Zelda: Twilight Princess Reviews & Impressions (Spoiler-Free)

Pages

I figured we may as well get this thread started.

I'm watching the reviews come in. I can't bring myself to actually read any yet, because I want to begin the game knowing as little as possible. I am noting the scores, though. Gamerankings only has 7 reviews listed so far, and the current average score of 98.3% is highest of any game ever listed.

Not that review scores are the final word, but it's enough to assuage any fears I may have had that the game will be anything less than superb. Tomorrow night can't come soon enough.

Tomorrow night can't come soon enough.

I hear you brother. I only wish I wasn't soured by the news that Zelda probably doesn't do widescreen when not in 480p, and that component cables are not likely to be available for a few weeks. Still, I'm pretty damn excited. The press for this one seems to be as good (if not better) than the press for Ocarina was, which is more than enough to assure me the game will be worth my time and money.

What was the final word on the Gamecube release date?

WineGlass wrote:

What was the final word on the Gamecube release date?

I thought they were both the same.

Nope. The cube release is a month away.

I was pleasantly surprised by The Windwaker when it came out, so I have no doubt that a game that Miyamoto and crew have been working on for so long will be great.

I ma waiting for the GC version as I am laughing all the way to the bank.

Apparently the tubes are alight with complaints over Gamespots 8.8 review for not being in the high nines or perfect tens that everyone else is giving out. All this has started bashing of Gamespots reviews in general and even personal attacks against Gerstmann. It seems like he brings some valid concerns to the table, mainly the lack of voice acting and some tacked on controls.

Asz wrote:

Apparently the tubes are alight with complaints over Gamespots 8.8 review for not being in the high nines or perfect tens that everyone else is giving out. All this has started bashing of Gamespots reviews in general and even personal attacks against Gerstmann. It seems like he brings some valid concerns to the table, mainly the lack of voice acting and some tacked on controls.

While I think it's more then silly that people get up in arms over reviews they do not agree with, I really gotta say, Voice Acting? I mean, come on, you don't see me complaining that Gears of War doesn't have a fishing mini-game

Asz wrote:

Apparently the tubes are alight with complaints over Gamespots 8.8 review for not being in the high nines or perfect tens that everyone else is giving out. All this has started bashing of Gamespots reviews in general and even personal attacks against Gerstmann. It seems like he brings some valid concerns to the table, mainly the lack of voice acting and some tacked on controls.

Every other review says the controls are not tacked on. I take issue with his review after playing the game, they do not feel tacked on but it does control better than a joypad. That, and Gestermann, has said multiple times that he doesn't like the Wii as a system.

The gamespot review has many valid complaints and I applaud them for doing the right thing and scoring the game as seen fit, not scoring the legacy it brings with it.

Sinatar wrote:

The gamespot review has many valid complaints and I applaud them for doing the right thing and scoring the game as seen fit, not scoring the legacy it brings with it.

Agreed 100%.

Now, who here has some spoiler-free impressions that could help someone on the edge decide one way or another?

Is there some kind of prize awarded for having the highest aggregate score awarded that I don't know about. I mean, 8.8 is hardly a bad score. If you think it's better than that Nintendo fans, play the game and have fun.

I swear, Nintendo reminds me of the Philidelphia Eagles. The team is fine, but the fans drive me nuts.

Elysium wrote:

Is there some kind of prize awarded for having the highest aggregate score awarded that I don't know about. I mean, 8.8 is hardly a bad score. If you think it's better than that Nintendo fans, play the game and have fun.

I swear, Nintendo reminds me of the Philidelphia Eagles. The team is fine, but the fans drive me nuts.

Uh...maybe you want to reconsider that analogy after today's game.

DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

While I think it's more then silly that people get up in arms over reviews they do not agree with, I really gotta say, Voice Acting? I mean, come on, you don't see me complaining that Gears of War doesn't have a fishing mini-game :)

Its not just the voice acting, he cites the real lack of keeping up with modern presentation standards, with voice acting being one of those key pillars. A high profile game should be getting a high profile presentation.

Asz wrote:
DrunkenSleipnir wrote:

While I think it's more then silly that people get up in arms over reviews they do not agree with, I really gotta say, Voice Acting? I mean, come on, you don't see me complaining that Gears of War doesn't have a fishing mini-game :)

Its not just the voice acting, he cites the real lack of keeping up with modern presentation standards, with voice acting being one of those key pillars. A high profile game should be getting a high profile presentation.

I don't get it either. Zelda's never had voice acting. In fact, that's one of the main stylistic choices of the series: Link is a silent protagonist, and every else speaks only in interjections from some weird gibberish language (Except for Navi, who apparently only knows the words, "Hey, listen!"). It's always been that way, ever since the N64 days. So, after reading that review, I'm not sure the writer adequately explains how the Zelda experience is harmed by the lack of voice acting, when the series never had voice acting in the first place. After all, just because a game can have voice acting doesn't mean it needs it.

