Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Archives
Pre-2006 January ~ October 2006 October - December 2006

Strategy Guide Information

[1][2]

I bought the strategy guide with the game specifically to assist in re-writing this article now that the game has been released. If anyone would like to guide me to an area where the guide may be a useful source of information, I will be happy to relay it with a full citation. It is the official Nintendo Power guide. Mellesime 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia is not a place for video game guides [3]. Sorry. --Zooba 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the project's guidelines - the best place for such content would be one of the gaming-specific wikis mentioned there. --Oscarthecat 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, while gameplay information and tips don't belong here, the guide probably can serve as a useful way to cite story elements and other things that might seem suspect otherwise. --Herald Alberich 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, I've been busting my butt trying to update Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. I've added TP appearences for enemies whose names I know (Stalfos, Darknut, etc), but that still leaves a lot of new enemies, like the fish things in the Goron Mines or the mini bosses of most dungeons, to name a few. What's most important is the addition of their names; if you don't know what else to write/not to write, I can add the rest. SixteenBitJorge 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to using the guide or instruction manual as a source for pictures, plot, and profiles. -- Mellesime 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's all you plan on adding I don't see a reason why not. --Zooba 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

TSA?

TSA is cited a couple times in this article. Given the recent flak he's been under concerning his credibility, wouldn't it be best to find an alternate source? Surely some of those statements have been made by more reliable people? -- Mellesime 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? First, the two citations with my name are for SCANS of MAGAZINES, not even my own words...so how the heck is that questionable? Second, you mean flak as in people on GameFAQs yelling at me saying I lied about solving the bugs? I debnunked one, and am uploading another video to debunk the other, showing everyone I wasn't lying and that people need to get off my back. The other issue is me getting TP early, and it was a random GameFAQ's member trolling. I have several sources who verified I had TP early, not to mention I had videos posted of it BEFORE the release...along with the ending...so...not sure if you're a GameFAQ's member or Land of the Legend member...or just a hater...but back off. Thanks. --TSA 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

       I'm involved with neither site. I'd just heard your name dropped in negative ways recently, and    
       wasn't sure if you could be considered a credible source. However, if people besides you think
       you are, then I have no problem with it. -- Mellesime 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay is a poor form of evidence.--TSA 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hersay is one of the most powerful tools when it comes to credibility. However, I was wrong for bringing this up. I apologize and hope you can find it in your heart to forgive my error. -- Mellesime 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While I still believe hearsay is nothing more than gossip, I do accept your apology and sorry for jumping on you. --TSA 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bosses Clean-Up

Now that we've decided for their inclusion, I believe a major clean-up is needed. First off, surely some of the information here needs to be summarized, as the main article is the characters page? Also, would some information on the dungeons (looks etc.) be worthy here (the game guide may be particularly useful)? Just my two cents. --Zooba 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you want from the guide? I'm sure strategy is unnecessary, but I can certainly edit in some aesthetic aspects of dungeons and bosses, as well as locations within Twilight Princess's Hyrule. -- Mellesime 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetic aspects please... --Zooba 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add information on the last dungeon boss (SPOILERS)

SPOILERS

I have added that the last boss is divided in three parts, and I would be grateful if someone could add details about them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisagame247 (talk • contribs)

I'm confused. Isn't there a separate article for Zelda Bosses? -- Mellesime 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ocarina of Time page doesn't list bosses, I don't see why this one would have to. Also, that's a pretty big spoiler, shouldn't the GCN version at least come out before such a big spoiler is explained? Bradibus 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. The fact is that the game is now out, in one form of another, and that's all that matters. The Spoiler tags are there, also. --Zooba 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But how is this important to the article? Wikipedia is not a videogame guide. --Stratadrake 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But why can't we detail the bosses as much as the characters, in terms of appearance etc.? If people keep on editing in strategies to defeat the bosses, perhaps you could delete the strategies instead of, as some have done, just deleting the whole section? --Zooba 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your point ("walkthroughs" or "strategies" are obviously not allowed), but at the same time, mere lists of enemies, bosses, items, etc. fall into the category of "indiscriminate" information, and in the context of a video game this is also stuff more at home in a strategy guide than an encyclopedia. Zero encyclopedic significance = zero mention. --Stratadrake 23:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I have called for people to expand the section. But you can't expect that to happen if it isn't there in the first place because it keeps on being deleted. Personally, the way I see it, there should just be a link to the "List of Characters in TP" page and only detail on the dungeons on the main page, as right now it's just a big mess (The "List of..." page especially needs attention). --Zooba 01:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we scrap the boss section on this page. It's reduntant of the boss section of Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess which, taking a precedent from previous Zelda articles, is the proper place for such information concerning boss appearences and basic strategy, by which I mean something to the manner of "Morpheel is defeated by using the Clawshot to extract its eye, similarlly to Ocarina of Time's Morpha" as opposed to the detailed walkthroughs people keep adding. However, I don't know if even that is acceptable on Wikipedia. SixteenBitJorge 20:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As of now, the Boss "section" is just a link to the TW Characters page. Old Characters... pages, as you say, do include such basic strategy, so it's either delete those instances or write such strategy into the TW Characters page. I do think the latter would be harder to enforce, however. --Zooba 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The most obvious solution would be, of course, to describe each indvidual dungeon, and to have the bosses formal title in there somewhere, linking to the characters article. -- Mellesime 08:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bradibus in saying that the Twilight Princess article should not contain detailed information on bosses, except in the description of a typical (not individually specific) TP dungeon. I think that there should be a separate page that describes the dungeons (without giving spoilers) and briefly describes the bosses (names, sizes, creature resemblances, origins, etc.). This article is already too crowded; I think that it should only contain a description of the storyline of the game, main characters, comparisons and contrasts between the Gamecube and Wii versions, and perhaps descriptions of the Provinces of Hyrule and their relatve locations. -- Darthmgh 19:18, 6 December 2006 (MST)

Bridge Glitch not verifiable

I have attempted many times to do the Bridge glitch, and I can't do it. Can anyone here get themselves the have bridge glitch? I can't seem to do it intentionally. Can anyone confirm it's a real glitch? Some are claiming the YouTube video was a hoax. Are there any other sources for it? I can't repeat it. Bradibus 23:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Glitches usually are not important enough to warrant mentioning in an encyclopedia article. I've occasionally experienced the type of glitch where your character falls "through" the terrain and either (1) dies, or (2) causes the game to freeze, but rare phenomena are of extermely specialist interest and not notable in general. So unless you think this merits some mention in the article, someone might mistake this discussion as pertaining to the game more than the article. --Stratadrake 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I should have made my point more clear: There was a section in the article talking about the game's glitches, this one included. However, this one happens to not be reproducible. Either way, the glitches section was removed, so I suppose there's no problem. Bradibus 01:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless a glitch is totally unavoidable, I don't see any reason it should be mentioned. I have not been able to reproduce any of the glitches that are circling around YouTube. Not to say they're fake, but I believe they are, at the very most, the kind of freak things that happen in games all the time. -- Mellesime 08:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't contribute anything of relevance to this discussion short of the knowledge that the bridge glitch is real, at least for the Game Cube version. It doesn't impede gameplay, and only takes a minute or two of patience to sit through. It's hardly worth worrying about, definitely not worth including in the main article, and simply comparable to half of Link's body disappearing into the corner of a wall that hadn't been rendered properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.170.216 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Splitting Bosses and Dungeons/Settings

I split the Bosses from the Dungeons/Settings, because there doesn't seem to be enough information to share between this article and the Characters... page. Also, I thought it would be worthwhile detailing the separate dungeons/settings of the game, similar to the page of settings in Ocarina of Time. --Zooba 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No Crap

Whoever keeps putting swear words in the article and putting them in under the bosses, please stop. If you really want to do crap like this, go to a chat room. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a place for people to put crap up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.43.120 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately, such users don't read the talk pages, as they're only here to vandalize. Luckily, users and bots are keeping an eye on that to revert vandalism as soon as possible. If it gets really bad, the page can be blocked for non-registered users, but luckily that is not needed yet.

