What the hell do people have against Twilight Princess?

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

I think the original argument here was, does atmosphere matter for the gameplay? This would have been over in a second had there been an explanation for the word gameplay, but alas, no-one can seem to agree on that. Myself, I go by the definition that gameplay means how you play the game. Afterall, that would be the logical meaning of the word.

Atmosphere does indeed affect how you experience the game. It does not affect how you play it, however. It's important to note the difference between those two.

In Zelda, atmosphere is important. There needs to be a medieval world in Zelda, or else it's not right. There needs to be diverse, colorful areas that you can explore, or else it's not right. You can't put Zelda in any kind of atmosphere, or remove said atmosphere completely from the series.

It's not an issue of how detailed it is, it just needs to be there.

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

I think the original argument here was, does atmosphere matter for the gameplay? This would have been over in a second had there been an explanation for the word gameplay, but alas, no-one can seem to agree on that. Myself, I go by the definition that gameplay means how you play the game. Afterall, that would be the logical meaning of the word.

Atmosphere does indeed affect how you experience the game. It does not affect how you play it, however. It's important to note the difference between those two.

In Zelda, atmosphere is important. There needs to be a medieval world in Zelda, or else it's not right. There needs to be diverse, colorful areas that you can explore, or else it's not right. You can't put Zelda in any kind of atmosphere, or remove said atmosphere completely from the series.

It's not an issue of how detailed it is, it just needs to be there.

You're confusing atmosphere with setting. From an online dictionary:

*the dominant mood or emotional tone of a work of art, as of a play or novel: the chilly atmosphere of a ghost story.
*a distinctive quality, as of a place; character: The old part of town has lots of atmosphere.

All of the things he mentioned go towards creating that "Zelda atmosphere".

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

Astarel, nearly every entry you bolded in your post supports my clear cut definition of it.

How so? You defined gameplay as "the aspect that allows you to control and play the game." But what aspect is that, exactly? Does it have to do with the graphical interface? The game mechanics and controls? The music and atmosphere? Some definitions of gameplay mean the overall quality of all of these aspects put together, whereas some just focus on the game mechanics/controls.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

Dude, I noticed a while back in another thread that alot of members were comparing you to someone when they said or did something stupid. I think I see why did that now.

Oh that makes sense! Call Double A stupid for following Tiger's logic.



Back on the topic of atmosphere:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't every game with graphics have some sort of atmosphere? If so, it's kinda hard to say whether or not it's important.

On the topic of gameplay:

I like to think of "gameplay" as the experience you recieve when you're controlling the player. Which means atmosphere plays quite a large part in enjoying gameplay.

Originally Posted by Astarrrrael

How so? You defined gameplay as "the aspect that allows you to control and play the game." But what aspect is that, exactly? Does it have to do with the graphical interface? The game mechanics and controls? The music and atmosphere? Some definitions of gameplay mean the overall quality of all of these aspects put together, whereas some just focus on the game mechanics/controls.

I mean, I don't know about you, but I got a different way of saying my definition for al of them except the last two which were drastically different from the rest. There IS a general agreement of what gameplay means.

having read Squall and Alex's posts, I think they get what I'm saying. The original point was that atmosphere doesn't effect gameplay. Abyss master put it nicely and this once again brings me back to My Melo's example. Atmosphere never effects gameplay mechanics. It never adds nor takes away from them. Therefore, neither does immersion. (Which, I really think immersion, much like innovation, is an advertisement word that really doesn't mean much of anything for whether or not it'll be a good game.)

It's the gameplay mechanics that make it a video game in the first place. Does anyone remember Pokemon channel? It had an atmosphere, story, etc. All that fluff. It was panned as being one of the worst games for the gamecube. Actually, the general reviewer complaint was it wasn't really a game a at all because it virtually lacked any kind of gameplay.

So what does this have to do with now? Well, a lot of people in this topic were complaining a great deal about TPs atmosphere elements. I'm playing all the 3D zelda's over and....I don't see that problem as it shares virtually the same atmosphere as the rest of them.

But more importantly, I think those people who make that complaint need to remind themselves that they're holding game controllers and not DVD remotes or bookmarks.

catch my drift?

