Reviews VideoGame / The Legend Of Zelda Twilight Princess

he just shows up at the end like General Grievous

General Grievous showed up in the first ten minutes of Revenge of the Sith.

So we're clear, the following is about the review itself, rather than your opinion of the game. That said:

First and foremost, if you're gonna write a review, it has to at least be readable 'cuz most aren't gonna strain their eyes plowing through a Wall of Text. Separate your thoughts into paragraph - beginning with an introductory that essentially summarizes the review, with rest elaborating on the introduction, then end with a closing paragraph or statement.

The review as it's written, comes across as a rant instead, that effectively amounts to: 'I hate this game, it didn't understand it, it's dark, it's gritty, it's crap.' Again, I won't knock you for your opinion, even though I strongly disagree with it. But if you're gonna knock something, you have to do better job explaining what was it that you didn't like.

For example: near the end of your review, you criticize the adults for being (quote): "incompetent or lazy".

Having played Twilight Princess several times, I can refute that point with Link, who's 19, making him an adult. Since he's The Hero and saves everyone, that'd mean there's at least one adult who isn't useless.

But, in addition to Link, there's also Russel, who is Link's swordmaster/big brother figure. According to the supplemental material, Russel routinely patrols the forest surrounding Ordon Village, to keep the montsers away. Also, when Link returns from rescuing Talo, near the beginning of the game, he meets Russel just as he was heading into the forest to save Talo, himself. Later, he even joins the resistance group at Telma's bar and was integral in helping Link reach the Sacred Meadow. And even pulls a Big Damn Heroes, when he and the others save Link from being ambushed while he was storming Hyrule Castle.

So that's two adults that weren't useless. You can also add Telma, Ronado, and Zelda (who's 20), since she surrendered her kingdom so her subjects lives would be sparred, and takes part in the latter portion of the showdown with Ganondorf, at the end.

My point being, if you're gonna say the adults are useless, you have to explain what makes them useless. Because anyone who's played it (like I have) can and, likely will, rebut that point.

You say, "Kakariko Village is insultingly empty," but there was a reason for that, which was explained if you used Link's wolf sense to eavesdrop on the conversation between Ronado and the guy who runs the bomb shop, when you first arrive.

You also say the The Overworld is "dull and lifeless", but you don't explain what gives you that impression about it. Speaking personally, I found plenty to do in TP's overworld. There's mim-games galore, like Fabri and Fer's 'Island of Wonder' game, at Lake Hylia. Exploring the hidden grotos, which are effectively mini-dungeons. Sniping enemies on horseback, collecting golden bugs for Agatha, escorting Telma and Ilia to Kakariko Village, which included another joust with King Bilbon, etc.

See what I'm saying?

Not liking the game is fine, but the review is poorly written, and doesn't adequately explain what you didn't like. Made worse, since most, if not all, of your complaints can be easily rebutted by anyone's who's played it. I'm not criticizing you, or your opinion. I accept that everyone isn't going to like Twilight Princess as I did, and that's fine. All I'm saying is the review needs to be written better, and your reasons need better explanation.

I find a bit hasty to write this review after having been called for because of those questionable trope examples you've added in the main article. Just saying. =/

@Tuckerscreator: The General Grievous remark was satire. Don't read too deep into it. @Miin U: If you don't like my thoughts and opinions on the game you love, then don't read them. Easy as. I can actually go into great detail with regards to how bare-bones the overall game and experience is, compared to earlier works, and give much more constructive feedback. TV Tropes' review system's aggressively small 400-word limit, however, cannot. Bearing in mind, you typed in a 578 word fanboy response or rather "objection" as well. Please be open-minded and considerate of the site limitations, otherwise you'll come off as hypocritical. @My Final Edits: Hasty? I don't understand what you mean. I played this game back in 2006. How am I being hasty? You disagree with the terminology I use. That's fine. I won't use the term "arguably" anymore if it bothers you, but likewise I appreciate it if you didn't use condescending terms such as "questionable" either. Remember: I'm not outright condemning the game. I'm stating the cold hard objective facts. The facts that sadly, get removed if even remotely "negative", because the fanboys are unwilling to accept the game has any flaws. I can't help them (I don't think anyone can). But I can share my own experiences and knowledge about the games I've played. That's what I intend to do.

