Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive 1

What will The Twilight Princess be rated?

Well, I personally think it will be rated Teen, but it is not for certain. I am so excited for it! I can't wait!

Wait.
Weren't there three trailers released, as opposed to two? There was the first one at E3, the next one ten months later at the GDC, and then the next one on the following E3. The last one introduced us to Link's transformation and Midna

The game will most definitely be a Teen rate (all boxes say Rated T), considering the atmosphere, the tone, the kind of graphics, and battles and monsters.

What Happened
I think someone screwed around with the page and deleted it. I'll let one of the mods take a look. I've got a copy of most of the text that was one the original page. If you can't get a back up, just let me know and I'll edit what I still have from it. --Gambit8585
 * Hmm, I'm not sure how to perform a rollback on wiki articles. Jason should know how to do it - we'll wait for him. --Toby 03:24, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

Rewrite
I did a complete rewrite. This game is now out, so all of the information needed to be confirmed and changed. Since I'm playing it, I thought I might as well share the knowledge I have to far. --Jase 16:31, 24 November 2006 (CST)

Completion times
My first playthrough completed in 34 hours. I'm on my second, and am on track for a 15 hour completion. Is this worth noting in the article? 144.175.20.122 07:04, 26 November 2006 (CST)


 * No, the article is for information, not for posting your own accomplishments and speed run times. --Jase 13:04, 26 November 2006 (CST)


 * Trust me, this game is not 70 hours long. My first play through was only 53 hours long and I have completed it 100% (every heart container, chest, etc.). I understand that these are personal scores, but it goes to show that this game isn't as long as originally thought.--64.136.27.229 13:52, 10 December 2006 (CST)


 * Or that people are just playing too fast. --Jase 16:04, 10 December 2006 (CST)


 * The 70 hour reference is quite a bit out of line. Very few people will take this long to play it. For 100% completion the first time around that might be a reasonable estimate, but you should clarify as such if that is your intention for the estimate. I think a 40-50 hour estimate is going to me more typical for people that play through the first time and do most things and a fair amount of exploration. I agree, speed run times are not relevant, but the 70 hour estimate is completely misleading. --152.1.42.32 14:45, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Question
Um...I thought the Twilight Princess wasn't Princess Zelda...Am I mistaken? Erebus 23:42, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * Seems like she is, I own the game, and you meet her (thanks to Midna) pretty early on. --70.66.98.187 10:09, 17 January 2007 (CST)

She is not The true identity of the Twilight Princess is reveiled later in the story.--Spirit of the Legend 14:57, 17 January 2007 (CST)

incorrect story
I started to read the story and it was really off like some who just heard of the game. 71.65.34.160 21:26, 23 January 2007 (CST)


 * Really? I beg to differ, considering that I rewrote that part ;)... and I've beaten the game since long ago. It's accurate, and the voice is professional (though it seems some people have edited it and deteriorated this a tad). I do agree that some parts of it aren't perfect - but hey, it's the beginning of the game. My memory isn't the best in the world. Feel free to make it more accurate if you feel that it isn't. --Jase 21:38, 23 January 2007 (CST)


 * complants

1 only Talo(boy) gets captured and not by king Bulblin 2. the twilight princess is clearly said and it is not zelda nor is she the master of midna. 3. the writing sounds confusing i.e. "I've beaten the game since long ago" 71.65.34.160 21:49, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Bosses - repeat?
Eh, I think the boss list is repeated twice... both in Dungeon Info and Boss Appendix. Should one be gotten rid of/changed? (I won't be here to confirm or refute anyone who answers, since I'll be away - just bringing something up.) --Jase 19:05, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Timeline Content
The section entitled "Time-line issues" was kinda scarry-bad. I rewrote, but kept things a minmilist as possible. Is more info needed, or is the link to the main article series good enough? --PIE

Chronology
I don't think the TP Zelda and Link are the same as in Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask. The hero that you learn skills from through the howling stones says that the skills he is passing on are ancient Hylian skills or some such thing - this was not the case in OoT/MM, and Link knew them instinctually in OoT/MM. Another bit of evidence is that when you go to the fishing hole, you see a picture of the guy who ran it in OoT, in black and white, and the girl who runs the fishing hole says that she thinks he's her ancestor. This is a different time period from OoT/MM, at least a hundred years further in the future.
 * Where do you get the impression of that suggestion (same Link) from the Chrollogy section. I personally don't see it implied anywhere, but, then again, I am readin the content (and wrote the content) already in the "different Link" frame of mind. What words should be changed? --PIE

GCN/Wii flip
Alright, a lot of us know that the GCN version was flipped to coincide with a player's hand in the Wii version. I was wondering: which one do we consider "canon". A lot of people will mention that Link is right-handed in TP, unlike every other left-handed Link, or which eye is covered by the Fused Shadow on Midna. So which is considered "the real" version? I would imagine the GCN, since it's the original, but some disagree. Saibh 12:30, 22 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Well, I'd certainly say that if for some reason we were to standardize the version from which screenshots were used, I'd most certainly say the GameCube version. So really, nothing should state that Link is right-handed, as really he's not; it's a technical issue that is not canon. That's my two cents, anyway. --Ando (Talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Um I agree completely with Ando.--Green 20:07, 22 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Although the one I own is the Wii verision, if the flip really matters for canon reasons, GC is almost definately canon, besides that Link is supposed to be left handed, in the Wii version the sun and moon rise and set on the wrong sides of the screen--Magnus orion 19:02, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Farmer_Link.jpg Thumbnail
Ummm I thought I'd add a pic of farmer link but for some reason the thumbnail doesn't work. I would appreciate some help. thanks.