You seem to agree with the reviewer on this point, Asz. Could you explain how you think the lack of voice acting hurts the game? I just don't get it yet.

People are lazy and don't want to read? *shrug*

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I really don't want to walk Link up to the Mayor of his little town and hear the dulcet tones of Patrick Stewart or the low baritone of James Earl Jones.

"I need you to go to Hyrule... make it so, Number One!"

I'm with Kat on this one. The series doesn't have voices, for the most part. Come to think of it, that goes for most Nintendo stuff. I'm sure that they think that adds to the iconic flavor, and they may be right. It certainly hasn't bothered me up to this point.

<---- still Wii- and Zelda-less

Elysium wrote:

Is there some kind of prize awarded for having the highest aggregate score awarded that I don't know about. I mean, 8.8 is hardly a bad score. If you think it's better than that Nintendo fans, play the game and have fun.

I swear, Nintendo reminds me of the Philidelphia Eagles. The team is fine, but the fans drive me nuts.

QFT, Amen, etc... I prefer the version with Jesus in it though.

KaterinLHC wrote:

You seem to agree with the reviewer on this point, Asz. Could you explain how you think the lack of voice acting hurts the game? I just don't get it yet.

It's not just voice acting, that was just one (that's the important word here, one) example he chose to use in an attempt to explain his feeling that the series isn't advancing itself like he feels it should be, and in ways other games today are. Look at Resident Evil. That game got amazing scores. Now look at Resident Evil 4. They could have just kept polishing it, in the Rockstar vein of game design, but look what happened because they didn't. Can expecting series to mature really be called unreasonable? Nobody bats an eye when someone reviews a 3d shooter and complains that you're still hoarding healthpacks or carrying around an arsenal that an armored jeep would have trouble toting. Was it fun in the original Doom (or even Doom III)? Sure. But I'm glad Half-life and Call of Duty changed some of those standards too.

And 8.8 is a good score. Some of my best loved games, the ones I'd run back into my burning house to retrieve, never topped the holy grail of A's/10's/90%. One example being Fallout 2, which also got an 8.8, and is in the running for my favorite game of all time.

He mentions the graphics are good, from an artistic perspective. And then he points out that from a technical standpoint, they're not so hot, but that he doesn't feel that technically excellent graphics are the point anyway.

He describes the remote combat in a way that makes sense to me, and points out that it's not really "revolutionary", because it doesn't matter how you swing it, and that hitting a button would be just as effective. I can see how someone might think that defeats the purpose, and would wish that if the creators were presented with a world of possibilities they might have given it a little more depth.

The review comes off to me as a Zelda fanboy who's disappointed that instead of pushing the series forward, even in odd ways like Windwaker, they're falling back on the safeness of past Zelda formulas, of hiding behind the series high points by just putting them in a shiny new package. Which, as the person who gave Ocarina a perfect 10 score, I feel he's more than qualified to bank such an opinion.

Ulairi wrote:

Every other review says the controls are not tacked on. I take issue with his review after playing the game, they do not feel tacked on but it does control better than a joypad. That, and Gestermann, has said multiple times that he doesn't like the Wii as a system.

And it doesn't matter what every other review said. Especially if you consider that what he said was that "at its worst" the controls are imprecise. At its worst! It's not like he said the whole experience is an exercise in frustration, just that he sometimes wished for the more exact nature and simplicity of pressing a button.

All in all, it reads like an extremely balanced, logical review. And for all the people flaming him, he gave the bloody thing a 10 in the tilt category.

unntrlaffinity wrote:
KaterinLHC wrote:

You seem to agree with the reviewer on this point, Asz. Could you explain how you think the lack of voice acting hurts the game? I just don't get it yet.

It's not just voice acting, that was just one (that's the important word here, one) example he chose to use in an attempt to explain his feeling that the series isn't advancing itself like he feels it should be, and in ways other games today are. Look at Resident Evil. That game got amazing scores. Now look at Resident Evil 4. They could have just kept polishing it, in the Rockstar vein of game design, but look what happened because they didn't. Can expecting series to mature really be called unreasonable? Nobody bats an eye when someone reviews a 3d shooter and complains that you're still hoarding healthpacks or carrying around an arsenal that an armored jeep would have trouble toting. Was it fun in the original Doom (or even Doom III)? Sure. But I'm glad Half-life and Call of Duty changed some of those standards too.

Sure, the review didn't focus on the voice acting - it was just a throwaway comment, really - and, for the most part, he supported most of the arguments he made. But that voice acting bit really stuck out for me, particularly because it seemed like such a random, irrelevant thing to comment on. Of all the things that could or may have gone wrong with the game, the reviewer points out the non-existent voice acting in a game whose series has never featured voice acting in the first place? Seemed weird to me, as if someone complained that the zombies in the Resident Evil series have never lost their taste for human flesh, or that the guns in the Doom series still shoot bullets instead of glowing purple laser beams of concentrated evil.