Awesome atmosphere did not improve Cursed Mountain's slow, tedious, sluggish gameplay.

In other words, atmosphere does nothing for the actions you perform in the game. Because on the opposite side, I think of Myth II. No music at all in the game, and really no atmosphere. But the game is damn awesome because of it's difficulty and the smart RTS mechanics it uses. If you added any king of atmosphere to the game, the gameplay would be no better.

SO NOW THAT BRING US BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND.

About the only legit complaint I hear about any 3D zelda is the lack difficulty. But it's often an unfair complaint given to most of them seeing as usually the said complainers favorite game is OoT which wasn't exactly thumb bustingly hard.

^ That's because Ocarina of Time came out eleven years ago. A lot of people don't realize how much better they've gotten at video games in general since then.

Plausible.

I for one was in middle school at the time and I thought the game was easy then. First playtrough I only died once. I mean, this was time period that games were alot harder in general. I grew up playing mega man and the first three zelda's (which were hard. the only hard games in the series) so imagine how easy OoT was for someone with a gaming background like that. I still loved the game, but it WAS easy. Even by today's standards.

I could beat Ocarina of Time without dying a single time by the time I was 7. It's an easy game.

^Not when it's the first 3D game you play, i remember i had to get used to the 3d mechanics, the puzzles and the bigger overworld, that is what captures everyones attention's when people first played OOT, it was just "wow, this is awesome". I first played OOT when i was like 14 years old, i do remember getting stuck in the game quite a lot of times, especially that part before fire temple where you have to bomb that little goron, i mean how the hell am i supposed to know i have to bomb him. Also i did die quite a few times as well, 'barinade' caused me a lot of trouble.

I find it stupid and annoying when people say, "i found the game easy second time round", Duh, of course its going to be easy, you know exactly what to do the second time round for god sake. First time is what counts for difficulty.

getting stuck because the game poorly explains to you what you have to do next isn't difficulty.

I think it's the 3rd best game ever, 2nd best Zelda.

1st best game ever and 1st best Zelda game -------------- ALTTP

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

getting stuck because the game poorly explains to you what you have to do next isn't difficulty.

That makes it easier, then?

Zelda is mainly a puzzle game. Most children get stumped right at the directional points of the game...that's where Zelda's real difficulty lies...I couldn't figure out how to get the Kokiri Sword in OoT for many years. =/ which is why I usually played other people's files. Bad girl.

Originally Posted by JustChilLink

^Not when it's the first 3D game you play, i remember i had to get used to the 3d mechanics, the puzzles and the bigger overworld, that is what captures everyones attention's when people first played OOT, it was just "wow, this is awesome". I first played OOT when i was like 14 years old, i do remember getting stuck in the game quite a lot of times, especially that part before fire temple where you have to bomb that little goron, i mean how the hell am i supposed to know i have to bomb him. Also i did die quite a few times as well, 'barinade' caused me a lot of trouble.

I find it stupid and annoying when people say, "i found the game easy second time round", Duh, of course its going to be easy, you know exactly what to do the second time round for god sake. First time is what counts for difficulty.

Ocarina of Time was the first game I ever played. =]

Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

. People used the roads?

The Stalchildren don't bother you on roads. And night only lasts for two minutes anyway. Dullsville. This is even worse in adult Link's quest.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

*thinking back on that carry the water thing* That felt like a bit longer. Granted there's the whole avoiding enemies, but even so it felt slower than OoT.

Maybe that's because you're carrying a heavy barrel of water over your head?

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

As for the TP warps, you couldn't always access them. You needed to be able to control wolf form which was about a third of the way through. I will concede that Epona was a good choice on nintendo's part to have from the start, but that's just because the overworld was so huge.

So you would rather warp than have the feeling of exploration? No wonder you didn't like the game.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Alright, but even so TWW was a very original game, whereas TP was by definition safe.

Original =/= good. Wind Waker's most original idea, the sailing, was by far the worst addition.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

The dungeons becoming more linear and stepping down from easy to short and easy, the story goes to blah, and so on.