Thanks for your concern though.

Happy editting JackSparrow Ninja 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dungeon Section

I removed the references to Ocarina of Time dungeons in the descriptions of the dungeons "Lakebed Temple" and "Arbiter's Grounds" simply because there is nothing official saying that these dungeons ARE the Water Temple and the Spirit Temple, respectively. I know that most likely they are the same places, but considering the lack of any true timeline and the vastly differing layouts of Hyrule between Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess, I must insist that these points be left out. -- Mellesime 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Added more detailed information about the first three dungeons. Also considering adding a section for the separate provinces of TP Hyrule. This is the first time I've edited anything that people... you know... read, so if there's anything wrong with it please let me know what is wrong and how I can avoid doing the same thing in the future. Just keep in mind that, if I've done anything terribly wrong, I'm still an amateur. -- Mellesime 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps say that they're similar. Personally, I would think it's worthwhile keeping such connections. I also think we ought to be careful with the information we add to the section, so that we don't re-tread the storyline (which should be detailed in the storyline section itself), or start typing out game guide information. Good work otherwise. --Zooba 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The only information I got from the game guide was Darbus's name. Beyond the story surrounding each dungeon and any kind of strategic information (which I object to), I'm not sure what SHOULD go into a dungeon description. As for the links to OoT, it's fine if the similarities are listed, but to say that the Lakebed temple IS the Water Temple, and that the Arbiter's Ground IS the Forest Temple is a little presumptuous, considering the vastly different Overworld layouts. If there is another section you'd like to add about theories concerning the links between OoT and TP, that's fine. However, within the dungeon section I say we stick within the game and make as few references to other games as possible. This is a standalone game, not a sequel. -- Mellesime 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, reflecting on the Places in Ocarina... page, what is here right now is fine. I just don't want the section to turn into "And then Link must defeat X Stalfos, and then he battles this and that, and then he finds the boss Morpheel whom you can defeat by XYZ". But basically, as far as I'm concerned, the section should describe what the dungeon looks like and what's in it in terms of what to do. The names of the mini-bosses would be great also, and perhaps what the "Major item" is (again, looking at the Places in Ocarina... page).

The problem with naming the enemies and minibosses is that even the official guide lists NO enemy names outside of stage bosses. The only known enemy names outside of bosses are those of returning enemies. Unfortunately, accurately naming the minibosses will have to wait until the Collector's Guide is released. Even then, it may not be doable. I was honestly surprised when there was no bestiary in the Nintendo Power guide. Usually what those guides are lacking in actual helpfulness they make up for in fan-boy food.

I understand what you're saying about not wanting to write a walkthrough, which is why I made a point to be as vague as possible, and mostly only elaborate on how each indivicual dungeon fits into the story. -- Mellesime 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the dungeon section be a different page? Like "Dungeons of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess" or something?65.89.233.33 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's not really enough info to warrant a separate article. -- Mellesime 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless people write as much information as this page, or thereabouts, I would agree that there isn't enough information to warrant a separate article. --Zooba 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right-Handed Link

I noticed that in the picture that depicts Link in this article displays him holding The Master Sword in his, left hand, but in Twilight Princess, unlike the rest of the games in the series, Link is right-handed. I think that this picture should be replaced with a more accurate one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darthmgh (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Please read past discussions on Link's handedness (is that even a word?). In the GameCube version, Link is left handed while in the Wii version, he is right handed (or vice-versa. I'm not quite sure). There really is no "accurate" photo when it comes to which ever hand Link uses. // Sasuke-kun27 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's correct (and the term is "laterality"). In fact, the GCN and Wii versions are mirror opposites of each other (or so I've heard). Although that seems to make official guidebooks a problem.—ウルタプ 01:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Never mind then; I only have the Wii version (which is awesome). And yes, handedness is a word, as well as is laterality, though laterality does not exclusively refer to handedness. Darthmgh 16:24, 5 December 2006 (MST)

Ok guys, here it is, on the Wii, link is righthanded for control purposes, and on gamecube Link is Left handed, as usual. If you ask me, he should have stayed left handed on Wii as well.

 (User:Keirotuo)

Nintendo said that they switched hands (by mirroring the entire game) so that when you shook your Wii-mote, with your RIGHT HAND, Link wouldn't swing with his left. In the Game Cube version, Link remains left-handed. Note, as well, than while Link is right-handed, the entire layout of the world and dungeons are exactly mirrored, so Lake Hylia in the west of Hyrule Field is on the East, instead. To help seperate the two versions, there are two different versions of the guide, as well. Kuro Yoake 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it would be cool if, when you start a new game, the game should ask "Are you right-handed or left-handed?" That way everyone could be happy. Jedi Striker 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Storyline Clarifications

From the ending I saw, the Triforce of Power fades from Ganondorf's hand before Zant snaps his neck. --TSA 03:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even 100% sure he snaps his neck. He seemed kind of twitchy to me during the battle with Zant, so when I first saw the end of the game I didn't think anything of him twitching his head. Then I read the story section and it said he broke his own neck. I don't know, maybe it's me, but I'd have to do a lot more that throw my head slightly to the right to break it. My first impression was that the director of that particular scene wanted to convey Zant's moment of realization that everything had failed. -- Mellesime 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While you presumably have the advantage of playing the game, in the video I've seen then Zant's neck-snapping is accompanied by an audible crunch. It didn't sound healthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.112.11 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

A user pointed out a plot point below that I overlooked. Zant says Ganondorf is keeping him alive, not vice-versa. Zant may be Ganon's link to the light world, but his life is not bound to Zant. -- Mellesime 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, it is clear that the order of the events are: 1) Ganondorf run through with The Master Sword 2) Triforce of Power mark fades 3) Zant snaps his neck 4) Ganondorf becomes lifeless. What this means, or how this came about, will remain under dispute until more evidence is found or the creators speak up. --TSA 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure Zant snaps his own neck. I think vagueness is the best possible solution here. Link kills Ganondorf, Zant is killed in the process. We may bring it up that exactly how Zant's life is bound to Ganon's is under dispute. -- Mellesime 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the story section, it states that Zant killed himself, Ganondor'f Triforce symbol faded form his hands, and he presumably died.

This is incorrect. the Triforce symbol fades before Zant 'commits suicide'. Yet, even that is wrong; it is so random, why even put it in there? Remember, after the battle with Zant, he said that as long as Ganondorf is alive, he will keep Zant alive, no matter what happens to him.

I think the snapping of the neck symbolises Ganondorf's death; the only way for Zant to die is for Ganondorf to die.

I could be totally wrong, but it makes more sense then an out of the blue suicide. And remember, Ganondorf keeps Zant alive, not the other way around. I think the current description should be taken out.

Didn't Ganondorf tell Zant (when they first met, in Zant's flashback) something like "What you desire, I shall desire also"? Coult Zant have wanted to die, or wanted Ganondorf to die? Although since it's so ambiguous, then the plot section should probably just state the sequence of events in Ganondorf's "death" scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.112.11 (talk • contribs).

