94 replies to this topic

[MikePetersSucks]

I'm confused... MPS, what did you actually mean by your reply?

Exactly what I said. I speak in l33t speak sometimes, but not to be funny. Moreso because I use it when everyone gets all their panties in a bunch over little things like the word "Forever" in a single line in a single game and try to analyze it like a frickin' College professor.

Also how can the Gods grant the sword powers that can stop their own powers i.e. The Triforce? *Oh I hate tWW's storyline so much for all these dumb contradictions*

Because they're GODS, and can do whatever the HELL they want. It's not rocket science. If you can grant something power, IE, the Triforce, then surely you can imbue something else with the means to take it away.

And what does TWW even have to do with this? Stop blaming it for everything you perceive as a problem in Zelda. It doesn't make nearly half of them as a whole.

I sort of agree, but the way I interpret it to make me feel better is that Molgera and Jalhalla are known as "Protectors of the Seal" because Ganon sealed away the MS's power, which is why the Sages now have to pray to maintain it.

Wrong.

Not canonical then. laugh.gif Since aLttP I've always held the belief the ancient Hylians made the MS as a response to the Triforce of the gods because they can't judge between good and evil (made up of their very own essence). TWW merely adds to the confusion.

Excuse me? You don't get to judge what's canonical just because it contradicts what you as a fan believe in.

[Raien]

Exactly what I said. I speak in l33t speak sometimes, but not to be funny. Moreso because I use it when everyone gets all their panties in a bunch over little things like the word "Forever" in a single line in a single game and try to analyze it like a frickin' College professor.

I'm not that fussy about different interpretations of script. But I do, however, object to events being completely made up and then presented as some sort of evidence to win an argument.

You said Link used the ToC to open the passage. I said the gods opened the passage when Link showed them the ToC, which was stated in-game. That's not an analysis, that's a simple contradiction with evidence.

Edited by jhurvid, 24 February 2007 - 05:12 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Whether or not it's canonical depends upon what sources you believe Drumpf other sources for accuracy. Not everyone takes the LttP manual to be a greater source of canon than the Ocarina in-game backstory. (In fact, your view is a considerable minority view.)

Point taken, but then not everyone knows what a Super Nintendo is nowadays. Mind you, Ocarina of Time borrows heavily from Link to the Past's storyline anyway which explains why some people on the Internet regard it as "the true Zelda game".

The original, of course. I would have thought you, the self-proclaimed know-all who spouts the 'real' creator's original intention as canon would realize that.

There are two different versions created by the same company so you can't use discretion alone to find which one is widely accepted as 'canon'. The manual artwork and general appearance in both versions are virtually identical.

Actually, no game has ever contradicted another on the subject of the Master Sword. In fact, the only games that mention its creation (TP and ALttP) have exactly the same origin for it.

The Master Sword was first introduced within aLttP and laid to rest forever in the ending, OoT featuring said item 8 years later would be classed as a contradiction I suppose.

Well, you have the right to be pissed, of course, but don't pretend it isn't your fault if you are too narrow-minded to appreciate new games. Nintendo doesn't force you to buy them, so really, you can lay off on this “I'm a victim” bullcrap.

I'm a victim because anticipation got the best of me, but how can you blame me? I didn't realise we were spoiled for the Nintendo 64 with classics like 'Ocarina of Time' and 'Majora's Mask', not forgetting the Oracles on GBC as well. Many of us had expectations TWW would be equally magnificent in gameplay despite the style looking like a Nickelodeon cartoon; what I got was 20-30 hours of sailing where the only fun was in the mini-games. Congratulations Ricky, you just paid out £40 for Battleships. I apologise if my opinion offends you (again), but this title was a huge disappointment for me.

Oh, sorry, did I say you went by what Miyamoto intended? I was wrong. It appears you delude yourself into thinking you decide what is canon. Here is a hint for you: You don't.

Nintendo's employees come and go, YOU the player, decides what's genuine within this fictional Zelda universe. Kinda poetic huh?

Edited by Ricky, 24 February 2007 - 05:08 PM.

[Raien]

There are two different versions created by the same company so you can't use discretion alone to find which one is widely accepted as 'canon'. The manual artwork and general appearance in both versions are virtually identical.

Except that one version was made by the developers, whereas another was made by the translators. Developers > translators in the world of canoninity.

[FDL]

I'm a victim because anticipation got the best of me, but how can you blame me? I didn't realise we were spoiled for the Nintendo 64 with classics like 'Ocarina of Time' and 'Majora's Mask', not forgetting the Oracles on GBC as well. Many of us had expectations TWW would be equally magnificent in gameplay despite the style looking like a Nickelodeon cartoon; what I got was 20-30 hours of sailing where the only fun was in the mini-games. Congratulations Ricky, you just paid out £40 for Battleships. I apologise if my opinion offends you (again), but this title was a huge disappointment for me.

Have you tried playing it again recently? Because, those were my sentiments as well, I was sure TWW would be the best Zelda ever, but I was severely disappointed. However, having played it again recently it's become better in my eyes. Still, I agree it's probably the weakest 3D Zelda.

[spunky-monkey]

Because they're GODS, and can do whatever the HELL they want. It's not rocket science. If you can grant something power, IE, the Triforce, then surely you can imbue something else with the means to take it away.

And what does TWW even have to do with this? Stop blaming it for everything you perceive as a problem in Zelda. It doesn't make nearly half of them as a whole.