Not to mention, I genuinely do not understand why the inclusion of voice acting makes a game 'mature' or 'evolved' or even 'of high profile presentation'. It just seems like another stylistic technique to me, and great, great things can be done without it, or with its limited use. (Plus, voice acting has this tendency to go horribly, horribly awry...)

Duttybrew wrote:

I was pleasantly surprised by The Windwaker when it came out, so I have no doubt that a game that Miyamoto and crew have been working on for so long will be great.

Any idea how "hands on" Miyamoto was with this version?
Ocarina of Time was the last zelda that I really enjoyed (despite the unwinnable running man race, but alas ...)
I read that Miyamoto took a step back after Ocarina of Time. Maybe that's why I felt let down by portions of the follow up games. The boat riding in Wind Waker was downright tedious.

My expectations are rising for this game. I'll probably gamefly the Gamecube version.

Let's try and keep the thread focused on actual game impressions, review discussion has a great deal of merit but it might be best to take that discussion into a new thread.

I've played through the Zelda standard of tutorial-by-village and stopped just when things started to get really interesting. Damn my tired eyes! I'm delighted by the combat system, I was expecting clunkiness but it's taken me no time at all to get used to the controls. No more than the last game on the Cube or N64, really.

After playing Zelda for 6 hours i can say that the presentation is by far better than previous Zelda.
And i don't know if that will change, but for the momment i have always something to do.
I admit that the lack of good voice acting is not a plus. But in this tinny 6 hours i've made more thing
than in average game.

The combat system work, better than i though. I can sit and play like past game. No dramatic move.
Link never innitiate an attack if i don't want, bah! it's not axctly true, at one time i raise the controller
cause i want to scratch my head and Link innitiate an attack that kill two poor peasant

At first i've got problem with aiming. My problem was the table in front of my couch. To aim at the bottom
of the screen i needed to raise my hand cause the signal was stop by the table. It work but i cant stand
in my lazy position :). Then i place the sensor bar at the top of my TV and change the setting of the Wii,
now it work perfectly.

The controller work for this game. I'm sure that if i play Zelda for the Cube i'll feel that something is lacking.

Zaro wrote:

After playing Zelda for 6 hours i can say that the presentation is by far better than previous Zelda.
And i don't know if that will change, but for the momment i have always something to do.
I admit that the lack of good voice acting is not a plus. But in this tinny 6 hours i've made more thing
than in average game.

The combat system work, better than i though. I can sit and play like past game. No dramatic move.
Link never innitiate an attack if i don't want, bah! it's not axctly true, at one time i raise the controller
cause i want to scratch my head and Link innitiate an attack that kill two poor peasant

At first i've got problem with aiming. My problem was the table in front of my couch. To aim at the bottom
of the screen i needed to raise my hand cause the signal was stop by the table. It work but i cant stand
in my lazy position :). Then i place the sensor bar at the top of my TV and change the setting of the Wii,
now it work perfectly.

The controller work for this game. I'm sure that if i play Zelda for the Cube i'll feel that something is lacking.

I hate you. But guess who's not working today and knows where you live?

Don't worry. Your cats won't suffer.

I've enjoyed the gameplay and story so far. It's hard to say what I've liked best as it's all spoiler material, so I'll just keep it to myself for now.

Let me just leave some closing comments about the review bit before Certis slaps me around. Just about everything unntrlaffinity said is exactly why I agree with the review.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Of all the things that could or may have gone wrong with the game, the reviewer points out the non-existent voice acting in a game whose series has never featured voice acting in the first place? Seemed weird to me, as if someone complained that the zombies in the Resident Evil series have never lost their taste for human flesh, or that the guns in the Doom series still shoot bullets instead of glowing purple laser beams of concentrated evil.

Not to mention, I genuinely do not understand why the inclusion of voice acting makes a game 'mature' or 'evolved' or even 'of high profile presentation'. It just seems like another stylistic technique to me, and great, great things can be done without it, or with its limited use. (Plus, voice acting has this tendency to go horribly, horribly awry...)

You cite Doom as an example of keeping in line with tradition but do you honestly believe Doom 3 would have been the big success it was without a redirection over the originals? Without voice acting? Without the fantastic music and sound design? Some things should stay the same over time, presentation shouldn't. Great things can be done without voice acting, i'll agree, but that shouldn't force games to go without it.

Asz, you're cool and all, brother, enjoyed playing Gears with you this weekend...but you're on crack if you thought Doom 3 was anything but an update of the original.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Asz, you're cool and all, brother, enjoyed playing Gears with you this weekend...but you're on crack if you thought Doom 3 was anything but an update of the original. :smile:

But it wasn't. It was a survival game combined with Resident Evil "gotcha" moments in the doom setting.

The only games I'd consider updates to Doom would be the Serious Sam games and Painkiller.

My my my this is off-topic.

So, any sailing in this new Zelda?

So, any sailing in this new Zelda?

My understanding is that we're back to pretty horsies.

Pages