I removed the speculation. This whole discussion is speculation, and thus, I left it neutral, and we'll leave it at that until it is further elaborated upon. -Chao9999 09:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Primas Guide

The Primas Guide is now in stores. If anyone has it, could you please check for a bestiary? If it has one, it would be great if you could update the enemies article, as well as add miniboss names into the dungeon section. -- Mellesime 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Japanese Twilight Princess site has some of the bestiary up now, albeit it is the "translated" names of the Japanese enemies - some are the same in the North American vesion, some aren't. For example Twilit Igniter Fyrus is simply Magdoflamoth in the Japanese version.--TSA 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tips

• When using the <ref> tag, you do not have to give it a name unless you cite the source more than once.
• When using the cite web template, the date is wikilinked automatically.

I have gone through and cleaned up all the current references on this page. That said, thanks for writing this article! ---Remember the dot 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Places & Races

Three questions. First, isn't there a little too much speculation concerning Renado being a Shiekah and Telma being a Gerudo? Second, I can't remember -- did the Oocca create the Hylians, or are they the ancestors of Hylians? Third -- is the link between the City in the Sky and the Palace of the Winds in Minish Cap worth exploring? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mellesime (talk • contribs) 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

There is no specific documentation in-game I've seen to support these claims in whole. Renado does appear to have the demeanor of a Sheikah, but he does not seem to really divulge enough to reveal if this is so. Telma acts very much like Nabooru from Ocarina of Time, and her skin tone really makes her out to be more in line with a Gerudo. However, again, no concrete evidence. The Oocca speculation is from a quote from Shad - he says there was a race closer to the gods that made the Hylians. However, there is no in-game evidence the Oocca are these beings. I can see where the connection is drawn from - Palace of the Winds is in the sky, so is the City in the Sky. However, the Wind Tribe and Oocca look nothing alike. --TSA 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it good to note that the "Sheikah" as a whole race have traits which they share between them. First and foremost, red eyes. Renado doesn't have red eyes, and nothing within the game ever hinted at him being a Sheikah, however only that he is a Shaman. And the whole Telma bit is pretty much nonsense as well. Nothing within the game hints at her being a Gerudo, and just because her skin is "dark" doesn't mean she's part of a race which almost wholly died out. Renado has dark skin, just like Telma. Is he Guredo then? I mean, just judge "skin tone" by the way Ganondorf looks in Twilight Princess. He is much 'greener' in appearance than 'dark'. Also, what if anything about Telma resembles Nabooru? She is OBVIOUSLY Hylian (look at the ears) and she is a chubby woman, a trait which no Gerudo has. If they're going to have misinformation on a Wiki article, at least leave it open to edit so it doesn't have to stay misinformation (or rather, someones stupid theories which probably stem from never playing the game.) (Stikku 15:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

Well, then, did the "race closer to the Gods" CREATE the Hylians, or are they simply ancestors? As for the Wind Tribe looking different from the Oocca... I can accept that, BUT, if the Oocca AREN'T the "race closer to the Gods," the Wind Tribe could be. On top of that, the Minish Cap place in the timeline is unclear, and there is some evidence that points to it being earlier than Ocarina (I can't remember if Shigeru's statement about Ocarina being first came before or after Minish's release). I don't know, I just thought it was an idea worth exploring. -- Mellesime 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the Minish Cap comes first in the Zelda timeline. I'm not sure if it was Nintendo's site, another game site, or the [Minish Cap] page that I saw it first, but I've definitely read it before. In any event, it would make sense if the Wind Tribe created the Hylians, given their roll in MC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dracokanji (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

According to this video, Shad says there is a legend of a race closer to the gods than the Hylians who could have created the Hylians, not the gods. --TSA 08:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hyrule Castle

Anybody here who can accurately describe the architecture of the castle? Or is there anybody here with a capture card who can take pictures of each dungeon to a) add to the article, and b) compare with real-world architecture? -- Mellesime 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My visual guide is not up to that part yet. When I get there, I can have a video which you can rip screens from. --TSA 01:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Just let me know when you get a good shot of the castle. A first person view would be tizight.

Sorry. -- Mellesime 04:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NPoV tag replaced with Cleanup tag

There seemed to be no problem with NPoV, and there was no discussion about NPoV on the talk page, but it does seem to need to be cleaned up. Removed NPoV and replaced with Cleanup. --Pichu0102 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Prior to Link first entering the Forest Temple, a number of monkeys have been captured and imprisoned by the malevolent forces currently residing within the temple. It is up to Link to purge the temple of this unwanted presence, and he can only do so via the help of the detained monkeys and by utilizing the magical Gale Boomerang."

that is undoubtedly POV. I dunno which tag to use though. let's just clean it up! Scepia 01:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That example is not POV in the sense of presenting biased information, but more of presenting a biased (in this case, promotional) tone of voice. {{inappropriate tone}} at most. --Stratadrake 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it promotional? -- Mellesime 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm going to be going through the article and fixing anything that I see is wrong. If I do something wrong, please tell me for future reference, since I'm new at this.

Unluckylink13 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the dungeon section needs to be cleaned up. -- Mellesime 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on that. Should I delete the Boss section? It seems sort of useless to have a section that redirects you to another page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.1.162 (talk • contribs)

I'd keep it. It doesn't add much space to the page, and I'm sure many people will try and access Boss info from the page. You might as well delete the characters section if you delete the boss section (although I'm definately telling you NOT to do so), which would just be ridiculous. --Zooba 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't finish much now, but I think I might have messed up something about the Clawshot, and I never got around to some of the dungeons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.1.162 (talk • contribs)

As for the boss section... Why not take it out and just link the boss names to the article? -- Mellesime 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So, what ever happened to that rumor about downloadable dungeons? I'm sadly ill-informed on this matter and was wondering if it could be added to the artical, if of course it's true.

I've been wondering if it's possible (as I've heard it is, thanks to WiiConnect24), but there's been no official announcements, so I don't think it should be added. =[[ Unluckylink13 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember an announcement saying they were no go... I'll look and see if I can't find a source. -- Mellesime 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a misinterpretation from some notes by GamePro. [4] JackSparrow Ninja 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the misinterpretation? That there would be online support, or that it was cancelled? -- Mellesime 13:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

There's a couple of parts of the article where it says 'citation needed', but I think it's common knowledge. Such as the Arbiter's Grounds statement that it's similar to the fashion of the Forest Temple in OoT since you need to defeat four poes to return the light to the torches. Should I remove the 'citation needed' sign?

Unluckylink13 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do. I for one can attest to it being accurate. --Guess Who 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the similarity was just about Poes ;) the other citations need to stay though - they are unverified. "In the past, the Temple was known as The Water Temple". no way you know that. they are, for all intents and purposes, seperate. you can't say "In the past, the Arbiter's Grounds was known as the Spirit Temple". Scepia 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Did somebody re-add that? Because I took it out like a week ago. -- Mellesime 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)\

Doesn't it tell you in the game that the Lakebed Temple is the Water Temple? I'll play through the game again and see... Maybe I misread something.