Ahem, Duke Serkol quoted TWW and I simply replied. Gods, even those that exist outside of time, cannot grant a power that effectively disables their own powers – this is ridiculously illogical but that's exactly what Eiji and his storywriters would have us to believe. They cannot negate themselves (the Triforce's essence) because that requires an even greater power than a deity to exist (impossible).

Likewise they cannot bestow such power into the Master Sword because that would make it even more powerful than the omnipotence and omnipresence Triforce. ALttP tells us the blade has no real attributes other than the ability to resist any form of 'magic', if that's true then even the Goddesses cannot alter its original design. Now do you see where TWW contradicts aLttP?

Except that one version was made by the developers, whereas another was made by the translators. Developers > translators in the world of canoninity.

If we take that approach then aren't we basically breaking apart Nintendo? We need the translators as much as the developers concerning the game's storyline.

[Fyxe]

1337 can still be funny, but only under very specific circumstances. Like when used sarcastically to basically backhand-of-justice someone who doesn't present their point well at all for whatever reasons (bad spelling, bad grammar, general stupidity...) since writing out a full reply is just too much of a gift.

Unfortunately, it's not funny. It makes sarcasm look bad, when sarcasm, in fact, can be wonderfully mocking if done correctly. Impersonating AOL speak just lowers you closer to their level. Why? Because it's a painfully cheap shot.

[Raien]

If we take that approach then aren't we basically breaking apart Nintendo? We need the translators as much as the developers concerning the game's storyline.

The problem is not really translation, but localisation. The NOA translation team have been scolded by Zelda fans for adding a lot of things to ALTTP manual / game script for the English-speaking audience that was not in the original script. Since then, NOA have been much more accurate in their translations and the ALTTP scripts have been translated again by fans who speak Japanese.

It makes sense to work with the accurate translations than the inaccurate translations.

[Hero of Legend]

There are two different versions created by the same company so you can't use discretion alone to find which one is widely accepted as 'canon'. The manual artwork and general appearance in both versions are virtually identical.

But the text was mistranslated. What's so hard to understand about that? Or would you make the argument that Zelda is screwed up (by Aonuma, somehow, I'm sure) because we don't have 'Prince Darkness "Gannon"' anymore?

The Master Sword was first introduced within aLttP and laid to rest forever in the ending, OoT featuring said item 8 years later would be classed as a contradiction I suppose.

What. The. Fuck. are you blabbering about?

I'm a victim because anticipation got the best of me, but how can you blame me? I didn't realise we were spoiled for the Nintendo 64 with classics like 'Ocarina of Time' and 'Majora's Mask', not forgetting the Oracles on GBC as well.

Majora's Mask (notice I don't use any fancy way of typing out the title?) is the only of those games that is better than TWW.

Many of us had expectations TWW would be equally magnificent in gameplay despite the style looking like a Nickelodeon cartoon; what I got was 20-30 hours of sailing where the only fun was in the mini-games.

Funny TWW had the best gameplay out of any 3D Zelda, then. Not the best structure, but that's a different thing.

All of this is my opinion of course, but since you act as if you speak for the entire community, I will as well.

Congratulations Ricky, you just paid out £40 for Battleships. I apologise if my opinion offends you (again), but this title was a huge disappointment for me.

Which changes nothing because it is still your fault for purchasing it.

Nintendo's employees come and go, YOU the player, decides what's genuine within this fictional Zelda universe. Kinda poetic huh?

Kinda wrong. See, that's not how fiction works. At best, a fan can interpret canon. But go ahead, pretend differently if you want, it only proves what an idiot you are.

Ahem, Duke Serkol quoted TWW and I simply replied. Gods, even those that exist outside of time, cannot grant a power that effectively disables their own powers – this is ridiculously illogical but that's exactly what Eiji and his storywriters would have us to believe. They cannot negate themselves (the Triforce's essence) because that requires an even greater power than a deity to exist (impossible).

It is not a problem at all. (Even) if the gods truly are omnipotent, they could easily create a weapon that would be able to withstand and defeat any form of power - including their own. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Triforce holds the actual power of the goddesses. Yes, it is called the 'power of the gods', but what makes you think that means anything other than 'the power granted by the gods'?

Oh, I forgot, you decide the meaning and plausibility of everything.

Likewise they cannot bestow such power into the Master Sword because that would make it even more powerful than the omnipotence and omnipresence Triforce. ALttP tells us the blade has no real attributes other than the ability to resist any form of 'magic', if that's true then even the Goddesses cannot alter its original design. Now do you see where TWW contradicts aLttP?

That would be harmful magic, as even ALttP states that the sword receives its power from Link (who was incidentally sent by the gods). But I guess ignorant people don't care about such things.

If we take that approach then aren't we basically breaking apart Nintendo? We need the translators as much as the developers concerning the game's storyline.

Oh god, the irony! Your way of reasoning would have us ignore everything Nintendo says, so why the hell do you make a fuss about 'breaking them appart'?

Edited by Hero of Legend, 24 February 2007 - 06:51 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

All of this is my opinion of course, but since you act as if you speak for the entire community, I will as well.

Oh, I forgot, you decide the meaning and plausibility of everything.

