Official IGN Legend of Zelda Game Tournament Thread

Originally Posted by 1984

Link's Crossbow Arrow Training could be place in an empty spot.
It's not hard to obtain, and even non-Zelda fans own the game.

It's not exactly a core Zelda game. And even so, it makes the tourny uneven.

Originally Posted by Aenglaan

A Link to the Past should have won. I'm pretty sure not even half of the people who voted have played the game. Why do you think it's just all 3D Zeldas in the semifinals.

Yea.. I'm pretty sure that half the people never played all the games too. That is why ALTTP almost won against MM...

I completely disagree with the whole random brackets idea. Much of the charm of a tournament comes from the way the competition heats up with each round, with the matches becoming progressively more exciting, close and unpredictable. Having the "true" finale take place in the first or second round would in my opinion completely ruin the tournament and zap all interest. Instead of having dark horses overcoming the odds and having great runs, you risk having mediocrities make the finals simply due to the dumb luck.

I definitely think IGN did the right thing by actually building its bracket with some thought and care, rather than just making things random. It gave us some interesting match-ups already in the first round, featuring games that otherwise weren't going to achieve much in the contest (like OoA VS OoS, ST VS PH). OoT was also prevented from prematurely ending the contest for potential finalists, instead merely taking out fodder. The big mistake was pitting MM and ALttP against each other in the second round, surely a result of IGN greatly underestimating MM. Needless to say, that is not something this site would do.

I should also add that making things random would almost certainly result in more complaints, not less. I mean, what do you think would get more complains, OoT eliminating PH in round 1, or OoT eliminating MM/ALttP in round 1? The fact that it would be the result of random draw would (and should) not serve as a perfect defense, insofar as that tournament set-up would not have been inevitable, but instead was the result of a decision (which of course is open to criticism).

The only way a random tournament set-up would have a chance of working would be if OoT was removed from the main contest, and instead faced the tournament winner in a bonus match/grand finale. MM or ALttP can conceivably be upset by a dark horse in the first or second round. OoT, not a chance. Also, the final standings after the tournament ends should be based on indirect strength, not simply how the games finished in the tournament, considering how unfair that would be to the unlucky games.

I like your reasoning, but I just don't see that way. I consider tournaments more exciting if the brackets are randomized instead of planned out carefully. The point of a tournament is to find out the best contestant. Not to guess who they will be and base the brackets on it. It just comes accross as underhanded to me, and I appreciate a fair tournament.

Originally Posted by Rose De Nose

The point of a tournament is to find out the best contestant. Not to guess who they will be and base the brackets on it. It just comes accross as underhanded to me, and I appreciate a fair tournament.

But we DO know to a great extent who the best contestants are, from numerous polls over several years. A game getting a favorable seeding because it has proven itself strong and popular over the years and therefore avoiding an early death sentence (which is exactly what an OoT match-up would be) does not seem unfair to me, and would still probably leave us with more unpredictable match-ups spread more evenly throughout the tournament. Without OoT, things would be different, more open and random brackets would be more defensible (for example, one could make a good argument for ALttP being everything from the second strongest Zelda to a weak fifth placed game) even though many problems would remain, but OoT is a game-breaker, and you can't treat a game-breaker like any other contestant.

Originally Posted by Olympion

But we DO know to a great extent who the best contestants are, from numerous polls over several years. A game getting a favorable seeding because it has proven itself strong and popular over the years and therefore avoiding an early death sentence (which is exactly what an OoT match-up would be) does not seem unfair to me, and would still probably leave us with more unpredictable match-ups spread more evenly throughout the tournament. Without OoT, things would be different, more open and random brackets would be more defensible (for example, one could make a good argument for ALttP being everything from the second strongest Zelda to a weak fifth placed game) even though many problems would remain, but OoT is a game-breaker, and you can't treat a game-breaker like any other contestant.

OoT is the most likely to get the most votes, but that doesn't make it a game breaker. If you took OoT away, you could then call ALttP or TP game breakers. Take them away and it could be TWW and MM. There's always going to be an apparent cream of the crop. Randomized tournaments would do nothing but either reinforce the idea that OoT is best, or defy it by having another game win. Planning out the brackets based on assumptions, no matter much the games like OoT are likely to win, make it somewhat meaningless. They win because you made it that way. It's not exciting because you expect it. At the very least, randomized tournaments may give us exciting brackets on their own, and since they are not planned, it's a bit harder to predict.

Originally Posted by Rose De Nose

OoT is the most likely to get the most votes, but that doesn't make it a game breaker. If you took OoT away, you could then call ALttP or TP game breakers. Take them away and it could be TWW and MM.

There's an enormous difference between simply being the favorite/the strongest contestant and being a game-breaker. The favorite can conceivably be upset. The game-breaker can in theory be upset too...but there's like a 99.8% chance that it won't. OoT is not simply the strongest game overall, it's most likely the strongest Zelda in every age-group, in every region and with every category of gamer. And it doesn't even seem to get anti-voted. The only way to beat it would be for a dark horse to have an epic tournament run and people hopping on the bandwagon like crazy, which of course requires it to avoid running into OoT in the early rounds. At this point people are not so much wondering about which Zelda game is the most popular as about who the 2-5# games are (just look at how many people still underestimate MM something awful), which random brackets are the least suited to answer.

Originally Posted by triforcelinkz

I feel like zeldauniverse should have their own competition... i mean... can we really expect the IGN community to represent what the best zelda game is out there? sure many of us also go on IGN, but then again there is an overwhelming number of people there who probably only played one zelda game in their life, such as LTTP or OOT, and will skew games. I feel like a zelda community could better represent what the best zelda game is. Sure we have our own biases, but at the same time, we at least have some insight as to all the games and can make somewhat more objective decisions

Zelda Universe would probably get worse results than IGN would. Mods behind the scenes will threaten newbs with the banhammer if they don't vote for what Cody asks.

