main villains are both crazy." That isn't really ripping off as much as a coincidence. No, TP primarily belongs to OoT. Your connection between the two stories is a little... vague.

It's also pointless to refer to it as a ripoff considering it's a sequel from the same series.

Originally Posted by Link92

That bolded part is actually entirely untrue. Everything it introduces is used multiple times.

The hawk, only in Ordon and once on Death Mountain but it was both optional and largely ineffective compared to the slingshot or, hell, just running.
Gale function of Gale Boomerang, only in the dungeon it was introduced and the second trip to the Lost Woods.
Sumo wrestling, learned it and then used it once and only once.
Magnet function of Iron Boots, only in the dungeon it was introduced and one cave that had some money in it.
Zora Armor, only in the dungeon it was introduced and getting chests in Lake Hylia.
Spinner Tracks, only in the dungeon it was introduced, one spot in Hyrule Castle, and three or four chests in the field (which is to say it was ignored by three whole dungeons).
Cannon puzzles, only in the dungeon that introduced it.
Double Clawshot, actually made use of an appropriate amount considering when it was obtained, so that's cool.

So I guess "only once" could be replaced by "between one and three times".
I may have forgotten something, but more than likely if I didn't mention it here that's because it wasn't new.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

No, that's just the simple modernization of the games. What you're referring to is simply a coincidence of that. ALTTP came in at a time when games were not as advanced as when OOT came out. TP came out when games were technologically more advanced, but funtionally similar.

But between OoT and MM or WW, there was a great deal of change in gameplay. The games were advancing, doing new things and doing them well.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

That 'specification' is as I've said, little more than coincidential. It'd been said from the beginning that TP was intended to adhere more to what OOT did, and even beyond the formulaic similarities, what was done was done so as to be evolutionary, which is best done before ever trying to take a chance and change the formula.

First "connections are coincidental". Immediately after "connections are intentional". Make up your mind.
Evolution is change. A game that offers no change is not a game in which we find evolution.
Definition:

a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage

All the rest of the series changes, therefore the rest of the series evolves. Twilight Princess took us about four or five steps backwards in Zelda's evolution. Since it undid so much of the change.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

It has long since given me the idea that if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

Although fixing what AoL/MM broke is all that ALTTP and TP did.

Adventure of Link brought a lot to the series that still remains. AoL gave us towns, side-quests, magic, multi-floored dungeons, advanced shield-work, a bigger focus on the sword in combat and puzzle solving, and jumping.
So, yes, aLttP did fix what AoL broke. It did that by taking most of AoL's additions and making them work better. It abandoned exactly three concepts from AoL; side-scrolling (which was unpopular though not inherently flawed), leveling (which was redundant with hearts and equipment upgrades, anyways), and manual shielding (for reasons unknown, but they brought it back to stay with the next installment until just recently).
Majora's Mask was never "fixed" by anything. It relied on two unique mechanics: NPC schedules/time travel (they count as one, considering how they work together) and transforming into forms with functionally (not just aesthetically) unique abilities. Since both of these concepts were promptly abandoned and never built upon or polished, there was no repair whatsoever.
Twilight Princess, meanwhile, added nothing to the series but the Twilight Realm (which was and is totally sealed off and as such can never actually be further explored) and wolf transformation which didn't change much of anything, since previously existing items can do everything it did already. And the Ooccoo and Yeti which, honestly, don't add anything themselves.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

WW really is the closest thing to a healthy medium, but even that was held back by it's over reliance on what becomes tedius far too soon.

Some of us liked sailing. The longer travel times make the world feel more real and the open sea felt a lot more inviting to explore than enclosed fields with little to no vegetation or wildlife.
Yes, WW is a very healthy medium. Much like every other Zelda game before it, it expanded on most of what came before and added a healthy does of new.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

Change is where Zelda has always failed, and the more significant changes are what brinig forth the worse games in the series. With AoL, we got a pitifully paced pseudo-action RPG that has since never been touched upon again sans the infamous CD-i games. Guess what they did after that hell-ride? They did the exact same thing TP did--switched the priorities back to where they belonged keeping the unique elements secondary.