Your narcissism knows no bounds. I can't help how you interpret my posts. You wrongly assume I'm an "arrogant bastard" for merely stating what I think is more or less accurate regarding Zelda franchise, especially with how I believe fans can rightfully call canonical/non-canonical as they see fit. Quite frankly I don't care what you or other people here think of me but I didn't realise how backwards this forum has become in recent days.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Triforce holds the actual power of the goddesses. Yes, it is called the 'power of the gods', but what makes you think that means anything other than 'the power granted by the gods'?

Except ALttP, OoT and TWW explicitly state that the Triforce is a mighty artifact holding a small but powerful portion of the gods' essence.

That would be harmful magic, as even ALttP states that the sword receives its power from Link (who was incidentally sent by the gods). But I guess ignorant people don't care about such things.

The Gods role in ALttP was that they created Hyrule and when their work was finished they departed leaving only the wish-granting Triforce behind; everything else that happened afterward was inconsequential, they did not choose a Hero.

[Raien]

The Gods role in ALttP was that they created Hyrule and when their work was finished they departed leaving only the wish-granting Triforce behind; everything else that happened afterward was inconsequential, they did not choose a Hero.

Link in TP is "the hero chosen by the gods", as was his predecessor. Link in TWW only became the Hero of Winds after the gods acknowledged his courage.

[Hero of Legend]

Your narcissism knows no bounds. I can't help how you interpret my posts. You wrongly assume I'm an "arrogant bastard" for merely stating what I think is more or less accurate regarding Zelda franchise, especially with how I believe fans can rightfully call canonical/non-canonical as they see fit. Quite frankly I don't care what you or other people here think of me but I didn't realise how backwards this forum has become in recent days.

Well, if you think that, you have no place in this forum as fans making up their own canon effectively renders any kind meaningful debate of impossible. Never mind the fact that your ideas are inherently wrong.

Except ALttP, OoT and TWW explicitly state that the Triforce is a mighty artifact holding a small but powerful portion of the gods' essence.

Except none of those games actually said that other than the flawed American ALttP manual.

The Gods role in ALttP was that they created Hyrule and when their work was finished they departed leaving only the wish-granting Triforce behind; everything else that happened afterward was inconsequential, they did not choose a Hero.

Oh gee, I guess all games are lying then. Well, that's Ricky logic for you!

Link in TP is "the hero chosen by the gods", as was his predecessor. Link in TWW only became the Hero of Winds after the gods acknowledged his courage.

Actually, it was always his fate to become the Hero, according to Gohdan.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 24 February 2007 - 08:13 PM.

[Raien]

Actually, it was always his fate to become the Hero, according to Gohdan.

True, but the title came with the gods' acknowledgement. The connection between the Hero title and the gods is distinct and definite.

[The Missing Link]

Unfortunately, it's not funny. It makes sarcasm look bad, when sarcasm, in fact, can be wonderfully mocking if done correctly. Impersonating AOL speak just lowers you closer to their level. Why? Because it's a painfully cheap shot.

True, true... and well said. Yet it still has the advantage of having a high bang-for-buck ratio... if only because it takes so little effort to write the post to begin with.

Point taken, but then not everyone knows what a Super Nintendo is nowadays. Mind you, Ocarina of Time borrows heavily from Link to the Past's storyline anyway which explains why some people on the Internet regard it as "the true Zelda game".

... *facefaults*

Alright, let me get this straight now. You're waltzing into a Timeline Forum. (Remember this; this is key!) You're waltzing into a Timeline Forum. And you're practically saying that the lot of us know absolutely nothing about some of the Zelda games--that the lot of us are completely ill-educated about Link to the Past?? For the love of Nayru, I think he just insulted the people here and proclaimed himself to be Farore's gift herself to the whole timeline debate in one fell swoop!

You know, I am truthfully entertained by this charade. In fact, I would dare to "laugh out loud" if I didn't hate the acronym so danged much. Ricky, what in the world are you trying to show here? Are you honestly saying that anyone who appreciates Ocarina more than Past is a goddesses-damn idiot, that they don't have the proper sophistication or refined taste that an old-school player has, that they aren't able to fully appreciate the history of Zelda, that they shouldn't be allowed to timeline because you dislike their taste in games?

I'd really love to know your opinion on exactly what this garbage statement is supposed to mean, because honestly it doesn't make a hill of sense to me. Go ahead; tell us all exactly what you believe... why we're all such morons because of whatever timeline belief we have, why we're all such morons because we cannot properly understand the single word "FOREVER." Go on, don't be shy. Tell us all what you mean. Make an entirely new topic about it, even, just for the sake of doing so; it's on the house.

Many of us had expectations...

Oh no. Don't tell me you were fooled, too! Don't tell me that you got your hopes up... and then that cruel Nintendo company screwed you over and ruined your life as well! Gosh, it makes me want to cry every time that I hear that Nintendo, that horribly evil company of Japan, has crushed the will of another gamer, has destroyed the very lifeblood of him. It's as if I can envision your hatred at this very moment, relive the very moment you threw your controller down with disgust... and then proceeded to rock yourself whilst sitting in a corner, praying to whatever deity or deities are out there that they would bring you salvation from the Great Nintendo Demon which had cursed you with its game. I cry with you, my brother. I share your pain. For indeed, one thing I have learned is that Nintendo is a horrible company, and we should all boycott their games forever so that they might not cause anyone else to live through the tragedy that people like you have...

...

XD

Nintendo's employees come and go, YOU the player, decides what's genuine within this fictional Zelda universe. Kinda poetic huh?