This response was rather childish.

Again I ask (in general), why make a review here on tvtropes which has a comment section, if you're not gonna handle criticism maturely.

Fanboy response? again, it seems that you're boiling things down to, anyone who disagrees with me is a "negative cognotation", which seems so given you going on about fanboys at the end there. Miin U tackled the points s/he dissagreed with, you on the otherhand are resorting to name calling, without really trying to refute any of said points. I mean as you just said, you have all the space you need here on the comment section.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

You're opinion is not a fact. Specially when you say things like: insultingly empty, dull and lifeless/uninteresting, annoying, and of course "The story is (cries) just...crap. Just crap. It makes no sense!"

How is it anything like Tolkien?

Lord of the Rings is hardly some dark gritty Grim Dark thing, sure it takes itself seriously, but has frigging hobbits in it so isn't all that dark.

Neither is TP. The art style is just a bit more brown than usual. It still looks pretty though.

@Welshbie - If you're saying I'm hypocritical, based on the length of my critique, I think you misunderstand what Wall of Text means (aka, 'Block of Text'). Which is why I suggested you should separate your thoughts into paragraphs. That way, it'd be easier for others to read.

"If you don't like my thoughts and opinions on the game you love, then don't read them. Easy as."

I could just as easily reply: "If you don't want others to disagree with you, don't post a review on the internet." People have opinions, and they're not always going to agree. That's a given. However, I was not criticising you for opinion, which I said several times. I even said I was fine with you not liking the game.

What I found fault with, was the way the review was written, and that your points weren't clearly explained. You can get around the 400 word limit by potholing to related tropes to clarify what you mean. Just as I did, in my critique of your review, and in my review of Variable Geo.

"I'm stating the cold hard objective facts."

No, you weren't, because facts can't be argued. For example, you said (quote): "all of the adults or incompetent or lazy." But we know that isn't a fact, because Link, Russel, Telma, Renado, and Zelda are all adults in that game and not one of them are incompetent; much less, lazy. I even offered evidence of each one.

You said Kakariko Village was "insultingly empty". But, if you'd been paying attention, they explained why that was when you first arrive. All you had to do was use Link's wolf sense to eavesdrop on the conversation between Renado and the guy who runs the bombshop.

You even said The Overworld was "dull and lifeless", so I mentioned a list of activities that can be found. If any of what you said was fact, there wouldn't be any room for argument.

If you couldn't find enough to do in Twilight Princess' overworld, I'd heartily recommend you try Xenoblade. That one's HUGE and it's got more activity than you can shake a stick at. So much, in fact, that the game enables a quick travel function from the start, and gives you EXP just for exploring the world map.

Also, pal - how is your comment about General Grievous satire?

You could have said "Ganon shows up out of nowhere like General Grievous". That's probably what you were getting at, even. But instead of thinking the situation over and admitting you made a mistake, or even realizing tat you made a mistake, you called it "satire". That is not satire. It isn't funny, it doesn't poke fun at the situation - they are 2 instances of the same thing, Giant Space Flea from Nowhere (though Grievous' appearance can be explained by Clone Wars but w/e).

I think the jury's in - you're ignorant. You use at least 2 words without knowing what they mean. You state your opinion as "cold hard objective facts". You respond to criticism with "but you did this, so your opinion is invalid". You have a lot more learning to do, pal - how old are you, again? 11? 12? Because when I thought along the same lines as you, that's how old I was.

By the way - learn how to space your paragraphs.

I knew I forgot something:

"Ganondorf has no purpose, he just shows up out of nowhere, like General Grievas"

I've raised this point a few months ago, so I'll recap: Ganondorf did not show up out of nowhere, because the narrative told you he was coming before you're even halfway through it.