AoL was badly paced, yes. It was a pseudo-action RPG, yes, just as the rest of the 2D series has always been. Just now there's not experience points.
Calling the CD-i games to attention proves nothing, as the overhead CD-i game, Zelda's Adventure, was equally terrible. It's not the gameplay style of AoL that made the CD-i games "infamous" but the fact that they were made by ****ty developers.
In fact, only the 2D perspective was kept in the first two CD-i Zeldas, which didn't have the same focus on magic and didn't re-use the leveling system.
As I said, aLttP expanded on most of what AoL brought, not abandon it all outright like TP did to everything after OoT except one bit from MC (advanced combat maneuvers).
You want to see what potential AoL had if they stayed in side-scrolling? Play a handheld Castlevania game. Order of Ecclesia, since it's half level-based and half Metroidvania, would probably be the most appropriate comparison. Portrait of Ruin would also work.
Hell, even try out the fan-made Legend of Princess.
Link to the Past took most AoL's concepts and fused them with LoZ's. And it introduced a history, a mythology, a narrative, a new gameplay formula, and a crap-load of new items. It took from both previous games near equally and added a whole lot of new.

Side-scrolling Zelda or Zelda-likes isn't inherently flawed, it was just poorly executed the one time they tried it.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

With MM, we got half a Zelda game tacked onto a glorified spin-off with stock characters that got too much screen time for their own good, and a nigh-non-existant focus on the main story.

The main story was secondary to the characters' stories. It's a thematic decision quite appropriate to the game's overall tone.
We got half a Zelda game because it was a spin-off and was developed as a spin-off. It only had four major areas because it had a focus on sidequests, and with the 3-day cycle half of the exploration was in time instead of space.
Since it was easily the most different of all the Zelda games, to date, it's pretty obvious why it didn't take. In fact, had it not been a Zelda game, it would have been a lot better received.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

ALTTP and TP are examples of how if anything, they learned NOT to put changes to the formula in place of the refining the main elements of the formula as the main focus.

Except aLttP did change a lot. Play the first three Zeldas in order and you'll see how much aLttP reused from both games and how much it introduced in both story and gameplay. ALttP is not an example of what you say at all. And TP is a pretty terrible example because it was, comparatively, a pretty terrible Zelda, only PH managing to be worse.

Originally Posted by BloodRaw_Engine

Back on topic; if Zant's a Majora rip-off, he sure was better at it.

How so? You can't get away with not elaborating on that.

In that aspect, I'd say TP ripped off a third party series. One that everyone thought was forgotten.

'The Joker' much?

Originally Posted by Mandrag

The hawk, only in Ordon and once on Death Mountain but it was both optional and largely ineffective compared to the slingshot or, hell, just running.

Okay, I'll give you this one.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

Gale function of Gale Boomerang, only in the dungeon it was introduced and the second trip to the Lost Woods.

It could also be used to stop the rotating platform in the Flight-By-Foul minigame and its use was mandatory in Hyrule Castle. It's also incredibly useful against Guays.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

Sumo wrestling, learned it and then used it once and only once.

True. Unless you count Ganon wrangling as a kind of spin-off function.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

Magnet function of Iron Boots, only in the dungeon it was introduced and one cave that had some money in it.

Said cave also had a Heart Piece, but I see where you're coming from. Though I would like to point out that the Lakebed Temple and the City in the Sky both used the other functions of the Iron Boots to a significant degree.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

Zora Armor, only in the dungeon it was introduced and getting chests in Lake Hylia.

And I don't see why this is a major problem. OoT's Zora Tunic had the same problem and so did Zora Link. Besides, it was used for treasure chests in many other areas as well, but you did acknowledge that you may have left out some details.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

Spinner Tracks, only in the dungeon it was introduced, one spot in Hyrule Castle, and three or four chests in the field (which is to say it was ignored by three whole dungeons).