Oh my gosh! I get to decide!? You're giving me of all people the right to decide!? Oh joy oh rapture! What can I do first!?

For my first wish, I'm going to decide that Link to the Past violates canon. It was a silly game anyways. And next, I'm going to replace it with the CD-i titles because I believe Nintendo shuns them because they reveal too much of their secret document that describes their timeline! (Shhhh!) And lastly, I'm going to say that Wind Waker happens before everything else because they had to find a new Hyrule for all those other games to have taken place.

Yay! My timeline. Wheeee!

But I bet you hate that idea. Hmmm, wonder why...

Seriously though, I respect you for having your own timeline belief. I frankly don't care what you believe so long as you have a quasi-decent reason to believe it. What I do have a problem with is that you can blanketly say, "Oh, your theory is stupid because it's not canon, and it's not canon because it doesn't follow what I believe." Get a clue, my friend. The canon has been borked for quite a while now, and the canon will only continue to degenerate over time. Unless there is a dedicated effort on the part of the storywriters to enforce some sort of timeline structure, some means of rigorously describing time relations between each game from the get go, there is no way a timeline as fragile as that could even hope to stay alive.

Wonder why you don't believe half the things of Ocarina? That's the very reason staring at you in the face.

[FDL]

Funny TWW had the best gameplay out of any 3D Zelda, then.

How so? I would say it has the weakest gameplay of them all, actually. Still incredible, but compared to others it wasn't as amazing.

[Raien]

How so? I would say it has the weakest gameplay of them all, actually. Still incredible, but compared to others it wasn't as amazing.

It focused on completely different areas. OoT and TP possessed large main games, but underwhelming sidequests. MM and TWW possessed small main games but magnificent sidequests and side stories.

[Fyxe]

How so? I would say it has the weakest gameplay of them all, actually. Still incredible, but compared to others it wasn't as amazing.

Um, from a pure 'running about, shooting arrows, fighting bad guys', TWW and TP still have the best gameplay engines. TWW's gameplay was much smoother, more refined, and more detailed than OoT and MM. TP uses the same engine, just with a modified control scheme.

Of course, TWW has problems in other gameplay regions, like the fact that to easily change direction while sailing, you need to stop and change the wind direction. The game structure also has some flaws. But it's still a stunningly fun game to play.

Edited by Fyxe, 24 February 2007 - 09:08 PM.

[FDL]

I agree, it's [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of fun, but some things disappointed me, such as the unexciting combat. TP fixed it, and actually has the best combat of any Zelda's, but TWW's could be very annoying. The enemies were incredibly hestitant, barely attacking, and when they did you could use the parry move to take them out. If you took the initiative and attacked, they would drop their weapons and spend [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of time scurrying about trying to get them back. Despite the fact that it was a good idea in theory, I don't think the idea of dropping the weapons really didn't work for this reason. And the bow couldn't aim straight. While OoT and MM definetly had stiffer combat, I enjoyed them better. The bow was actually accurate, and there were actually enemies that were difficult to take down, such as the Stalfos. Still, I loved TWW, just not as much as the other 3D Zelda games(and it has NOTHING to do with graphics).

Edited by Fierce Deity Link, 24 February 2007 - 09:19 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

You said Link used the ToC to open the passage. I said the gods opened the passage when Link showed them the ToC, which was stated in-game. That's not an analysis, that's a simple contradiction with evidence.

What's the difference? He "Used" the ToC to gain recognition from the Gods, who are more or less consciously tied with the Triforce anyway.

There are two different versions created by the same company so you can't use discretion alone to find which one is widely accepted as 'canon'. The manual artwork and general appearance in both versions are virtually identical.

Yes, but the text IS different, and the text is what we're talking about here. Who cares about the art?

I'm a victim because anticipation got the best of me, but how can you blame me? I didn't realise we were spoiled for the Nintendo 64 with classics like 'Ocarina of Time' and 'Majora's Mask', not forgetting the Oracles on GBC as well. Many of us had expectations TWW would be equally magnificent in gameplay despite the style looking like a Nickelodeon cartoon; what I got was 20-30 hours of sailing where the only fun was in the mini-games. Congratulations Ricky, you just paid out £40 for Battleships. I apologise if my opinion offends you (again), but this title was a huge disappointment for me.

And OOT had a lot of horseriding. Deal with it.

Nintendo's employees come and go, YOU the player, decides what's genuine within this fictional Zelda universe. Kinda poetic huh?

Don't let anyone tell you you're not conceited.

Ahem, Duke Serkol quoted TWW and I simply replied. Gods, even those that exist outside of time, cannot grant a power that effectively disables their own powers – this is ridiculously illogical but that's exactly what Eiji and his storywriters would have us to believe. They cannot negate themselves (the Triforce's essence) because that requires an even greater power than a deity to exist (impossible).

Likewise they cannot bestow such power into the Master Sword because that would make it even more powerful than the omnipotence and omnipresence Triforce. ALttP tells us the blade has no real attributes other than the ability to resist any form of 'magic', if that's true then even the Goddesses cannot alter its original design. Now do you see where TWW contradicts aLttP?

Sure they can. If THEY can disable the Triforce -which I'm sure they could- they can give that same right to a sword. It's like implanting a deactivation code into a program or something. It's not nessessarily MORE powerful. Just a negating power.