Zant first alludes to it when he confronts Midna just as she and Link have returned from clearing the Lakebed Temple (dungeon no.3). When he sees she has the Fused Shadows, he tells her their old magic no longer effected him, because he'd been bestowed with far greater power by his lord. That alone made it clear that there was someone bigger backing Zant, they were the one who granted him his newfound power.

Then, just after clering the Arbiter's Grounds (4th dungeon) and reaching the Mirror Chamber, you get an extended cutscene where the Sages outright tell you about Ganondorf. They recount how they tried (and failed) to execute him, because he had the Triforce of Power; which effectively made him immortal. So they did the next best thing, and banished him to theTwilight Realm.

All of that is before you're even halfway through the game. In fact, it parallels the events of A Link to the Past.

• You're initially lead to believe Aganhim/Zant are the main villains.
• You confront both of them after clearing the 3rd dungeon in both games, during which it's made clear there's a bigger threat.
• Upon clearing the 4th dungeon in both games, you learn about Ganon/Ganondorf's involvement.

It wasn't an Ass Pull then (A Ltt P), it still wasn't in Twilight Princess.

As for Ganadorf's purpose, he was the one pulling Zant's strings, in preparation for his return to (and eventual conquest of) Hyrule. Simply put: he's the Big Bad.

Here's something you might find interesting, the previous review before mine, titled "A Series that Ages Like Fine Wine Overall" has nothing but overwhelmingly positive things to say about the game. Take a big fat guess how many of you fanboys have commented or responded to the review? None. NIL. Not a single one of you. So please don't call me "immature", when you ignore and shun praise, yet simultaneously feel the need to tear apart criticism.

There are opinions and then there are informed opinions after all. I don't like Twilight Princess. I informed you why. The design choices, the dull story, poor characterization. There are pieces of it I liked, sure, but as a whole, as a complete package? No. There are MUCH better games in the series. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise. Likewise, you all love the game for all its faults. Nothing I say will convince you otherwise. However, there's a difference, I respect your opinions. You don't respect mine. Silencing anyone who dares disagree with you is arrogant, controlling and presumptuous in the extreme.

The whole feels like a disjointed mess. The reason for this is its troubled development. You can look this up anywhere. The story of the game underwent several changes by Mitsuhiro Takano and Aya Kyogoku. Aonuma while working on other projects reported his team was struggling. The two worlds, the wolf transformation, it all made the Link as character, unbelievable. That's a fact that you all ignore.

@Welshbie - Just because someone disagrees with you, does not make them a fanboy. That's the mindset of someone who can't tolerate any opinion other than their own. It practically says, 'if you disagree with me, you're one of them'. That is what I'd call arrogant.

I notice you haven't refuted a single point anyone's made. Instead, you resort to name calling and, now, finger pointing (i.e. 'well, what about that other guy's review?'). So clearly you don't respect anyone else's opinion.

"The whole feels like a disjointed mess"

In what way? Explain. That's what we're asking you.

"The two worlds, the wolf transformation, it all made the Link as character, unbelievable."

How does any of that make Link unbelievable as a character, especially when all of those elements were first used in A Link to the Past?

"That's a fact you all ignore."

Because you haven't given us any facts yet, other than: you don't like Twilight Princess., and you don't like anyone questioning why.

I'm not trying to be rude. If I came across that way, I apologize because that wasn't my intention; including this post. But for future reference, if you're gonna post an opinion on the internet, and say you're stating objective facts, you need to make sure you have your facts straight and be prepared to provide proof if someone asks.

Your review of Twilight Princess contains several bits of misinformation, which I've already gone over. So it isn't factual. Nor is it objective if you're getting this worked up over others disagreeing with you and offering their opinions. I'll leave it at that.

So please don't call me "immature", when you ignore and shun praise, yet simultaneously feel the need to tear apart criticism.

Debate is immature now, apparently.