No. Its use was mandatory in both the Temple of Time and the City in the Sky. And it was also used for a puzzle in the Sacred Grove. It was only ignored by Snowpeak and the Palace of Twilight.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

Cannon puzzles, only in the dungeon that introduced it.

Of course. The Ball & Chain would have made more cannon puzzles redundant.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

So I guess "only once" could be replaced by "between one and three times".
I may have forgotten something, but more than likely if I didn't mention it here that's because it wasn't new.

I'm not sure what you mean by "new", but the items were certainly used more between dungeons than TP detractors remember. And this is my real gripe with this complaint: it all takes creativity to come up with unique uses for weapons.

You can complain if the game gives you items that are totally useless, but you can't complain if it's just the fact that you lack the creativity to use them in unique ways. And yes, it's possible to find a few uses for even the Dominion Rod outside of dungeons. I like to use it to get on top of the Bridge of Eldin and bomb the Bulblins from above. I don't see why people complain about this when the game allows you to use these items any way you want. The Hawkeye, for example, has proven to be one of my most useful items. And it's optional.

OoT has all the same problems. How many times have you used the Ice Arrows or the Mirror Shield. The Mirror shield was used once after its introductory dungeon. Deku nuts are almost useless. Farore's Wind? I never quit a game right in the middle of a dungeon anyway, and the game warps you out of the dungeon after you complete it.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

All the rest of the series changes, therefore the rest of the series evolves. Twilight Princess took us about four or five steps backwards in Zelda's evolution. Since it undid so much of the change.

Okay, no. TP did not undo anything. Nothing has changed about OoT, MM, or WW since TP was released. TP will not magically go back in time and make those games stale. The fact is, TP was not intended to be revolutionary. It was supposed to be a return to previous form. Anyone who played TP expecting something totally new played it for the wrong reasons, and that's the overarching problem. Expectations were way too high, and when your expectations are high, you're bound to be disappointed. I don't think detractors realize that.



TP improved the gameplay of OoT by adding a greater variety to combat while refining its functionality at the same time, enemies in the overworld (a much larger overworld), horseback gameplay that wasn't stiff and slow, etc.


This is also no different from Super Castlevania 4. It was less revolutionary than Castlevania 3 by going back to the 'only one useable character' thing and yet it was seen as being better than its predecessors because of the gameplay refinement and improved controls.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

Except aLttP did change a lot. Play the first three Zeldas in order and you'll see how much aLttP reused from both games and how much it introduced in both story and gameplay. ALttP is not an example of what you say at all. And TP is a pretty terrible example because it was, comparatively, a pretty terrible Zelda, only PH managing to be worse.

Do you not see what you're doing? You're using a personal opinion to state, as a fact, that TP is a "terrible" Zelda. You have no problem using "I liked sailing" to say that WW was an objectively good game and yet you refuse to accept that not everyone wanted TP to be revolutionary. Some people wanted a traditional Zelda. Personally, the sole reason I bought a Wii was because it had Twilight Princess (and Brawl) and I heard that TP wa similar to OoT. How many others do you think bought TP for that very same reason? A lot. You can't call TP and objectively "terribe Zelda" simply because it didn't give YOU what YOU wanted. Most people have NO idea what a "terrible game" even is.

Let me apologize in advance if I am repeating anybody, but THEY ARE ALL ZELDA GAMES. They are all in the same series, the ideas are supposed to be similar. There is no such thing as Zelda "ripping off" Zelda. Harry Potter 7 wasn't a rip-off because it stole ideas from Harry Potter 6. It's that simple. Even though the games are separate, they are in the same series.

Originally Posted by OrderOfTheMelae

Let me apologize in advance if I am repeating anybody, but THEY ARE ALL ZELDA GAMES. They are all in the same series, the ideas are supposed to be similar. There is no such thing as Zelda "ripping off" Zelda. Harry Potter 7 wasn't a rip-off because it stole ideas from Harry Potter 6. It's that simple. Even though the games are separate, they are in the same series.

One may argue that one Harry Potter installment stole a theme from another Harry Potter. The same applies with Zelda.