It never says it once. -- Mellesime 17:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Noting the similarities in the construct of Lake Hylia from OoT to TP, The Lakebed Temple is actually on the other side of the lake; the island that housed the Water Temple is still there, but the entrance to Lakebed Temple is in the middle of the lake, set in ruins from a more prosperous time. I'd say they ARE seperate. The Arbitor's Ground, while similar and containing the same statues, is definitely NOT the same place. Set-up of the dungeon map is quite different, and it is mentioned in game text that it was once a prison controlled by the Sages where criminals were executed or sent to the Twilight Realm is death wouldn't take them. Just as much, I noticed one other detail; The Forest Temple in TP is inside of a tree, whereas the OoT Forest Temple was in what looked like an abandoned palace. If there was any connection to OoT, I would think it was the Great Deku Tree's old body, not the original Forest Temple. On a final note, can anyone find a citation of the path to the Temple of Time being referenced as the Lost Woods? Dracokanji 14:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why exactly a citation is needed when the article contrasts Wolf Link's "senses" to that of the Lens of Truth. I don't think they're similar at all. They might be ideally similar, but not exactly similar in execution. The LoT could see through fake walls and invisible blocks. Link's "senses" allow him to trace smells, see where hearts/rupees/hidden passageways are buried, and see Poes. I think either the "citation needed" sign needs to go (or one found), or the sentence gets deleted. What do people think? Crimson Blacknight 22:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

GameCube Version Clean-up

Hey guys, I just edited some stuff on the GameCube version details, since almost everything was pretty much very old news from the beginning of the year. I've added GameCube controls and I've cited that as well, so if I wrote anything wrong feel free to edit any portion of it since the information may not be 100% correct.

Thanks, Wakachamo 03:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

directions

we're going to have some problems (and already have had one) with the flipping of the GCN vs. Wii versions of the game. Gerudo Desert... is it to the east or the west? it boils down to which version is more "official" so to speak. let's remember the GCN version is the original, and the Wii version is only an "altered copy" so to speak. what I mean is that the developers intended for Gerudo Valley to be to the west, but it was flipped to the east. we can additionally base this fact upon Ocarina of Time, where the valley is to the west. on the total other hand, the Wii version will be more widely distributed and the majority (over 50%) of WP users will be looking for Wii version info. another idea (although completely speculation on my part) is that the GCN version has also been flipped, meaning the desert is to the east in every version. should we go with what they created it as, or what it was widely released as? Scepia 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to add to the debate, but no, the GC version is not flipped. --Guess Who 10:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw on Land of the Legend that it was already released in Japan :D. one less thing to worry about. this greatly confuses me though - official or widely used? Scepia 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Scepia. Wii is a port, so technically the GCN version is the 'official' version. Maybe there should be a note somewhere that tells that the directions used in the article apply to the Wii/GCN version. Unluckylink13 10:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The GCN version is the original, therefor should be considered the "official" version. However, we really need to stop bringing Ocarina of Time into these discussions. There was no plot point that linked the games. The sages looked different. The Temple of Time looked different. The "Water Temple" looks VERY different. Frankly, if you want to spend all of your time looking for links, you're bound to find them. But until Nintendo says something, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Mellesime 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds like the GCN version is the way to go, with a note. I've also considered having something like "west for the Wii version and east for the GCN version", although that would be long. honestly, there is so much similar between OoT and TP. Miyamoto might never say "Lakebed Temple = Water Temple", or anything, but some things are just plain obvious. I mean, both on the bottom of Lake Hylia? both Zora buildings invaded by an evil monster (Morpha in OoT and Morpheel in TP)? let's remember, TP takes place 100 years after OoT. comparing OoT to TP is not like comparing Final Fantasy I with Final Fantasy XIII. hey, the Gerudo Desert is to the west in both games even. Scepia 03:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with Scepia. The game was originally made for the GCN, then ported over to the Wii. We can mention all of the differences (such as east = west) in the "Twilight Princess on Wii" section of the article.

And speaking of which, if we're going to consider the GCN version as the 'official' version, then shouldn't we also be using the GCN boxart in the infobox? --Stratadrake 04:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no "official" version. The fact that Nintendo has barely mentioned the GC version and isn't even selling the Japanese version in stores makes it clear they consider the Wii version the main version. No reason to change the box art. The Wii version is hardly a port either since it was released before the GC version and is superior to it. TJ Spyke 05:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that's the thing, the GCN version isn't nearly as notable. I have this feeling that the GCN version will never come out. Nintendo has really swept it under the rug, saying Dec. 12, then Dec. 11 or Dec. 13, and there's nothing confirmed, and we have no idea that it exists. I heard the fishing game is not on the GCN version. true? the thing about this all, regardless of the official version or whatever, is that WP is for people. it's not for robots. it's not for the minority of people that own the GCN version. Scepia 05:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The GCN version is already out. I would know, I own it. 71.58.245.168 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is no "official" version. The fact that Nintendo has barely mentioned the GC version and isn't even selling the Japanese version in stores makes it clear they consider the Wii version the main version. No reason to change the box art. The Wii version is hardly a port either since it was released before the GC version and is superior to it."

Yes, because Japan = Entire World Market. It's being sold tomorrow at US Stores. "Makes it clear which is official". Yes, by that you mean blantant non biased opinion, go go go.

Do you even know what a port is?

And I quote Wikipedia "Porting is also the term used when a computer game designed to run on one platform, be it a personal computer or video game console, is converted to run on another platform."

I'm pretty sure Twilight Princess was a GameCube title. And the Wii version TAKES the GC built and adds on it's own control scheme. It's a port by definition. And that superior comment only makes you look more arrogant than you already are. Have you played the GameCube version?

Of course not, the game is not out. You are ASSUMING the GC version isn't as good or better than the Wii version. Your opinion IS NOT HOLY TRUTH. Stop acting as if it was. You have not played the GC one so you are not entitled to an opinion about an unreleased game. Nor can you even ASSUME it isn't as good as the Wii version. It all comes down to preference.