Nothing you say will convince me otherwise. Likewise, you all love the game for all its faults. Nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

Opinions aren't supposed to be immutable, I hope you realize.

However, there's a difference, I respect your opinions. You don't respect mine.

Pfffffff.

There are opinions and then there are informed opinions after all. I don't like Twilight Princess. I informed you why.

The facts that sadly, get removed if even remotely "negative", because the fanboys are unwilling to accept the game has any flaws.

Bearing in mind, you typed in a 578 word fanboy response or rather "objection" as well.

Silencing anyone who dares disagree with you is arrogant, controlling and presumptuous in the extreme.

Please be open-minded and considerate of the site limitations, otherwise you'll come off as hypocritical.

As someone who's actually enrolled in a satire class, I can say that the Grievous remark wasn't satire. It's Parody Retcon. Saying something inaccurate isn't satire. It'd be like me saying: "This guy is the least dangerous villain since the Terminator!" Am I saying the Terminator isn't dangerous? Then my point is hugely wrong. Or am I saying that the guy IS threatening? Then why did I word it in such a confusing way? Am I adding a deliberately inaccurate example as a joke? But that just undermines my sentence's argument. You can't take a paradoxical statement seriously, nor say it's suddenly a joke. Satire isn't just making jokes. It's pointing out flaws in a work's social message by showing a ridiculous exaggeration of it.

When you make a review, splitting it into paragraphs is always advised because it helps you organize your thoughts. Reviews that are single paragraphs tend to come across as rambling or rants, and this one is no different.

Look at the review under mine, 'One of the most boring games I've ever had the misfortune of playing.' It is an overwhelmingly negative review, but it only has 4 comments, 2 of which are from the author and 2 of which are from 1 person who is very respectful of the author's opinion. It is split into 5 paragraphs, which is one of the things that makes it a better organized and better thought out review.

And I guess you didn't read my review all the way through if you think I had 'nothing but overwhelmingly positive things to say.' I called the wolf controls inferior, called the motion controls outdated, criticized the first hour for being boring, and criticized the graphics and music.

To sum up everything that's wrong about the game within 400 words is impossible. At least grant me that. If you insist on me going into depth I will...

The soundtrack? Dreadful. It has the least memorable OST in the entire series. At least with Skyward Sword I was humming the Ballad of the Goddess for a while. Here there was nothing for me.

The grimier and gritter graphics is a problem. Everything looks uglier, up close, it takes the wonder and magic out of the world I had so much fun exploring. The monsters all look very grotesque, most of the people look dejected, and Link's face? ARGH. Link's face is surprisingly creepy when it wants to be, especially when he screams or smiles. People make funny jokes and captions about it on tumblr. Its that disturbing. How did Nintendo accomplish that? Ganon looking menacing is acceptable...but not Link!

The architecture of Hyrule, its castle and especially its bridges is truly bizarre. I know its a fantasy world, but it looks just plain wrong. Even kids have a basic understanding of engineering, that if something is not supported, it will collapse. Link's hometown is ramshackle.

The dungeons themselves aren't particularly long, but they are arduous and boring. No challenge whatsoever.

The story itself, is what kills any enthusiasm for me. The second half of the game, its plot in general, fell apart horribly. After beating the Water Temple, you're told some back-story about "interlopers", which makes little sense even within its own context since everyone was happy and together in the creation of world, then how the fused shadow has an ability to corrupt the person who possesses it, how they were banished, how the mirror has an ability to corrupt the person who possesses it, and so on. This raises more questions than it does answer. The Triforce is addressed yet never named once. Ganon hijacks the plot as the big bad, because the Goddesses pulled some divine prank or other, and Zant was a complete clown, a puppet the whole time.

One of the worst moments is Midna reflecting on Link for choosing the path of the hero, means saving everyone in Hyrule, yet everyone will be oblivious to him and his efforts. This is wonderfully intelligent and realistic. You're the hero, not for rewards, or recognition, but for doing the right thing. This deep topic matter is DESTROYED one scene later, when the story-writers decided "Nope, that ain't gonna fly", and the kids everyone are...ugh...swooning over him and congratulating him and praising him as Hyrule's destined hero, its disgusting.