Originally Posted by Link92

It could also be used to stop the rotating platform in the Flight-By-Foul minigame and its use was mandatory in Hyrule Castle. It's also incredibly useful against Guays.

I wasn't aware of its ability to stop that platform. I'll grant you the putting out of the torch in Hyrule Castle, as well. But the gale function doesn't make it useful against guays so much the homing effect that all 3D Zelda boomerangs have.

Originally Posted by Link92

True. Unless you count Ganon wrangling as a kind of spin-off function.

That was a spin-off of goat wrangling and goron wrangling. Sumo wrestling played nothing like any of those.

Originally Posted by Link92

Said cave also had a Heart Piece, but I see where you're coming from. Though I would like to point out that the Lakebed Temple and the City in the Sky both used the other functions of the Iron Boots to a significant degree.

Right, but the other functions of the Iron Boots aren't new.

Originally Posted by Link92

And I don't see why this is a major problem. OoT's Zora Tunic had the same problem and so did Zora Link. Besides, it was used for treasure chests in many other areas as well, but you did acknowledge that you may have left out some details.

Zora Tunic was unnecessary for other chests, since the Iron Boots alone could get you in and out of the water in enough time that you wouldn't drown.

Originally Posted by Link92

No. Its use was mandatory in both the Temple of Time and the City in the Sky. And it was also used for a puzzle in the Sacred Grove. It was only ignored by Snowpeak and the Palace of Twilight.

I said Spinner tracks, like the wall-riding stuff. Its use in City in the Sky was a glorified button and in the Temple of Time (which I did forget) it was optional and only used to get from A to B without any obstacles.

Originally Posted by Link92

Of course. The Ball & Chain would have made more cannon puzzles redundant.

Not at all. I can think of two cannon puzzles that were in the game which the Ball & Chain could not have performed due to the position of the targets.

Originally Posted by Link92

I'm not sure what you mean by "new", but the items were certainly used more between dungeons than TP detractors remember. And this is my real gripe with this complaint: it all takes creativity to come up with unique uses for weapons.

You can complain if the game gives you items that are totally useless, but you can't complain if it's just the fact that you lack the creativity to use them in unique ways.

The fact that you yourself are going out looking for some random way to use items means the game doesn't make enough use of them. Did you ever have to go out of the way to find uses for the Hookshot? The Bow? The Bottle?
If you're feeling the need to find something to do with an item, it means the developers didn't make you use it enough that it felt useful or effective.

Originally Posted by Link92

And yes, it's possible to find a few uses for even the Dominion Rod outside of dungeons. I like to use it to get on top of the Bridge of Eldin and bomb the Bulblins from above.

Since when are Bulblins such a threat that anyone would ever think to hide where they can't reach you?

Originally Posted by Link92

I don't see why people complain about this when the game allows you to use these items any way you want. The Hawkeye, for example, has proven to be one of my most useful items. And it's optional.

And nobody ever complains about the Hawkeye. The Hawkeye was a great and somewhat original item, one that I used a hell of a lot more than the Ball & Chain, Spinner, second Clawshot, Gale Boomerang, or even Bomb Arrows.

Originally Posted by Link92

OoT has all the same problems. How many times have you used the Ice Arrows or the Mirror Shield. The Mirror shield was used once after its introductory dungeon. Deku nuts are almost useless. Farore's Wind? I never quit a game right in the middle of a dungeon anyway, and the game warps you out of the dungeon after you complete it.

I've always complained about the Deku Nuts (which I have never felt the need to use under any circumstance except in Brawl) and the Goddess's spells (including Din's Fire, which never seemed useful in combat). I'm not one of those Ocarina of Time fanboys that claim it did no wrong.

But the Ice Arrows are entirely optional and obtained late in the game if at all. And the Mirror Shield didn't show up until the last temple. I didn't complain about the Double Clawshot, remember? Because despite it being only used in a couple dungeons, that was an appropriate amount of usage for when it showed up.