GameSpot may even give the GC version a higher score, a profesional review scores it higher than the 'intended' version you claim. Awesome, the word of a Wikipedia user obviously > Word of a profesional. And just so you know, the GameCube version has full camera control. The Wii one doesn't. Handling Epona + sword combat on the GC version may be easier than it's Wii counterpart. I'm not saying IT WILL, but it's still open for overall perfomance and preference. You on the other hand have a crystal ball and has played the game ahead of all of us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.86.202 (talk • contribs) --ChibiMrBubbles 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Be civil. TJ Spyke never asserted that his opinion is "holy truth"; if he had, he'd put it in the article, where facts are, not the talk page, where opinions are. Furthermore, this is a talk page, not a forum. We're not debating which version is better, we're determining which version to use when conflicts between them occur in the article we're writing. TJ believes the Wii version should be used. That's his opinion, and there's no need to blow up about it. You believe the GameCube version is more official. Explain your reasons calmly, and your opinion will carry as much weight as the others presented here. And, by the way, of course we have opinions about unreleased games. That's the whole point of advertising, previews on game sites, etc. --Herald Alberich 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only casting doubt. He basically said a released port of an unreleased game is better. I'm not going to explain my reasons because he didn't. I don't care enough, I only wanted to show he isn't right to assume such things. I ONLY CASTED DOUBT. He carried his opinion as truth and didn't provide enough reasoning (Japan isn't the worlds only gaming market, and the fanbase can be different, as shown by Famitsu Most Wanted List Zelda isn't #1). I disproved his "TP Wii is not a port" comment. It is by definition and he should learn to accept that. -ChibiMrBubbles (I don't care enough to log in)--ChibiMrBubbles 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Nintendo originally planned for Twilight Princess to be on the Gamecube. Fact. However, Nintendo IS presently pushing the Wii version more. Now, I'm sure if you all search your hearts deep enough, you'll understand why. Because the Wii is NINTENDO'S NEWEST CONSOLE! Both Zelda's are "official versions" because they're both amde by Nintendo. However, the GCN version is, in fact, the original. Therefor, the Hyrule in the Gamecube version is the Hyrule originally intended to be debuted with this game. However, Nintendo has shifted focus to the Wii game because ignoring a Zelda launch title on a new console with a lot of potential and a lot of people to convince would be dumb. It's as simple as that. If you all want to sit around and fish for ways that Twilight Princess is Ocarina of Time instead of describing Twilight Princess, or if you want to bicker about whether or not the Gamecube or the Wii cover art should be in the info box (nevermind that they're the same thing), that's great. But, while you're doing that, I hope that I can find a few people interested in making this article a little more encyclopedic. -- Mellesime 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mellesime, my only problem is I don't want bias towards the Wii or GC version. I was going to get moody about the boxart, but at this point I don't care. I own the Wii version, and I know deep in my heart I would prefer the GC version, but alas fate (the Wii) owned the GC version. I don't think both version differ enough to be granted seperate articles.--ChibiMrBubbles 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) --ChibiMrBubbles 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)--ChibiMrBubbles 20:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, all I wanted to know is what direction I should put for the information. I'm guessing the majority believe that it should be GCN directions, but I feel there should be a note somewhere on the page explaining whichever directions that we choose. I'm going to leave the directional-based info alone, just to avoid getting someone mad, hehe. Since the cover art for the different versions are so much alike, I vote we keep it as it is. There is no need to create a different article, since they're the same exact game, excluding certain features and directions. Unluckylink13 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the cover art is a fair use image, and we shouldn't upload another one if we can help it, since we're supposed to keep nonfree images to a minimum. --Herald Alberich 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, the GCN and Wii boxart DO differ. the GCN version has more color to it, the Wii boxart is more bland. small difference still. about fair use: if we use the GCN boxart, we can use it, but we need to delete the Wii boxart image. we can upload a new image, just can't keep 2 around. here's the thing: we absolutely need to have one 'theme'. this page is about the GCN version, or the Wii version. the boxart, directions, everything (excluding the differences between versions) needs to be about a single version. I think we should have everything as the Wii version. as of now, the Wii version is ahead by around 700,000 copies. if the GCN version surpasses the Wii version in sales, go ahead. but when TP Wii passes the 10 million mark, I think we can agree which version users are looking for info on. Scepia 02:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no real difference though, the color is just a little duller. No real reason to change it though since they are almost exactly the same, so the Wii cover is just fine (especially since Nintendo seems to make it clear they consider it the "main" version). TJ Spyke 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: The game was originally developed for the GameCube, fact. The whole structure of this article reflects that, i.e. the game's porting to / redevelopment for the Wii is covered in a mere one section of the article ("Development"), which I could infer means that the bulk of the article gives information for the GCN version, or (more prolifically) information which is common to the game as a whole rather than a given version. I have seen the GCN title on store shelves, it is available for those who do not own a Wii. As far as the structure of this article goes, I am personally a big fan of organizing gameplay before setting, and since the GCN and Wii versions differ only in their control inputs (and mirroring of the game's 3D pipeline), those differences are somewhat notable within the game's gameplay context. Maybe we should list the two differences first and then base the article around that -- not in the "left for GCN, right for Wii" sort of way but picking one version and using that for consistency.

There are many other games ported from one console to another, but they're not accurate comparisons because the original version clearly came first and the "port" much later. Twilight Princess is almost "multi-platform" by comparison to your average port. Take Halo for example; it was originally planned for the PC, but Microsoft ported it over to the Xbox to promote Xbox sales, and PC users didn't receive the promised PC version until -- what was it, a year later? It compares to Twilight Princess in the sense of control system differences and promotion of one platform over another, but the comparison breaks down when you add in the actual duration between release of the Xbox and PC versions of Halo. --Stratadrake 20:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. Twilight Princess was released on both consoles within a month in America and for the most part on the same day in the rest of the world. America also received the game before anyone else, so using the "Not in Japan" argument is a moot point. It should be noted that the Wii version DID come out first, and, as much as I love the GCN version, it is more important to note the more advanced version, if only by technical aspect. I say that directions should be cited as per the Wii release, and at the end of the Places section put an note emphasizing that the maps of the GCN version are inverse of the Wii games, with east and west flipped. All of the GameFAQs walkthroughs do that, and while I am most assuredly against making this into a game guide, I think that using the Wii version as the primary source is more important. It came first, it's slightly more advanced (from a technical standpoint), and widely more popular due to its control scheme (at least amoung Zelda fans). Dracokanji 14:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest using the Gamecube version, if anyone else hasn't noticed even the sun rises in the west and sets in the east in the Wii version. I don't think this is an oversitght or something because the sun is often used in cutscenes, but in every rendition of hyrule in previous games, the sun has risen in the east, and set in the west, and we have no indication that Link is no longer left handed, so I don't think anything based on relative directions in the Wii version can be regarded as canon. I think it would be best to avoid mention any directions except north and south wherever possible. 71.215.63.177 01:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no official canon. The main focus from basically everyone has been the Wii version, so isn't it logical for WP to do the same? TJ Spyke 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing Gamespot

I do not beleive Gamespot is commercially successful enough to be included as a reference on Wikipedia, vote for removal needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.74.227 (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree! And giving Twilight Princess that mark is a very good proove of their inhability to be a reference :D (It´s a joke)

How are they not "commercially succesful enough" to be cited as the source for their own review? Furthermore, considering the amount of fanboys who jumped all over Gamespot for their review of Twilight Princess, I beg to differ. -- Mellesime 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gamespot is one of the most succesful and best-known game websites on the web. Your point does not make sense. --Soetermans 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree tnat it should stay for all the reasons listed. Removing Gamespot from the review section makes no sense. --70.48.109.247 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gamespot's criticism of Twilight Princess is well-founded (for those who read their review of it), the fact that they didn't give it a massively high rating like most of the other sites is almost notable in itself, speedy keep. --Stratadrake 20:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ok i really don't agree with you there. In the Good section, Jeff tells us the graphics are terrific. But in the Bad Section he says they go from nostalgic to dated. How are you going to say the graphics are terrific and then turn around and say they are dated? --Magikmm 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He says the graphics are "terrific graphics, from an artistic perspective." The graphics themselves (such as enemy death explosions and others) are what he's looking at when he says "nostalgic to dated." (http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/thelegendofzelda/review.html?q=Zelda, if you need an official source)

Ok thanks. But i still don't see an 8.8/8.9 in Twilight Princess —Magikmm 21:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well founded? That is subjective, secondly if you want to include Gamespots review why not include mine... I mean we are including every source now, right?

Whether or not Stratadrake's remark is subjective, that is besides the point. Gamespot is a popular and fairly good known website out there. The goal here is not to put every review in, but to give several known sources who gave their opinion. So that's why Wikipedia does not feature user-reviews. --Soetermans 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in opening paragraph

This strikes me as odd:

At the Nintendo E3 2006 Press Conference, President of Nintendo of America Reggie Fils-Aime described Twilight Princess as “...by far the best Zelda game we’ve ever made.”[8]

First, I feel that such a statement doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. It is not general information. Second, I think it is not very neutral to put it into the article. The statement was made by the President of Nintendo of America, so you can safely assume she is not but a little biased. --Soetermans 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you for it being in the opening paragraph, but I believe we should keep it in the article, since it's a notable quote by Fils-Aime, since he's NOA's president. Unluckylink13 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that would fit very nicely under the "Development" section of the article, then. --Stratadrake 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. I put into the development section, as suggested by Stratadrake. --Soetermans 12:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Twili did not descend from the Gerudo...