Dungeons are supposed to be linear. All of the dungeons in OoT and MM were the same in that regard. That's not even a game flaw.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

I remember when the first pic of him was added to the hype thread. He wasn't confirmed til much later. Much like how shiek was also created for a character model, but never used -hence brawl-

No, Ganondorf's picture confirmed his presence. The difference with Shiek is that she was canceled. Ganondorf's presence was confirmed very early on.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

That was after lakebed? Thought that was just the crazy insane millions of ilias and such. They showed Ganondorf at that point too?

Zant explicitly stated that his power was granted to him by "his god." Who we already new from the developers' confirmation would be the final boss.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Well that's something. I'd say Zant would have been better as a solo act.

Go back in time and take Ganondorf out of the game. I'd be willing to bet you would then complain about his absence.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

AM I THE ONLY ONE WITH THE WII VERSION!?!?!?!

No, I also have the Wii version. And I have to say you must really suck at the game if you can't even get the Hidden Skills and controls right.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

She's the generic character who starts out selfish but over time comes to be more friendly and ends up a total good guy. She's an arctype who I honestly believe was not that well presented. It just seemed like there was this point in the game where she had a switch flipped from I'm a greedy little imp to I'm a little nice imp

That's not generic, it's the formula for the character, and it works. Just because you've seen it one other time does not make it cliche.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

60 hours of gameplay minimum

I enjoyed the game to its fullest and by the time I beaten it, it was at 75 hours. So it's your fault.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

A heavy animal influence

You can pick up dogs and cats, be a wolf, and talk to animals. That's all the early trailers showed us about that, and we got all of it. So your complaint is bull****.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

A heavy western style influence

They never promised us that, and we still got the Hidden Village and Kakariko Village. Seriously, are you that whiny and unpleasable? No wonder you didn't like the game. You refused to like what they gave us and then complained about what little we got of it.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Expansive open environments -ie not walled sections-

Eldin Field, Kakariko Gorge, Faron Field, Snowpeak, Lake Hylia, etc would all like a word with you.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Relationships as deep as MM

Colin, Midna, Zant, etc would like a word with you.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

A game that would surpass OoT as the best

More refined and polished gameplay + better characters + longer adventure = better game. So by that definition, TP is a better game.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Remember the video of that huge open Hyrule Town market?

Which...is not a big loss at all?

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Nintendo made the whole wolf thing seem a whole lot more fleshed out.

We got exactly what they promised from the wolf. So stop whining.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

A darker story -as is, it pales in comparison to MM or even TWW story wise- It just went with darker artwork which is so popular anymore

It had a much darker story than both games, with the Twilight Realm, Queen Rutela being executed right in front of her people, Midna leaving at the end, Zelda dying in the middle of the game, etc.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Admittedly exaggerated, but the Water Temple is going to remain the hardest temple in Zelda history for a while.

I didn't find it to be very difficult.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

I spent quite a long time in the mini dungeons. Those were hard. Especially the goron one. Then theres the whole getting all the other masks which is a rather large task.

I spent more time in one round of the Cave of Ordeals than pretty much all of MM's minidungeons put together. And getting all masks was very easy for me.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Those were worth looking at. Quite honestly I would have felt safe sending in Malo to destroy those things.

Malo's a badass, so I don't know what point you were trying to make.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

We still waited too long for what we got.

Your opinion =/= Fact

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Pre TP, every Zelda fan would agree that objectively that OoT was the best of our series. It was a uniting banner. As OoT has faded due to the passage of time, the unity and activity among Zelda fans has died.

Or maybe it's because TP was so good that it completely revived the franchise in the US, and that's why OoT is no longer 100% agreed on as being the best anymore.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

TP was supposed to be the new banner, but it failed.

Lol, so a game that sells more than 5 million copies between its two console versions, wins a ton of Game of the Year awards from numerous sites and gets near perfect scores from almost every game review site in existence is a failure? Damn, what would it take for a Zelda game to succeed then?

How about this?

People are hating on TP because it failed to bring anything wildly original to the franchise.

Because that is what Nintendo should be doing, the famously innovative company that they are.

Or focusing on making a huge, polished title without trying too hard to come up with a gimick that is completely unnecessary.

For one big title, I see nothing wrong with Nintendo sticking traditional and just giving us what works very well and in vast quantities of it, as they did with TP.