And no, this still doesn't mean TWW contradicts LTTP. You have the shittiest logic I've ever seen in a person, save for that guy who invented Time Cube.

If we take that approach then aren't we basically breaking apart Nintendo? We need the translators as much as the developers concerning the game's storyline.

But if there's a contradiction, we need to go with original intent.

Unfortunately, it's not funny. It makes sarcasm look bad, when sarcasm, in fact, can be wonderfully mocking if done correctly. Impersonating AOL speak just lowers you closer to their level. Why? Because it's a painfully cheap shot.

I understand this. I take the cheap shots to counteract cheap points.

Your narcissism knows no bounds.

Pot: "Kettle = Black."

You wrongly assume I'm an "arrogant bastard" for merely stating what I think is more or less accurate regarding Zelda franchise, especially with how I believe fans can rightfully call canonical/non-canonical as they see fit. Quite frankly I don't care

Unfortunately, Belief =/= Accuracy.

Except ALttP, OoT and TWW explicitly state that the Triforce is a mighty artifact holding a small but powerful portion of the gods' essence.

The keyword is SMALL, so the Gods can put ANOTHER piece of power into a sword to negate that SMALL power.

The Gods role in ALttP was that they created Hyrule and when their work was finished they departed leaving only the wish-granting Triforce behind; everything else that happened afterward was inconsequential, they did not choose a Hero.

I guess the words "Cataclysm's Eve" don't mean anything to you.

Edited by MikePetersSucks, 25 February 2007 - 01:14 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Well, if you think that, you have no place in this forum as fans making up their own canon effectively renders any kind meaningful debate of impossible. Never mind the fact that your ideas are inherently wrong.

Ugh, I get the message.

Discussing video game storyline with you guys isn't fun anymore; it used to be great but all you do now is continually attack me and my methods as "conceited, flawed and incorrect". I'll never understand how trying to bring new ideas to the table can spark off such a negative response - some of you seriously need to chill out (bet I'm not the first person to tell you that).

When you drive a regular out of the thread, does that actually bring you some temporary form of gratification? Pity.

[Hero of Legend]

How so?

Because I think so.

I agree, it's [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of fun, but some things disappointed me, such as the unexciting combat. TP fixed it, and actually has the best combat of any Zelda's, but TWW's could be very annoying.

Yeah, and that fact that TP's combat is the slowest AND most imprecise in the entire series matters nothing.

The enemies were incredibly hestitant, barely attacking, and when they did you could use the parry move to take them out.

Uh, they do that in TP as well, except you always have your shield out (and it blocks 90% of all attacks), which is kinda stupid. And seriously, what do you think the hidden skills are if not fancy parries?

If you took the initiative and attacked, they would drop their weapons and spend [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of time scurrying about trying to get them back. Despite the fact that it was a good idea in theory, I don't think the idea of dropping the weapons really didn't work for this reason.

The worst thing in TWW was the fact that a strong attack would knock enemies down, and then you would be unable to attack them until they got up. TP, although still suffering from the same flaw, improved on this with the finishing blow. That, and the ability to swing your sword while running (although it is broken), are about the only worthwhile changes.

And the bow couldn't aim straight.

Yes, it could. The bending arc is only a graphical effect. The GC version of TP on the other hand... Now that's a game with shitty aiming.

While OoT and MM definetly had stiffer combat, I enjoyed them better. The bow was actually accurate, and there were actually enemies that were difficult to take down, such as the Stalfos. Still, I loved TWW, just not as much as the other 3D Zelda games(and it has NOTHING to do with graphics).

Guess what? Opinions differ. I suggest you start accepting others'.

[Fyxe]

Uh, they do that in TP as well, except you always have your shield out (and it blocks 90% of all attacks), which is kinda stupid. And seriously, what do you think the hidden skills are if not fancy parries?

Be fair, the hidden skills were a great addition, they required a lot more skill to use correctly than the Parry, and bashing enemies with the shield is great.

However, you did pick up on the biggest flaw with Twilight Princess's battles... The shield is too strong. Okay, so the shield is extremely strong in TWW as well, but you have to at least hold the button. Of course, if you want to have a fun challenge... Play Twilight Princess without a shield. That should be interesting.

The hesitantness of the enemies was present in both games, but in TWW it was less noticable, because you usually fight more enemies at once. In TP, you often fight enemies one on one. They made Darknuts significantly harder to kill to counter this, but they don't do *too* much extra to try and kill you. Still, not all enemies are hesitant... Those ice Stalfos, for one example.

The worst thing in TWW was the fact that a strong attack would knock enemies down, and then you would be unable to attack them until they got up. TP, although still suffering from the same flaw, improved on this with the finishing blow. That, and the ability to swing your sword while running (although it is broken), are about the only worthwhile changes.

Broken? I found no problems with swinging while moving (and while on horseback). I found it incredibly enjoyable, for one thing.

If you took the initiative and attacked, they would drop their weapons and spend [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of time scurrying about trying to get them back. Despite the fact that it was a good idea in theory, I don't think the idea of dropping the weapons really didn't work for this reason.

I rather liked this. I don't think it broke the combat. While fighting multiple enemies, it's not really noticable. When fighting a single enemy, they can still fight without a weapon, and can be just as dangerous without one than with one. I missed the fact that you couldn't pick up weapons in TP. I wanted to pick up the Darknut's sword when he threw it and use it against him. The problem with the weapons in TWW is that they were generally too slow, and most of the time it's best to just throw them at the enemy.

