What was 'wrong' with Twilight Princess?

[DazzeL]

Anyway, if we're talking bad TP dungeons I think you need look no further than the third one, the water dungeon. It wasn't as bad as most water dungeons but it was still the worst of them all.

[Guest Maase]

To me, every Dungeon was original in his own way, even Sky Temple was original, but it sucked, so... Whatever.

 

I loved the Time Temple and the Twilight Temple, they have original concepts, and were awesome as hell.

 

Also, Water Dungeon wasn't bad, i remember having fun filling everything with Water and finding the boss, i loved it.

[DazzeL]

Each thier own ;]

[Blue_Ninja0]

Took the words out of my mouth! (keyboard)

Nightwolf almost never played a Zelda game so her opinion about the game is probably the most fair.

 

Sorry Nightwolf, but you see... We're on the internet, and on a Nintendo forum, and I didn't look at your info. What were the odds of you being a girl?

Edited my post.

 

It's good to see people actually talking good about the game. A few months ago it was a whole different story.

[nightwolf]

Sorry Nightwolf, but you see... We're on the internet, and on a Nintendo forum, and I didn't look at your info. What were the odds of you being a girl?

Edited my post.

haha I've had my name as nightwolf for a good few years (I didn't know about mortal kombat when I chose it) and everyone assumes I'm a guy so I wouldn't worry.

 

I still continue to love the game, I still don't think I have a fault with it yet.

[Problematique]

Hmm, I can draw pretty strong parallels between OoT/TP and Knights of the Old Republic/Mass Effect. The latter games are excellent pieces of work in their own right and should score 90+ on average. However, the moment we make comparisons it's very easy to bring out a lot of negatives which would be swept under the carpet in other cases.

 

Both games suffer a lot from the lack of content outside the main story after the first half of the game...both worlds seem much emptier compared to their older counterparts and in general a little less complete. Both games are a little less atmospheric than the earlier games...I found that there is a lack of a sense of impending doom in both TP and ME which was captured in OoT and KotOR. (ME also has many fewer random conversations and interaction with crew members).

 

It may just be me but maybe developers are relying more and more on visual techniques to enhance the atmosphere now that the line between virtual and real life is being increasingly blurred. Yeah, we're a long way from lifelike but much closer than we were 12 years ago.

 

In the end I feel like the quality of the gaming itself is very high...however, the production is becoming in little less meticulous across the board - although a large majority of gamers won't really notice it. I'm not saying that Nintendo are becoming sloppy, far from it. But a little more effort all round could go a long way to removing OoT from the Gamerankings top spot

[tom.k]

OoT, MM, WW and TP were all a tad easy, though.

 

lol, then what was hard to you?

[Hellfire]

Except Zelda I and II, none of them are hard, at least enemy wise

[Chris the great]

i dont think its dying that makes a game like zelda hard, id say its working out what to do. i dont think your really ment to die alot, especialy from low grade enemies, its a game more about exploration then combat.

[Hellfire]

i dont think its dying that makes a game like zelda hard, id say its working out what to do. i dont think your really ment to die alot, especialy from low grade enemies, its a game more about exploration then combat.

 

Indeed, and TP had some pretty parts that required a lot of thought. People always forget about that difficulty, they just say it's frustrating and then jump to saying it's very easy because of the enemies.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

...But an attack from Beast Ganon shouldn't just take away three hearts.

[Hellfire]

That's why no one's saying that enemies are hard.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

...

 

...But an attack from Beast Ganon shouldn't just take away three hearts.

[Hellfire]

...

 

...But an attack from Beast Ganon shouldn't just take away three hearts.

 

No. No it shouldn't.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

No. No it shouldn't.

 

Woah...You agreed!?

 

You're just being nice to me since I lost my man cherries - awww you're the best. :-)

[...]

I don't really care about difficult enemies. The 80's and arcade games are long gone, you shouldn't be replaying the same level/mission/enemy 200 times in modern games. Old games had that design pattern in order to get the coins from players, modern/console games shouldn't be designed like that anymore.

It's just my personal taste, but to me frustrating is dying 200 times against the same enemy. Wrapping my brain around an intricate and well designed puzzle is how I get off playing games, not blasting baddies out of my way.

 

Metroid Prime 1 was a perfectly balanced game. Many people say it was very difficult, I found it a medium and interesting challenge in both departments: puzzles/exploration and the enemies. The enemies were hard, but not really unfair. And the game (1st one) placed more emphasis on the puzzles anyway. The sequels (especially MP2) exaggerated on the boss parts and ruined the perfect balance of the 1st one a little bit.