 * Not quite sure what you mean. The image shows up on the page just fine for me. Are you still having the problem? 02:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Actually, most signatures are signed using ~ instead of, but if you'd like to make a custom signature that does that, here's how!

Nope I'm not anymore. IDK why it didn't work for me for like a day. So...sorry.

Timeline
The article says "The game's story takes place after Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask." I'm not sure where this logic is coming from. Sure it's very probable, but I see no hard evidence. 04:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Same thing I thought 'til my discussion with Superraptor on Talk:Ganon Conflicts. It was stated in an interview that TP takes place 100 years after the child timeline in OoT (and thus, after MM as well). Again, citations definitely needed, but I'm not sure how to cite a website similarly to a character in such a way that the quote is part of the reference, and not just the page title. Jimbo Jambo 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Web sources are cited with this. And interviews are hardly binding canon. They said that The Wind Waker was 100 years after Ocarina of Time too. The timespans are much longer, as proven by in-game evidence. The timeline split is confirmed and accepted. And in-game evidence conclusively places The Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass on the adult line. And places Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess on the child line. These are the only games that can be placed without any doubt. It is widely accepted and not subject to debate. 05:58, February 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the web template, but like I said, that template doesn't allow you to use the quote as part of the reference, and instead just has fields for the URL, site name, and page title. Jimbo Jambo 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Woah. Adult timeline? This is all purely speculation (the adult and child timelines). I think it should be removed, just for the sake of agreement. I'm not seeing any hard-core evidence on this topic. 06:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speculation? The OoT split timeline is hugely accepted, and there are far crazier, far more tenuous ideas on some of the articles here. Again citing the interview, which Matt doesn't consider to be firmly canon, but is still much more than just some crazy fan rambling about his or her own outlandish ideas, and while I'm sure one can find numerous small inconsistencies with things found in-game and things said in interviews, the fact that one game created two alternate timelines upon which all future games are based is not something you just throw out there unless you're totally sure what the creator's intentions were - it would be as if the person being interviewed claimed Link was actually a girl.


 * We can agree that both WW and TP were sequels to OoT, right? A number of things from both games support this, such as the fisherman's picture in Hena's house and the stained glass windows in WW. However, both games seem to have different stories about what happened between the games. It's not rock-solid evidence in that nowhere does it say "Hey, remember in Ocarina of Time when Link was sent back in time? Yeah, that created two parallel timelines!" but it's solid enough to make a pretty strong inference, at least, like I said, much stronger than a lot of the other stuff we have here. Jimbo Jambo 07:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a primary developer of a game saying that there's an adult / child split basically confirms that there's an adult / child split. ;) 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not trying to be difficult, but source please, Ando. I can't say  ever recall hearing anything about that. Besides, most of those people are just talkers who know as much as we do. Jimbo Jambo, I've yet to see any supporting evidence for TP coming after OoT. Yes, I believe that it does myself, but I've yet to see any facts. Also, if we're going to go by pictures on the wall, let's bring TRR and LA into the equation. These were meant as cameos and Easter eggs, not hard evidence.


 * All I'm saying is that there is no really convincing evidence. Besides, we don't know what other games could have occurred during that time period.


 * P.S. I'm not trying to drag this into a timeline debate, if that appears to be what I'm doing. 19:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine. Skepticism is a good trait for a wikigoer to have. About TP, there's no one thing within the game that says it definitively, there are a number of things from which it can be inferred: very similar geography, the existence of the Shiekah, use of symbols, probably some more things which don't immediately come to mind. The picture too, since I really do think it's a different kind of cameo than those from LA, as none of those are actually from previous games or the history of the game's timeline, but I guess that one's arguable. Again pointing to the interview though, it says it pretty clearly. And Ando, if you could source that quote, that would be wonderful. Jimbo Jambo 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears that Jimbo has already cited the interview on Nindori (which was translated by The Hylia; the relevant portion of the original Japanese interview is found here). Beyond that, there's an interview that was conducted in 2002 with Aonuma and Miyamoto in which Aonuma explained Ocarina of Time's ending and how it split: I'm having a great deal of trouble finding the original source (I don't know when the interview was conducted nor by whom), but the relevant excerpt of the interview can be found here. 05:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Boxart Image
Am I the only person who thinks that the Wii version of the boxart should be used instead of the GameCube one? The Wii version seems to look a little cleaner, and more up to date. What are your thoughts on this? 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually we could use both, either side by side or have it as a different one, each time you visit/refresh the page. 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I say side-by-side. Bulbapedia does that. The Goron Moron 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. 01:45, May 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * You can see them at the bottom. If we use the Wii art we'll get a lot of gripes that TP is a GCN game, not a Wii one. So I think the GCN box should remain in the template. 03:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to vote for side by side. Or we could merge them and have a split image, or something awesome like that. ;) Yeah, we might get a few gripes, but I think that would be the correct way to do it. I'm thinking we should have a vote. Anyone agree? 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Side by side is going to look too messy. And be basically senseless to have to nearly same images next to each other. I think the Gamecube version should stay. Or, if we have to use the Wii, then just it. Either one or the other. Not both.  04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should use the Japanese box art xD
 * In all seriousness though, I'd say that not ony does it make more sense to use the GC cover, but also the image is (IMO) brighter and better looking than the once we have for Wii. So Alter, the answer to your question seems to be "yes" I'm afraid... 11:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with side-by-side, it is messy looking, and I agree with Adam that the GCN cover is much nicer looking and appealing. If the Wii cover is highly demanded, though, we can always use the reload method I mentioned before (and example is the top of Matt's userpage). 13:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)