And the bow couldn't aim straight.

Eh? Yes it could. o.o It just takes more practice than the bow in OoT and MM because it's more realistic. It's perfectly accurate, you just have to get used to the different visuals.

While OoT and MM definetly had stiffer combat, I enjoyed them better. The bow was actually accurate, and there were actually enemies that were difficult to take down, such as the Stalfos. Still, I loved TWW, just not as much as the other 3D Zelda games(and it has NOTHING to do with graphics).

Nobody's discrediting you in that respect. I just think TWW is flawed in different areas to combat, combat being one of the most enjoyable aspects. The reason the enemies are generally a bit easier to take out is because Link faces a lot more of them at once. Remember getting the Master Sword for the first time and effectively fighting a whole army of Darknuts and Moblins? Excellent stuff, and not easy. Enemy attacks aren't exactly easy to avoid in TWW, no more easy to avoid than in OoT. Possibly harder to avoid, actually. Especially those damn Moblins.

[Raien]

What's the difference? He "Used" the ToC to gain recognition from the Gods, who are more or less consciously tied with the Triforce anyway.

That's not the usage we were referring to earlier in this topic. We were referring to the power that the holders gain from their Triforce pieces. My point is that Link cannot direct the power of the ToC, it simply acts as a steroid for his inherent object of power; Courage.

[Duke Serkol]

Those ice Stalfos, for one example.

Is that their proper name?

[Hero of Legend]

Broken? I found no problems with swinging while moving (and while on horseback). I found it incredibly enjoyable, for one thing.

Yes, I thought it was great addition as well. Still, it is broken. Take the aforementioned Darknuts as an example. Hard to kill, you say? Well, not if you run in circles and slash with your sword, since they are unable to block a running slash from behind. Something to fix in Zelda Wii, I'm sure.

But then, I personally hope for an entirely new combat system. With a new engine to go with it. And I want to jump at will (you can in the 2D games!). Good news is, it probably will happen.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 25 February 2007 - 09:24 AM.

[Fyxe]

Is that their proper name?

No, it's not, I'm asking MK. to confirm all the names for me, but he hasn't got back to me on that yet.

However, a quick check...

It's name appears to be 'Chilfos', but I cannot confirm that.

[FDL]

Because I think so.

Cool. But I don't, which is why I'm asking. I want to know what your opinions on why it was the best.

Yeah, and that fact that TP's combat is the slowest AND most imprecise in the entire series matters nothing.

Wrong. There is no way it's more imprecise than TWW's. TWW was the most button-mashy of all the 3D Zeldas. You didn't have any control over Link leaping up and doing his psuedo-spin attack. Even if you liked TWW's combat better, it's true that it was the least precise.

Uh, they do that in TP as well, except you always have your shield out (and it blocks 90% of all attacks), which is kinda stupid. And seriously, what do you think the hidden skills are if not fancy parries?

They do it less than TWW's, I can tell you that. The shield thing is regrettable, but I didn't miss it all that much anyway. The fact that it gave us a chance for the shield shove made me fine with it. And the parries and the hidden skills were very, very different. With the parries, all you had to do was wait for the enemies to swing their weapons(which happened every five minutes) and then you could use the insta-kill button to take them out. In TP, while it did't require very much skill, it required more than TWW and you could use them whenever you had the chance.

The worst thing in TWW was the fact that a strong attack would knock enemies down, and then you would be unable to attack them until they got up. TP, although still suffering from the same flaw, improved on this with the finishing blow. That, and the ability to swing your sword while running (although it is broken), are about the only worthwhile changes.

I disagree. TP's combat may not have included Link jumping around and randomly spin-attacking but it was more precise and realistic. Despite the fact that Link swung his sword slower to appear more realistic, everything still felt faster to me.

Yes, it could. The bending arc is only a graphical effect. The GC version of TP on the other hand... Now that's a game with shitty aiming.

Wrong. Even the most rabid TP-haters agree with me. I really don't care if you liked TWW the best, but you can't pretend every flaw it had wasn't there.

Guess what? Opinions differ. I suggest you start accepting others'.

Guess what? I never once said that you couldn't have a differing opinion. I simply said that FOR ME the weakest 3D Zelda was TWW. I wanted to love it, and I wanted it to be the best game ever, but in the end I was disappointed.

However, you did pick up on the biggest flaw with Twilight Princess's battles... The shield is too strong. Okay, so the shield is extremely strong in TWW as well, but you have to at least hold the button. Of course, if you want to have a fun challenge... Play Twilight Princess without a shield. That should be interesting.

Eh, in the end it didn't bother me much. One good thing about it was that Link could actually get his defense knocked down by stronger enemies such as Darknuts and Zant, something you could not do in past games.

The hesitantness of the enemies was present in both games, but in TWW it was less noticable, because you usually fight more enemies at once. In TP, you often fight enemies one on one. They made Darknuts significantly harder to kill to counter this, but they don't do *too* much extra to try and kill you. Still, not all enemies are hesitant... Those ice Stalfos, for one example.

I kinda disagree, I found it always very noticable, and in TP they appeared to hesitate less. Not only that, but they got knocked down easier in TWW as well.