I don't know who wrote that or how they came up with it, but it is highly unlikely and chronologically impossible for the Twili to be the descendants of the Gerudo, I think whoever wrote that either has a considerable lack of experience with the Zelda universe or read into things too much. Twilight Princess is set less than a century after Ocarina of Time, so there is no way that an ancient race like the Twili could have descended from the Gerudo, who albeit not on screen, should still exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.64.233 (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I did not write it, however, Midna near the end in the Palace of Twilight reminds Zant how their original "king" of their tribe lost sight by being blinded by power and greed. Piecing together what was said earlier about Ganondorf and his followers trying to establish dominion over the Sacred Realm, it is very plausible, though not explicitly stated, the Gerudo became the Twili. I've seen nothing to rule it out. --TSA 19:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Zuna are a more likely candidate, they too live in the Gerudo Desert and had a dark past, building the pyramid of power and having evil ancestors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.64.233 (talk • contribs) 22:52, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

Nice and all, but it's speculation and/or original research, and aside from removing any such material from the article, this has no other relevance to the article. If you really want to debate Zelda chronology, take it to a Zelda discussion forum. --Stratadrake 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, chill out dude. The statement should be removed (I agree with that) until it is a fact, at which time it has significant relavence. Until then, i tis original research or speculation. --TSA 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess I'm just a little twitchy about what can be considered on-topic for the article and how. --Stratadrake 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Going back to what the person above said, there are a few clues and references from Midna (including the thing about their king losing sight due to his greed which if they were the Gerudo was Ganondorf) that the Twili did descend from the Gerudo, obviously the Twilight realm has changed them considerably though. At the end of the game, when you save Hyrule, you return Midna to her true form and she has the appearance very akin to that of the Gerudo, although more of a kind of gothic Gerudo. I suppose its still a bit of a moot point though concidering and not really all that important to this article...

Alternate Ending?

I heard a rumor on one site that if you get the sinking lure the frog lure and the hylian loach there is some kind of alternate ending where the world is flooded. I have no idea what soever if this is true or not and was wondering if anyone could clear it up. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cantfindaname (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Having completed the game last night after obtaining both lures and catching the Loach, I can honestly say that the rumor you heard was false. --HeroicJay 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda Series has never really had any alternate endings, except for the first one. I believe that this rumor was false, seeing that it has already been proven false by the user up there.--astrobob 4:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

****LOCK THIS ARTICLE NOW!****

Seriously, we got some vandals messing with the reviews. (I'm assuming jealous fanboys). Anyway, we got some people who are changing perfect scores, like 10/10s or 5/5s and changing them to 6.5s, or even, dare I say, 2.5s. By the way, I've been fighting this vandal for at least 15 min. now, so now I tam taking a break from the long fight to ask for some assistance, PLEASE LOCK THIS PAGE, or keep add a BOT or something! 71.117.209.109 22:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Temp block now on the article. --Oscarthecat 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that this game has gotten 9, that's right, NINE perfect scores, how about we...

Now that this game has gotten 9, that's right, NINE perfect scores, how about we try to push this article to FA? Seriously, Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time is almost written out like a novel, with well placed screen shots, etc. It's almost sad to watch this amazing game, a game that has won numerous awards and have gotten phenomenally good reviews. (again, 9 perfect scores) I HIGHLY suggest that we fix up this article. What do *YOU* say? 71.117.209.109 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fix up first, FAC proposal later. --Stratadrake 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I reckon it'll get rejected anyway regardless of suitability because it's still changing so often and won't meet the criteria because of that. BigHairRef | Talk 22:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

After we get the page cleaned up enough for Wikipedia standards and maybe find a way of keeping the article stable (i.e., ending the edit wars and getting rid of speculation) we can worry about something like that. Til then, it's an OK article, but not really amazing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dracokanji (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

A good idea, my unsigned user, but you have to remember that this game has not been out for very long, compared to OoT. Give it some time, and help the veteran editors, and we'll get it there eventually. Kuro Yoake 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

screenshots

there's some problems with screenshots. the first half of the article has no images except for the boxart. the second half has 2 things:

• bad screenshots (a scan of a months-old magazine and a screenshot of a pre-release version with a magic bar in it)
• artwork (Skulltula, Goron, Link)

if anyone could get us some nice quality screenshots, that would be great. a screen of Zant would be awesome, he is the Twilight King after all. Midna and Wolf Link are hardly to be seen - look at Image:Linkandmida.jpg Scepia 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Places in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

I made a new article, Places in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, to house all the info about places in the game. On this main game page, hopefully we can narrow down the info on the dungeons, and add more about other places like Lake Hylia. The new places page needs a lot of addition though. Scepia 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

CONFIRMED REPORTS OF GAME ENDING BUG

I just tried it myself. If you try to save while getting the cannon, then quit, and come back, you'll be stuck in the room which the cannon is in. This should be put in the article. 12.207.127.76 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is in the article, though factual or not, I don't think we really need glitches at all. I'm not going to argue, though, this is a fairly big one. --Herald Alberich 08:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick mention to anyone who wants to try this out. Save before you do this in one save slot, continue the game to a safe point (past the glitch) and save again in another slot. I know a couple people out there either didn't believe it or didn't think about it but ended up having to start over, after getting through nearly 2/3s of the game. OUCH. Dracokanji 14:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i played zelda and when i was using the cucco to go the isle of riches i dropped down and then put my boots on and the cucco i grabbed was on the bottom of the lake, i could not pick it up though

Help

I have just seen the game bug and I'm quite worried because I have pre-ordered The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess for the GameCube, so you can imagine my concern. Is it just for the Wii Version or the GameCube verson as well, or vice versa? Thank you. Mr Negotiator 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about it as long as you don't save AND quit immediately before you warp the sky cannon. So just remember that when you find the cannon. It's a pretty rare thing to do anyway. Sraan

Oh, thank you very much. Mr Negotiator 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Wii and GCN

I haven't been able to play the Wii version, but I have played the GCN version. There should be a section that compares the two games between the two consoles. --myselfalso 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The only differences are the controls and widescreen support, and both are already mentioned. --Herald Alberich 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That, and that they are mirror versions (i.e. the sun rises in opposite sides). TJ Spyke 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that the Wii version has improved graphics in the sense that Wii has better anti-aliasing. true, or does the GCN version look the same (except for the differences above)? Scepia 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard this too, but I think it's more of the console's capabilities, not the game's. I think the best way to verify is play the GameCube version on the Wii, since it's backwards compatable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dracokanji (talk • contribs).

Having only played a portion of the Wii version, and played through the GCN version - I can say that the graphics are the same for each game. Neither looks better than the other, except in the framerate department. On the last dungeon (Hyrule Castle), I found the framerate to be lacking a consistently (dropping to around 30FPS at times). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stikku (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Review box

Do we really need to see every single website 's opinion on Twilight Princess? To me, it just crowds the article and makes things look bad. I think one of the best ideas is to cut out everything but the review compliation sites, because readers can easily find specific sites from there. E946 12:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

we need major sites though, like IGN and GameSpot. however, sources like NintendoWorldReport, Hyper, UGO, and AllMusicGuide, which I've never heard of, need to go. Scepia 19:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