Originally Posted by Link92

Okay, no. TP did not undo anything. Nothing has changed about OoT, MM, or WW since TP was released. TP will not magically go back in time and make those games stale. The fact is, TP was not intended to be revolutionary. It was supposed to be a return to previous form. Anyone who played TP expecting something totally new played it for the wrong reasons, and that's the overarching problem. Expectations were way too high, and when your expectations are high, you're bound to be disappointed. I don't think detractors realize that.

It was advertised as revolutionary. It was reported to be revolutionary in interviews and releases. So no, in fact, somebody who played it expecting something new isn't really in the wrong.
I had high expectations for every Zelda since I bought and loved the **** out of Link to the Past. Every single new Zelda that came out, I've had huge expectations, except for Minish Cap which I never even heard about until I saw it on a store shelf.
Every single one of these, except three, have exceeded my expectations. Majora's Mask, because I was too young to appreciate it.
Twilight Princess, because it didn't do anything new.
Phantom Hourglass, do not get me started on Phantom Hourglass.

Originally Posted by Link92

TP improved the gameplay of OoT by adding a greater variety to combat while refining its functionality at the same time, enemies in the overworld (a much larger overworld), horseback gameplay that wasn't stiff and slow, etc.

Yep. I fully acknowledge all of that. TI's just that's not enough to justify putting out a new game if you're not going to do anything with it.

Originally Posted by Link92

This is also no different from Super Castlevania 4. It was less revolutionary than Castlevania 3 by going back to the 'only one useable character' thing and yet it was seen as being better than its predecessors because of the gameplay refinement and improved controls.

Because Castlevania's steps forward were, up to then, nowhere near what Zelda's were. Back on the NES, sequels were expected to be more of the same with tiny, tiny improvements. So updating the gameplay was a huge deal. Zelda updates its gameplay even when making massive changes to the rest of the game, so CV IV is a terrible comparison.

Originally Posted by Link92

Do you not see what you're doing? You're using a personal opinion to state, as a fact, that TP is a "terrible" Zelda. You have no problem using "I liked sailing" to say that WW was an objectively good game and yet you refuse to accept that not everyone wanted TP to be revolutionary. Some people wanted a traditional Zelda. Personally, the sole reason I bought a Wii was because it had Twilight Princess (and Brawl) and I heard that TP wa similar to OoT. How many others do you think bought TP for that very same reason? A lot. You can't call TP and objectively "terribe Zelda" simply because it didn't give YOU what YOU wanted. Most people have NO idea what a "terrible game" even is.

I never said that everyone wanted TP to be revolutionary. I said everybody expected it because we were all told to expect it. Even reviewers called the Wii version revolutionary, which was, of course, the most common review to find.
I have no problem defending something new with personal opinion. And I never said WW was objectively good, just objectively better than TP. See the difference there? I'm saying at least WW tried.
There's a difference between a "traditional" Zelda and a generic one. The Zelda tradition is to take ideas from the majority (if not all) of series' history and wrap it all together with fresh new ideas. Directly copying story elements, plot events, settings, and scenarios is all vastly in opposition to what makes a Zelda traditional.
You yourself heard it was similar to OoT. Do you have any idea why people liked OoT in the first place? Because OoT was revolutionary. 3D was a big ****ing step forward for the series, it changed everything except the story. So when somebody says "it's like OoT", that makes us recall a game that was revolutionary. Whether or not we realize it, copying OoT's surface elements doesn't make it actually like OoT.
I call Twilight Princess a terrible Zelda. I do it a lot, actually. I will never under any circumstances call it a terrible game. There is a difference. The worst ****ing Zelda ever made by Nintendo (Phantom Hourglass) is still one of the best damn games on the DS. When I call it or TP a "terrible Zelda", that's because the other Zelda games are better than it, not because it itself is bad. Zelda has different standards, and I would never call any (currently existing) Zelda a terrible game.

Bingo675: I'm sorry, but I don't see how one Harry Potter installment can "steal" from another as they are in the same series, and therefore are supposed to be related to each other directly... But that's Harry Potter. Back to Zelda!

I stand by what I said, they are both installments in the same series, so one Zelda game can't be held accountable for "ripping off" another Zelda game. If Goombas started appearing, that would be different.