I rather liked this. I don't think it broke the combat. While fighting multiple enemies, it's not really noticable. When fighting a single enemy, they can still fight without a weapon, and can be just as dangerous without one than with one. I missed the fact that you couldn't pick up weapons in TP. I wanted to pick up the Darknut's sword when he threw it and use it against him. The problem with the weapons in TWW is that they were generally too slow, and most of the time it's best to just throw them at the enemy.

As I said, it was a good idea in theory, but in the end I found it detracted from the game somewhat. Maybe if you could only grab a weapon after the enemy was killed so you could use it on others it would work better.

Eh? Yes it could. o.o It just takes more practice than the bow in OoT and MM because it's more realistic. It's perfectly accurate, you just have to get used to the different visuals.

Meh, maybe when I play through it again I'll change my opinon, but for now that's how I feel.

Nobody's discrediting you in that respect. I just think TWW is flawed in different areas to combat, combat being one of the most enjoyable aspects. The reason the enemies are generally a bit easier to take out is because Link faces a lot more of them at once. Remember getting the Master Sword for the first time and effectively fighting a whole army of Darknuts and Moblins? Excellent stuff, and not easy. Enemy attacks aren't exactly easy to avoid in TWW, no more easy to avoid than in OoT. Possibly harder to avoid, actually. Especially those damn Moblins.

Hmm, that's true in some aspects. But what I mean is that we rarely got such battles, many times we fought those bokoblins who rarely attacked. The Moblins lost points because they rarely used that huge swing that tosses Link to the side and usually only pushed forward with their spears. But I agree, that battle in the castle was quite fun, I wish there had been more battles like that.

Yes, I thought it was great addition as well. Still, it is broken. Take the aforementioned Darknuts as an example. Hard to kill, you say? Well, not if you run in circles and slash with your sword, since they are unable to block a running slash from behind. Something to fix in Zelda Wii, I'm sure.

Hmm, I never tried that.

But then, I personally hope for an entirely new combat system. With a new engine to go with it. And I want to jump at will (you can in the 2D games!). Good news is, it probably will happen.

They pretty much have to with the new button layout. While TP Wii never seemed to be lacking for me, I'm sure they had some ideas that they could not implement due to TP being a GC game originally.

[Fyxe]

Wrong. There is no way it's more imprecise than TWW's. TWW was the most button-mashy of all the 3D Zeldas. You didn't have any control over Link leaping up and doing his psuedo-spin attack. Even if you liked TWW's combat better, it's true that it was the least precise.

Actually, that's kinda wrong, I'm afraid. Remember that TWW and TP use the same game engine. TP on the Wii is less precise, there's no avoiding that, simply due to the control method. While the hidden skills, for the most part, were very precise, using Parry in TWW wasn't exactly *imprecise*. If you get the timing wrong, you'll miss it. Nothing imprecise about that. And if you DO get it right, he doesn't randomly use the Helm Splitter or the Back Slice - it depends on the attack the enemy is using. If anything, it's too precise.

They do it less than TWW's, I can tell you that. The shield thing is regrettable, but I didn't miss it all that much anyway. The fact that it gave us a chance for the shield shove made me fine with it. And the parries and the hidden skills were very, very different. With the parries, all you had to do was wait for the enemies to swing their weapons(which happened every five minutes)

I'm not sure where you're getting this hestitantness from about TWW. I find, unless you're right in their face, that they're about as aggressive as the enemies in OoT, give or take a few seconds or so. MM's enemies remain the most aggressive, of course.

and then you could use the insta-kill button to take them out. In TP, while it did't require very much skill, it required more than TWW and you could use them whenever you had the chance.

That was an improvement, but can you say that the almighty Mortal Blow uses much skill? Not really. Swings and roundabouts.

I disagree. TP's combat may not have included Link jumping around and randomly spin-attacking but it was more precise and realistic. Despite the fact that Link swung his sword slower to appear more realistic, everything still felt faster to me.

It was more realistic, definitely more involving due to the control method, but not necessarily more precise. It's using the same game engine. The only lack of precision is in the control method.

Wrong. Even the most rabid TP-haters agree with me. I really don't care if you liked TWW the best, but you can't pretend every flaw it had wasn't there.

I haven't played the GC version of TP, but neither TWW or TP (on the Wii) have bad aiming. It's easier in TP, but TWW is not inaccurate.

Eh, in the end it didn't bother me much. One good thing about it was that Link could actually get his defense knocked down by stronger enemies such as Darknuts and Zant, something you could not do in past games.

That's because, generally, in past games the same attacks would simply break through the shield and knock Link over. Don't get me wrong, I like the whole concept of Link getting his defense knocked down, but how many enemies would actually follow it up with an attack that actually connects and damage Link before he can bring his shield up again? To my knowledge, only Dinolfos and Zant ever manage to do this. Darknuts on rare occasions.

I kinda disagree, I found it always very noticable, and in TP they appeared to hesitate less.

I'm sorry, all this stuff about hesitation is nonsense. I'm 99% sure that TWW is equal to TP in the amount the enemies attack, possibly higher. I certainly noticed how often Moblins attack after playing TWW shortly after TP.

Not only that, but they got knocked down easier in TWW as well.

Well, that's because you often fight many of them at once. And besides, only Darknuts get knocked down easier, for obvious reasons. In Twilight Princess, most recurring enemies behave almost exactly the same as in TWW.

Hmm, that's true in some aspects. But what I mean is that we rarely got such battles, many times we fought those bokoblins who rarely attacked.