NintendoWorldReport is a major website (formely known a Planet GameCube) and is the largest Nintendo dedicated website. UGO is also a prtty big website. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't make them not importent. I haven't heard of most current rappers, but that doesn't make them less notable. TJ Spyke 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

your POV is just as POV as my POV. I heard of Planet GameCube, but never was it worthy of a place in the reviews section for a game. IGN, GameSpot, EGM, Nintendo Power, etc. are all in there. we simply can't have every review. if you feel it's necessary, create Reviews for The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. Scepia 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Planet Gamecube and its successor sites are pretty much worthless review sources. I had actually never heard about NintendoWorldReport until you brought up that it used to be Planet Gamecube. Outside of the Nintendo fanboy community, it has zero relevance or influence, certainly nothing compared to the scale of Famitsu, EGM or Edge magazine, and not even competing with the IGN or Gamespots of this world. This isn't Metacritic, we don't just list every review no matter what. If you need any more evidence of why PGC should be ignored, try reading their Mario Tennis: Power Tour review. - hahnchen 06:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I can find reviews from sites like IGN and GameSpot that suck (and from magazines like Game Informer with their PM2 review), does that mean they should re removed? NWR is a major Nintendo website (the biggest), and since this is a major Nintendo game, it should be included. TJ Spyke 06:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(I'll repeat what I said on your talk page)
I would like to point out that IGN and GameSpot must have 10 times the readership, at the least, of Nintendo World Report. just because it's the biggest Nintendo-only site means nohting. if I have the biggest pink bottle-cap collecting site, does that mean anything special? no. Scepia 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right in that you can find reviews that suck from any publication. games TM gave Boiling Point: Road to Hell a 9/10, Dave Halverson from play magazine (US) gives pretty much every single platform game a 10 (he later downgraded his 9.5 score for the latest Sonic game citing that he was told the load times were going to be fixed for release, rather than admitting he's hopelessly biased towards platformers and useless as a reviewer), Gamespot rated Halo 2 higher than Half-Life 2 due to their lack of editorial control. Each one of those reviews are wrong, but every game released gets a crapload of reviews, and we don't have a crapload of space in the reviews box. So put in the big names such as EGM and Famitsu, and let the Metacritics cover the others. - hahnchen 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The reviews were "wrong"? I believe it's called an opinion, which by definition is incapable of being "wrong". Just because you don't think Halo 2 is better than Half-Life 2 doesn't mean others agree. I feel like I'm speaking to kindergartners on Wikipedia sometimes...--68.227.68.36 10:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're an assclown. Get over it. There's a school of thought that claims the holocaust never happened, heck, there's a conference in Iran now if you're interested. That's their opinion, and they're wrong. Which incidentally, is my opinion. You still fail to get this don't you? This probably wasn't even your point, you're just annoyed that I don't jizz over Halo in my sleep. - hahnchen 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please lay off the personal attacks and comparing a disagrement over review scores to holocaust denial is a really bad comparsion that should never be made. --67.68.155.121 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, I wouldn't have picked such a strong example had you not reacted as you did to the perfectly valid point I made over consistency in review scores. All publications fuck up from time to time, simple as that. We should just list the influential and big names in. - hahnchen 17:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (Wait, are you a different person?)

Actually I was. I was disagreeing with thew analysis you made and found it to be too strong. I am sorry for any confusion I caused and would have stated that I was a different person if I thought that there would have been confusion on the matter. I also would have resonded eariler but my IP range was autoblocked. --67.68.155.143 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the box is just generally too long. I think pre-release awards (which aren't too important anyway) should be mentioned in the text of the Development section, E3 best of show awards aren't that relevant to the final reception of the game. This game is bound to pick up more awards after its release. - hahnchen 06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

TP announcement?

Is there any information, perhaps something that can be put in, that states when Twilight Princess was first announced for development? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarriorofZarona (talk • contribs) 01:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

E3 2004 is when it was first announced. TJ Spyke 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

is it possible that the development was announced earlier? for example, we know The Legend of Zelda (Wii) is under development, but have no info. Scepia 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a few months earlier it had been confirmed that "The Wind Waker 2" would be released for GameCube. E3 was when the current look was confirmed (and had Miyamoto wielding a replica Master Sword and shield. TJ Spyke 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Cannon room glitch in both versions?

Can anybody verify whether the cannon room/save glitch occurs in the GC version as well? - Cyrus XIII 10:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, if anyone with the GCN version could copy their save file and try it out, they won't lose their game. I would think it applies for the GCN too, considering Nintendo has yet to acknowledge it and the GCN version was made a while ago at least. Scepia 22:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh wow WTF happened here? Somebody is out to cut and run on the Zelda reviews

Look this game has been awarded 9 or 10 PERFECT reviews from notable and referenceable reviwers. Now I look back on all the reviews this game has been getting. And some elitist bastard got rid of at least 1/2 of them just because he wanted to keep what he saw fit. Well I have news for y'all, once I get back from work today it WILL be changed to it's 1st state, is that understood? Dragong4 17:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not though is it? We all know this. You know this. See the conversation above over why some of the links were removed. I didn't remove any myself. But there are hundreds of reviews for this game across many languages, take a look at some of our Featured Articles such as Halo: Combat Evolved and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, we don't just list every single review. All I did personally, was move the Metacritic and Gamerankings sites to the top of the list, where users can goto for that kind of thing. - hahnchen 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If I had my way, all but the gamerakings and metacritic scores would be gone, because they contain links to the other other reviews we're mentioning. Seeing a million 10/10 and 5/5 scores isn't going to add anything to what is already said in the 'reception' section. All it does is clutter the article. E946 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from 946, but I think its useful to have a snapshot of what the big publications are saying about the game, I'm quite happy with the section as it is. I'd probably take out something like Gamespy and put an Edge review in, but at least we've got rid of the Nintendo fansites et al. - hahnchen 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No that's not good enough. I'm going to delete all the reviews if you don't leave the originals back in. Look the fact of the matter is that you can't just leave out the perfect scores from extremely notable web sites and leave in the average scores, alright? Dragong4 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

be civil. if you're gonna call me those names, take it to the talk page at least. I removed the non-notable reviews. I left the notable reviews from notable sites like IGN and GameSpot. if you feel a certain source is notable enough to be included, please mention it. Scepia 06:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really, really feel that this game's quality is misrepresented, adding information to the 'reception' section would tell the reader a lot more about the game's quality than would just throwing more reviews at them. Just remember to cite sources, keep it professional, and keep an encyclopedic(sp?) tone. E946 08:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

General cleanup

There were a few things I was considering to remove all the clutter in this article. Feel free to reply to each individual point instead of replying at the end. E946 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1) Why do we have a paragraph for every single weapon in the game? I would rather create a Items And Wespons in Twilight Princess article and dump everything in there.

I cut down on that section - I think at least some of the items should be mentioned here, but a new page would be agreeable. Scepia 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Kuro Yoake 03:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through the weapons and items section right now, and am shortening it, by removing specific information regarding certain items, rather than mentions. Most of the information listed in the article currently can be found in Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. Kuro Yoake 11:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

2) The development section and its subsection are far too long. One possible solution is to remove all the information that doesn't pertain to Twilight Princess (there are two entire paragraphs talking about Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass, for example)

see comment on number 3. Scepia 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I chopped down a lot of unnecessary information, so this part of the article is much shorter. E946 08:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

3) The general part of the Gameplay section has a lot of information that should go in the development section, like when the name was revealed.

I think I've moved it well, but now the gameplay section is lacking and the development section too long. :P Scepia 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved a lot of information that talked about the Wii version's gameplay to gameplay where it belongs, so they're balanced out again. E946 08:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no moblins in this game

The staple Moblins have been replaced with a new race exclusive to Twilight Princess, the Bulblin and their king.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/PHANTOM_EXE87/Picture43.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/PHANTOM_EXE87/Picture42.png

These were taken from the official Japanese site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.119.64.233 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

There are moblins; they can be found in a lot of places, like Kakariko Gorge.

The "bug girl" is Princess Agitha

"Golden bugs roam around Hyrule. Catching these bugs and giving them to a girl will give wallet upgrades."