 

Zelda has always a been a pleasure to play and always will be. Because it's about the dungeons, the puzzles, the concept, etc, not the enemies.

 

Tomb Raider Anniversary is a pleasure to play for the same reasons. Enemies are rare in that game. A wolf appears here and there from time to time, you kill it with about 10 shots of your infinite ammo guns and move on to the next puzzle and platform. It's not about the enemies. It's about teasing your brain with brilliant platforming and puzzles. To me, that's what I look for in a game, not dying 200 times fighting enemies.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Yeah but, regardless of if you think Zelda is not about the combat at the end of the day the hero is a swordsman and a sword plays a key role in most Zelda games. Thus, you will have enemies to fight and enemies are also part of the puzzle/dungeon design/world concept and intertwines with the overall challenge the game presented.

 

I think the current boss battle system is very stale. The bosses and enemies are not very dynamic and usually have, what, like two to three styles of attack and you can usually win by using the system you started doing. This is where I feel the lighter technology of the Wii will not help advance Nintendo games to higher plateaus.

 

Imagine a boss with up to 10 different attack patterns and you had to figure out a way to counter them with the abilities you have at that stage, something like that is more dynamic and free-flowing, showing boss intelligence. The rinse-repeat system has to develop into something more complex IMO or the bosses will always feel like child's play.

 

I mean compare Volvagia in the Fire temple to Morpheel in the Lakebed Temple. OOT's Volvagia seemed more advanced. Also no boss in TP required as much thought as you had when fighting Twinrova.

[...]

I don't really remember Morpheel except that I thought it was cool, but I remember Volvagia (and every other OoT boss) very well... How is he any more complex than any other Zelda boss? You just hit him with an arrow and then bash his head with a hammer. Repeat 2x and it's over.

[Hellfire]

Tbh I haven't played any boss in any game, be it Wii, PC, 360 or PS3 that's how complex as you name it, Zelda still has some of the best bosses TP included. Unless you have very very good AI (which, again, never seen it on other bosses) technology has nothing to do with it. And the sword fights i.e. fight with Ganondorf at least break a little from it (and I love mano a mano fights)

[Jonnas]

King_V is definately exaggerating there. Volvagia and Morpheel are equally easy, really. And Twinrova didn't really require much thought. Not many Zelda bosses do. It's all about the fun of the fight.

 

To me, the only actually "hard" Zelda bosses (that I remember) are that snake-thing in Link to the Past, and Morpha (and even Morpha isn't much trouble).

 

The only hard time I've had with enemies was in OoT Master Quest (where they put hard enemies at the beginning) and in some 2D Zeldas.

[DazzeL]

Tbh I haven't played any boss in any game, be it Wii, PC, 360 or PS3 that's how complex as you name it, Zelda still has some of the best bosses TP included. Unless you have very very good AI (which, again, never seen it on other bosses) technology has nothing to do with it. And the sword fights i.e. fight with Ganondorf at least break a little from it (and I love mano a mano fights)

 

You're not giving modern AI enough credit here. Ten different attack patterns is extremely achievable. Bosses are a little bit out of fashion but if you look at the enemy AI in say CoD 4, HL2 or something similar it's outstanding these days. I still don't think the Wii is a technical limitation as such but nintendo are not exploiting this aspect to it's fullest. As with the games themselves the bosses in modern Zeldas are just easier.

[Shorty]

To me, I just felt the world was far too small. Play Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion, wander around on the map and then you'll see what Hyrule Field could really be like. Not just flat land with inexplicable holes everywhere and no real sense of life. There were no people living out in the fields, no horses or carts or buildings. There wasn't even anything you could really describe as a forest, or a stream, or a mountain. I know it's been the way of Zelda forever but it's time for an update.

 

I also really disliked Kakariko village, for basically the same reason. The village was better even way back in OoT. How is a single row of unoccupied houses a village? And why didn't people move back in when you saved it?

 

I think Majora's Mask is my favourite Zelda game because it had a real sense of dynamic and flowing life. People had jobs to do and places to be and the world was always moving.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

King_V is definately exaggerating there. Volvagia and Morpheel are equally easy, really. And Twinrova didn't really require much thought. Not many Zelda bosses do. It's all about the fun of the fight.

 

To me, the only actually "hard" Zelda bosses (that I remember) are that snake-thing in Link to the Past, and Morpha (and even Morpha isn't much trouble).

 

The only hard time I've had with enemies was in OoT Master Quest (where they put hard enemies at the beginning) and in some 2D Zeldas.

 

All Morpheel did in its first form was attempt to attack you with its tentacles, all you had to do was dodge and clawshot. Then the second form was basically it just swimming around while you rinse and repeat.