Hyrule Castle Town is lifeless. It looks impressive at first glance, but none of its inhabitants seem to even notice the peril the castle RIGHT NEXT TO THEM, is in. That breaks the immersion for me. There's no interaction between the people going to and froth.

Changing into wolf form to howl is tiring. Fighting as wolf form is annoying. Warping as wolf form then having to transform back again is very annoying. Midna is "annoying incarnate".

The controls feel slippery, its hard to describe. Link feels like he's floating on mid-air or sliding on oily slick. I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I've bumped into either side of a ladder and he refuses to get up on the ladder. The mandatory sled race is HORRIBLE. I pulled it off first time with no trouble. On my replay of it, I just crashed and crashed and crashed and crashed. Or jammed myself inside walls. Yep. I didn't realise how broken it was until I picked the game up again. In combat, I sometimes don't feel in control when dealing with multiple enemies, Link or the camera, or both, will freak out and he'll face the wrong direction, costing me precious health during the Cave of Ordeals. Its nerve-wracking for all the wrong reasons. Challenge should NOT be based on how unresponsive the controls can be without warning.

I can go on and on. The question is, do you want me to?

Alright, you've explained just why you dislike the game. That's fine. You've given reason to your opinion instead of a couple half-hearted snarks, and it makes the review at least a tad more credible. People might share the same sentiments toward certain points of the game you just mentioned, but still say they like the game - but yo, your opinion is yours, and knowing your reasoning for not liking Twilight Princess as much is a lot better than the initial review.

You've shown a bit of maturity and actually gone "okay, HERE'S what I don't like about this:", when a lot of people will just go "I don't like this, it is objectively an awful game, don't play it" - which you began as, but you've at least shifted and actually listed credible, physical reasons to dislike the game. I'm much more likely to respect your views now, just because you elaborated your points in the end.

There were so many design choices that irked me and ruined the experience.

On GameCube, its main menu and item menu are separated and assigned to different buttons. Get this: the "Up" button on the d-pad is where the items are. The start button is for your gear and everything else. I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I swore after mistakenly hitting start, when I actually meant to press "Up" button on the d-pad to get the bomb arrows out, for example.

I'm also frustrated with how the on-display buttons and their respective commands take up a considerable chunk of your screen when playing. Especially the map. I'm dismayed by that. On previous titles they were neatly positioned in either corner of the screen. Here they're hovering towards the middle. On Wii, its even worse, the GUI is huge, takes up a third of the left-side of your screen.

I think, the core of the problem Mr Mallard, is this 400-word limit system. You have to summarize *all* of your thoughts and feelings on a massive title in a few rushed lines, at the risk of sounding ignorant. Not to mention, certain devices like ipads, tablets, and so on, seem "incompatible" with this section of the site, in that, when you force a new line for a paragraph, it doesn't recognize it. It'll automatically try to "word-wrap up everything" together. Its not until you get hold of a tidy computer can you later rectify it.

@Welshbie - I'd still disagree with some of your reasons, but I won't. All I'll say is, I didn't have any of the problems you seemed to have with it. My only complaints would be:

• The overall lack of difficulty, since the enemies were pushovers (including bosses), who only took off half a heart when they hit you. Which is a huge step down from the previous games.
• And that there were only two sidequests (collect the 24 Golden Bugs and hunt all 60 Poes). The former was useful since you gain the Adult and Giant's Wallet from it. The latter was a complete waste of time, since all you get for it, is infinite rupees... which you'll never need.

Aside from that, it's my second favorite game in the series, after Majora's Mask.

@Miin U: I suppose the Magic Armor was also useless. I don't know, I never played this game.

@doctrainAUM - It was, 'cuz once you have more the five hearts, you're basically immortal.

That's why I hope the new Zelda that's being developed for Wii U has a selectable difficulty setting, like Kingdom Hearts does.