The "girl"'s name is Princess Agitha, and she doesn't give only wallet upgrades - for every single bug she gives you 50 Rupees, and if you manage to get a pair, she'll give you 100 Rupees for the second partner.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.133.182 (talk • contribs)

Apparently you haven't played the game then. Both of the wallet ugrades in the game are from giving here bugs. You get the first upgrade from giving her 1 bug (she also gives you 200 rupees for the first one), and you get the second upgrade from giving her all 24. TJ Spyke 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

stop the personal attacks TJ, and read what the user said. they said wallet upgrades aren't the only think Agitha gives, and money is also given. that is true, and should be reflected on the page. Scepia 08:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack (and I don't know how you can interpet it that way), and I apoligize to them for misreading what they said. TJ Spyke 08:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem about the misunderstanding, and I didn't consider it an attack. I still haven't finished the game (I'm European, it came later), but I've been collecting the bugs, although I still lack eight. But thanks for the info, and you should also add what I said, that for a single bug you gain 50 Rupees, and once you get a pair you gain 100 Rupees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.5.120 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Races/places: List vs. subsections

I decided to make the lists of races and places simply a bulleted list instead of a bunch of subsections because they unnecessarily clutter the TOC, and both lists are short enough that any reader could find the race they were looking for without having to scroll much. There are simply no advantages to having a subsection for each. E946 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting information on Places in the main article

In the same vein as the Characters section, I don't think information on the places should be on the main page, as there's simply too much. --Zooba 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

don't you think major places/characters should receive a line of two? sure, we could write a 30-page essay on each of them, but we should still mention them so people can get an idea of what's in the game. Scepia 20:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If so, then we should do the same with the characters etc. Personally, I would simply describe the six provinces and their geographical relation to each other, but nothing other than that. --Zooba 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Twili?

Er, aren't they called the Twii? 88.110.167.60 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I've played the whole game through and I'm sure they were called the Twii - if anyone can point me to a location in the game where it can be proved otherwise (somewhere I can get to in a completed save file) then I'm good. :) 88.110.167.60 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Completed save file? Not likely. They're mostly mentioned in cutscenes. I'll do some looking around sources, and see what I can't find, but I'm sure they were called the Twili. (Makes sense, doesn't it? They live in the Twilight Realm, so they're called the Twili?) Kuro Yoake 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain that they're the Twili. --Guess Who 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just checked some of the videos TSA put on Google Video - Twili. Easy to misread, though.

Is the Glitch section really necessary?

Personally, I don't think it is. It's nothing special, so thus not worth mentioning. --Zooba 15:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No need for that section at all. -- ReyBrujo 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the "lack of need" for that section, I removed it. Makes me feel good to know I'm an "established user" to help out this protected article. Kuro Yoake 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess for now it doesn't need to be in, that might change if sites like IGN or magazines like EGM point it out. BTW, "established user" just means your account is at least 3 days old. I'm glad you feel good though and encourage you to continue editing. TJ Spyke 22:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove information on something that could potentially ruin it for the player? That's most definitely notable. Until nintendo does something about it, it's important to at least comment on it. Hell, we may be able to prevent some people from falling into it. E946 06:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
When a glitch can ruin one's game, it's pretty important. important also is the fact that the glitch doesn't appear on the GCN or PAL versions - some screw-up by Nintendo? the section might be shortened, but it's important. Scepia 08:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not an instruction manual, and you are giving steps to reproduce/prevent that from happening. We can mention there is a glitch, we can mention it renders a save file useless, but nothing more. We don't have to say how to make it happen, or how to prevent it. That is not in the scope of Wikipedia. Also, you can't use YouTube videos as reference. Find reliable references, not fan videos. -- ReyBrujo 16:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning it but not going into detail defeats the purpose of mentioning it in the first place. E946 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That information can go at StrategyWiki, but we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. HOWTO's, instruction manuals, advices, recipes and similar are not acceptable content for the encyclopedia. -- ReyBrujo 18:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

why did you remove the section? it will be easy enough to clean that section up. what lack of references do you speak of? you can clearly see from the YouTube video what the glitch is like. Scepia 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources: In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. YouTube can't be used as reference because they have no fact-checking. It is no different from opening a GeoCities page and add the description of the glitch there. You can add the section back, but find an article at GameSpot, GameSpy, Gamasutra, IGN or similar, not a forum post or a YouTube or Google video to back the claim up. -- ReyBrujo 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of websites, Joystiq and the like, that point it out. and this is not some glitch where you have to hack your game. we don't need references for the content of the glitch, because it's outright in the game. you or I could go and do the glitch, quite easily. Scepia 21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, we don't need a reference for the content of the glitch. We need a reference that states this is a serious glitch. -- ReyBrujo 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not trying to create an "indicriminate collection of howto's and instruction manuals". The instant we document and describe every single one that occurs, i'll agree with you, but until then, I believe that a single section isn't out of the question. Besides, you have bigger fish to fry. If you're worried about game guide stuff on this article, then tackle the weapons and items section for us before going after a game breaking glitch. E946 05:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Giving information about how to trigger or resolve the glitch is unnecessary. We don't give instructions, we don't tell them what to do or what not to do. As for the items section, yes, it borders game info, thus I have added a {{gamecleanup}} tag there. -- ReyBrujo 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a section, because save glitches are quite common in the wii version, and it would be a useful addition, that is if someone on here can verify it. NightLord 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when does two occurrences (one of which isn't confirmed) turn into "quite common"? E946 10:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Item Section

Well, I'm hesitant to do so, but I think that section could be removed entirely. Most of the information provided can be found in the Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series article, and provides specific information not supposed to be entered in THIS article. Of course, instead of removing the entire article, we could provide a list of items and weapons, and just refer them to the aforementioned article. Which would be best? If I can get some clearance, I'll gladly remove it, but I don't want to be the one to remove such a huge section without some prior approval. Kuro Yoake 11:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, a list of indiscriminate information is no better than what we have now (I'm also pretty sure that Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information). Perhaps simply list what items are in the game, but also detail new items and how older items have been changed (?) --Zooba 15:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists are frowned upon. You need to use prose. So, you can write a paragraph stating some (not all!) of the items that are available, comparing them with previous versions if necessary, but we don't need a list of items at all. -- ReyBrujo 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, then which weapons/items do we believe should take precedence in this section? If you can provide me with what you think is best, I can write up some good prose for it. Kuro Yoake 07:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

GameCube version should take precedence?

Personally, I think the GameCube version should take precedence over the Wii one. Even though the Wii version came out first and is the more popular of the two, the game was primarily designed for the GameubeJonny2x4 16:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

See the #directions section previously. --Stratadrake 16:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What I took from it was that 99% of the attention, especailly from Nintendo, is being directed at the Wii version. If the developers themselves are giving more attention to the Wii version then I think we should too. E946 19:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

While I myself would lean towards the Wii, having played both versions of the game, why not just make a compromise? It won't be as easy with the information, but just list the Wii directions, and in parentheses, put the opposite to match up with the GameCube. For instance: "Lake Hylia is east of Hyrule Castle (west in the GC version)..."Kuro Yoake 20:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This same method has to be applied to Places in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess as well. And any related pages. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 08:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The skeleton dude is Link

If you complete all of his quests, then he mentions that he was the hero once, thus him being a previous Link. 12.207.127.76 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is fan speculation without a reference, but I whole-heartedly agree with you. Another bit of proof is to check Dead-man's stance, especially his feet. Notice how they shift around? Now, pop in OoT, get yourself an Adult Link, Z-target something, and check his stance. Sword up, shield up, moving feet. And he's not a skeleton, is he? He just looks like a semi-transparent... rotting corpse... XD Kuro Yoake 19:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

End movie (Spoilers)

Are we sure that at the end of the game that Link is shown reiding towards Ordon Village? I'm pretty sure the direction he is shown as riding is as actually away from the village towards Hyrule field. BigHairRef | Talk 19:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)