Originally Posted by Radioactive Dinosaur

Zelda Universe would probably get worse results than IGN would. Mods behind the scenes will threaten newbs with the banhammer if they don't vote for what Cody asks.

I don't think ANY site could get worse results than IGN. That place is so woefully ignorant and biased it makes me laugh (and then there are those who take its word like a religious tome). At least Zelda fans in general know what they're talking/voting about when it comes to Zelda tourneys.

That said, four of the five Zeldas I've played (the other was ALttP, which is also my 5th favorite) are in the semi-finals, so it's a tough call. I decided to vote for TWW because I felt overall it was a better game than OoT, despite OoT being my first Zelda game and having a huge nostalgia factor to it, AND having the additional hype the 3DS version is causing. If it were OoT 3DS versus TWW, I'd prolly call it a draw, but as of now, TWW is pretty solid in my book.

Speaking of draws, I haven't voted between MM and TP yet. I think MM is gonna win out, but personally I just can't decide.

Originally Posted by Olympion

The game-breaker can in theory be upset too...but there's like a 99.8% chance that it won't. ...... The only way to beat it would be for a dark horse to have an epic tournament run and people hopping on the bandwagon like crazy, which of course requires it to avoid running into OoT in the early rounds.

I'd like to see where you got that calculation from.

We shouldn't design a tournament just so OoT can lose. I would love to see MM beat OoT in the IGN tournament, but if it won, then after a while the excitement would die off when I realize the possibility that it only won because of bandwagons and such like you said.

You say that OoT has been shown to be the best in previous polls in tournaments. The tournament on ZU I suggested wouldn't be any different from that. It would be made like a regular tournament, not one with an agenda to beat OoT, but one to determine the public consensus. I'm interested to see how the other games fair against each other, not just OoT. I think a lot of other people could be interested too.

I think a tournament like this is a bad way to find out the best Zelda game. Here's the most fair way, IMO:

Set it up like a poll, with all of the games listed. Have people vote on their single favorite, maybe 2 favorites. After a week or so, eliminate the 2 lowest scoring games. Do that until you reach the winner, or final 2. If it's the final 2, just one vote per person.

It's more fair because each game has an equal shot, and every Zelda game has its own fans. I'm sure they want a chance (or more of a chance, because as luck may have it, OoT will still win).

Originally Posted by The Hero of Pie

I think a tournament like this is a bad way to find out the best Zelda game. Here's the most fair way, IMO:

Set it up like a poll, with all of the games listed. Have people vote on their single favorite, maybe 2 favorites. After a week or so, eliminate the 2 lowest scoring games. Do that until you reach the winner, or final 2. If it's the final 2, just one vote per person.

It's more fair because each game has an equal shot, and every Zelda game has its own fans. I'm sure they want a chance (or more of a chance, because as luck may have it, OoT will still win).

You know, that is a good idea and prevents any problems that may come from brackets.

I agree, though tournaments have a special magic of their own, Hero of Pie's idea would definitely be fair to strong non-OoT games and give the presumed weaker games a fair shake as well

Originally Posted by The Hero of Pie

Set it up like a poll, with all of the games listed. Have people vote on their single favorite, maybe 2 favorites. After a week or so, eliminate the 2 lowest scoring games. Do that until you reach the winner, or final 2. If it's the final 2, just one vote per person.

It's more fair because each game has an equal shot, and every Zelda game has its own fans. I'm sure they want a chance (or more of a chance, because as luck may have it, OoT will still win).

This is a much easier way to make it...it doesn't surprise me IGN couldn't think of that.

Originally Posted by Marige

This is a much easier way to make it...it doesn't surprised me IGN couldn't think of that.

Not much of a surprise to any of us.

Plus, IGN's method is more pro-OoT fanboyism.

Originally Posted by Marige

This is a much easier way to make it...it doesn't surprise me IGN couldn't think of that.

IGNorant?

You know what would've been better? The Zelda games against all of each other, instead of just one against one. That way, it would be fair. I mean seriously, OoT vs. Zelda's Adventure (I think that was what it was against)??

Ocarina of Time has to win. I think it will be between OoT and MM. Since it's on IGN, more of the Zelda players, not fan-boys mind you, will vote for OoT as that is the best of the series. And wow, ALttP lost compared to MM. MM was just a complete rip-off of the success of OoT. A Link to the Past made the Zelda series. It's why people played Ocarina of Time, and it lost to Majora's Mask... wow.

---------- Post added at 02:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ----------

Ok, I want to clear this up right now. The people that like OoT and stopped liking Zelda at OoT, or the people that just play a Zelda game and like it, but aren't ridiculous about it, are not the fanboys. The people that play these new Zelda games just because they are called "the Legend of Zelda" and don't care that there has been a break in the integrity of the series, are the fanboys.

Originally Posted by Cereal Bawks

You know what would've been better? The Zelda games against all of each other, instead of just one against one. That way, it would be fair. I mean seriously, OoT vs. Zelda's Adventure (I think that was what it was against)??

Like, some sort of poll with all of the games?

...Because that's what we were just discussing.

Originally Posted by WhiteStrike

The people that play these new Zelda games just because they are called "the Legend of Zelda" and don't care that there has been a break in the integrity of the series, are the fanboys.

I disagree solely on the fact that you added "don't care there has been a break in the integrity of the series". Just... what? What break in integrity?

It doesn't matter what era you started at, or whether or not one feels later games are a piece of crap that "decry" (seriously, where is the proof of that?) the series and are horrified that people *shock* have a different opinion than oneself. One CARES about said series, therefore oneself is a fanboy.