While there were a lot of Bokoblins (just as there are lots of Bulblins in TP), I thought there were quite a lot of multiple enemy battles in TWW. Heck, I remember a room in Ganon's Castle where you have to face off against around seven Moblins at once.

The Moblins lost points because they rarely used that huge swing that tosses Link to the side and usually only pushed forward with their spears.

They only push forward if you're right up in their faces, and there's not much point getting that close anyway because they block everything. Unless you simply mean their annoying quick stab attacks. Hey, at least they had that move and it was fairly effective. I find they use that huge swing a lot. Thankfully they don't use it TOO much either, because they tend to kill each other with that attack, which is why they don't do it absolutely loads. I missed that in TP, enemies hitting each other... Such detail.

Edited by Fyxe, 25 February 2007 - 11:24 AM.

[FDL]

Actually, that's kinda wrong, I'm afraid. Remember that TWW and TP use the same game engine. TP on the Wii is less precise, there's no avoiding that, simply due to the control method. While the hidden skills, for the most part, were very precise, using Parry in TWW wasn't exactly *imprecise*. If you get the timing wrong, you'll miss it. Nothing imprecise about that. And if you DO get it right, he doesn't randomly use the Helm Splitter or the Back Slice - it depends on the attack the enemy is using. If anything, it's too precise.

By imprecise, I mean that TWW's contorls were incredibly loose, too loose, as you could just mash the B button and he would use uppercuts and spin attacks. TP Wii was imprecise if you got carried away, but TP GC was more precise than TWW was. Still, TP Wii's controls were still good because they were so immersive. The parry isn't really what I was talking about, though. That is precise.

I'm not sure where you're getting this hestitantness from about TWW. I find, unless you're right in their face, that they're about as aggressive as the enemies in OoT, give or take a few seconds or so. MM's enemies remain the most aggressive, of course.

Eh, I can't say I agree. The Bokoblins hopped around waiting a bit too often for me. But, stll, you are making some good points I hadn't thought of. OoT's enemies, though, did more damage so their hesitance didn't bother me.

That was an improvement, but can you say that the almighty Mortal Blow uses much skill? Not really. Swings and roundabouts.

I barely used the Mortal Draw, so I can't comment

It was more realistic, definitely more involving due to the control method, but not necessarily more precise. It's using the same game engine. The only lack of precision is in the control method.

When I talk about imprecision, I'm more talking about the fact that in TP you always knew what Link was gonna do. In TWW, he did wierd things that were flashy but didn't really work in some situations.

I haven't played the GC version of TP, but neither TWW or TP (on the Wii) have bad aiming. It's easier in TP, but TWW is not inaccurate.

As I said, I haven't played upto the ToG in a long time, so I'll have to try again. But I remember the arrows not being as accurate, even compared to OoT and MM. However, TP Wii can't really be compared to any of the other games, aiming-wise, cuz it had FPS level precision.

That's because, generally, in past games the same attacks would simply break through the shield and knock Link over. Don't get me wrong, I like the whole concept of Link getting his defense knocked down, but how many enemies would actually follow it up with an attack that actually connects and damage Link before he can bring his shield up again? To my knowledge, only Dinolfos and Zant ever manage to do this. Darknuts on rare occasions.

Again, I'm aware that many people disliked the fact that the shield was not as controllable, but it didn't bother me particularly. The shield shove may have never happened otherwise.

I'm sorry, all this stuff about hesitation is nonsense. I'm 99% sure that TWW is equal to TP in the amount the enemies attack, possibly higher. I certainly noticed how often Moblins attack after playing TWW shortly after TP.

I dunno, I always found TWW to have easier, less furious combat than the other games. I may be imagining things, but that's how it seems and I've actually seen some agreement with me in reviews and so on.

Well, that's because you often fight many of them at once. And besides, only Darknuts get knocked down easier, for obvious reasons. In Twilight Princess, most recurring enemies behave almost exactly the same as in TWW.

I didn't see it that way. The Bokoblins in TP seemed, to me, to be less hesitant. But I guess, at least here, that's just me.

While there were a lot of Bokoblins (just as there are lots of Bulblins in TP), I thought there were quite a lot of multiple enemy battles in TWW. Heck, I remember a room in Ganon's Castle where you have to face off against around seven Moblins at once.

Well, TP had it's fair share as well. The ruins outside the Arbiter's Grounds, the Hidden Village, Hyrule Castle had many, and all around the field. Plus, the enemies were less easy to knock over, though some still did.

They only push forward if you're right up in their faces, and there's not much point getting that close anyway because they block everything. Unless you simply mean their annoying quick stab attacks. Hey, at least they had that move and it was fairly effective. I find they use that huge swing a lot. Thankfully they don't use it TOO much either, because they tend to kill each other with that attack, which is why they don't do it absolutely loads. I missed that in TP, enemies hitting each other... Such detail

I definetly liked that they could hit each other, though it made some things too easy. Still it was fun seeing dissension amongst them.

[MikePetersSucks]

Ugh, I get the message.

Discussing video game storyline with you guys isn't fun anymore; it used to be great but all you do now is continually attack me and my methods as "conceited, flawed and incorrect". I'll never understand how trying to bring new ideas to the table can spark off such a negative response - some of you seriously need to chill out (bet I'm not the first person to tell you that).

When you drive a regular out of the thread, does that actually bring you some temporary form of gratification? Pity.

Alright, fine.