 

Volvagia flew around breathing fire, went back into the ground and attacked with its flame hairs and when it was weaker, boulders would start to collapse. There was only a slight opportunity to land a blow with the Megaton Hammer and this was where the players skill came in.

 

Tens years later, bosses have gotten easier and strategies remain in the same forseeable vein, which really shouldn't be the case.

 

Twinrova required that you keep track of what elemental attack you last used. She would typically attack with 2 fire blasts and then one ice blast, when you need 3 blasts of the same element to allow the Mirror Shield to attack. It might not be rocket science but beating a boss that you actually had to think about defeating (rather than hack, hack, hack) is always refreshing.

 

New boss concepts wouldn't be so bad, I mean Stallord was amazing. I think Armorgohma may have been intresting if they kept the original scene where Link was being chased by it. I will give credit to the Snowpeak Ruins and City in the Sky bosses though.

[...]

It's all about the fun of the fight.

 

Me feelings exactly. :awesome:

 

 

To me, the only actually "hard" Zelda bosses (that I remember) are that snake-thing in Link to the Past, and Morpha (and even Morpha isn't much trouble).

 

Morpha isn't hard, it just requires a lot of patience, because the biggest problem with that boss is having the hookshot actually attach to it, when it's constantly moving in circles.

 

 

To me, I just felt the world was far too small. Play Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion, wander around on the map and then you'll see what Hyrule Field could really be like. Not just flat land with inexplicable holes everywhere and no real sense of life. There were no people living out in the fields, no horses or carts or buildings. There wasn't even anything you could really describe as a forest, or a stream, or a mountain. I know it's been the way of Zelda forever but it's time for an update.

 

Exactly. I haven't actually played Oblivion, but I've seen plenty of videos and the world and its variety seem enormous. That's what I'd like to see in a Zelda game (and we will eventually, hopefully). Zelda's overworld seems plastic in comparison.

 

 

And I'm not talking about the graphics, it's more like the variety even in the terrain. Oblivion's world looks real, in terms of surface variation (check out that valley at 1:57).

 

I will give credit to the Snowpeak Ruins and City in the Sky bosses though.

 

 

Hmm, I didn't really like the Snowpeaks boss (dungeon was great though) but I did love the Sky City boss. I really have to play TP again.

[Jonnas]

I also really disliked Kakariko village, for basically the same reason. The village was better even way back in OoT. How is a single row of unoccupied houses a village? And why didn't people move back in when you saved it?

 

While I do think that Kakariko should've had more life, there is a reason the people didn't move back in. They were dead.

 

All Morpheel did in its first form was attempt to attack you with its tentacles, all you had to do was dodge and clawshot. Then the second form was basically it just swimming around while you rinse and repeat.

 

Volvagia flew around breathing fire, went back into the ground and attacked with its flame hairs and when it was weaker, boulders would start to collapse. There was only a slight opportunity to land a blow with the Megaton Hammer and this was where the players skill came in.

 

It was still the same obvious strategy throughout the whole fight. Personally, I compare Morpheel to Barinade. They were "just use the dungeon item until it's dead" kind of bosses.

 

Tens years later, bosses have gotten easier and strategies remain in the same forseeable vein, which really shouldn't be the case.

 

Twinrova required that you keep track of what elemental attack you last used. She would typically attack with 2 fire blasts and then one ice blast, when you need 3 blasts of the same element to allow the Mirror Shield to attack. It might not be rocket science but beating a boss that you actually had to think about defeating (rather than hack, hack, hack) is always refreshing.

 

New boss concepts wouldn't be so bad, I mean Stallord was amazing. I think Armorgohma may have been intresting if they kept the original scene where Link was being chased by it. I will give credit to the Snowpeak Ruins and City in the Sky bosses though.

 

 

I still think strategies pretty much remain similar. Not many bosses are hack,hack,hack. What about Fyrus? Or Gohma in Wind Waker? They required some thinking too, y'know. About as much as Twinrova.

 

I do think boss fights revolve too much about one single item, though. It can be amazing in some cases (Stallord), but a letdown in others.

It would be cool if the boss fights only used said item for a part of the fight (Phantom Ganon), or if they allowed different forms of offense (OoT Gohma), or maybe even use more than one item (Bongo Bongo)

 

Morpha isn't hard, it just requires a lot of patience, because the biggest problem with that boss is having the hookshot actually attach to it, when it's constantly moving in circles.

 

That is problem No.1. Problem No.2 is those tentacles that can easily surprise you, and take out about 3 hearts from you when they do.

Morpha is still my favourite boss in OoT, though.