Legend of Zelda The Milk Bar [Archived]

[Ochobobo]

How can you hate the part (warning spoiler) when you finally figure out Sheik was Zelda

LOL at putting a spoiler tag on that in a Smash Bros forum

 

[Firus]

I just think that if you don't give things a chance how can you bag on it? The story of OoT was one of the best and it was the game that got me into gaming. How can you hate the part (warning spoiler)

Spoiler

when you finally figure out Sheik was Zelda

No I have never used a strategy guide in my gaming career.

I get the feeling you got stuck on a temple water perhaps? If that's the reason just ask someone to help you because that is no reason to hate an entire game.

Just to interject here, I myself have yet to beat OoT because it has not immersed me. I'm not stuck anywhere, I'm not stuck in the water temple, I didn't even get that far, the game just really hasn't interested me.

And from what I can tell, he DID give the game a chance. Just because you don't beat the game entirely doesn't mean you didn't give it a chance. It's not like OoT is a five-minute-long cakewalk.

I mean yeah, OoT is widely loved, but everyone has their own opinion.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I just think that if you don't give things a chance how can you bag on it? The story of OoT was one of the best and it was the game that got me into gaming. How can you hate the part (warning spoiler)

Spoiler

when you finally figure out Sheik was Zelda

No I have never used a strategy guide in my gaming career.

I get the feeling you got stuck on a temple water perhaps? If that's the reason just ask someone to help you because that is no reason to hate an entire game.

I wish

I got stuck on the Great Deku tree.

Remember how I said OoT was my very first Zelda game? I believe in the Great deku tree, one of the first puzzles involves jumping off a tall cliff into a spider web. Now, all the times I jumped off a tall cliff before, I would get hurt. So it never occured to me to go to the highest point on the map and do something like that.

However, I may be mixed up, it was a while ago. But it reinforced my thinking that OoT puzzles are punishingly unintuitive.

Years later, I got OoT for the virtual console, and I was shocked at how bad the controls were, as I had always thought that as I aged I was getting better at video games, not just the controls. That time, I managed to get to the adult link part, went to Korikiri village, and got stuck because I had no idea what i was looking for. A month later I heard that I was supposed to do something in the graveyard, but I just wasn't interested anymore.

That is why I can't understand the incredible nostalgia behind a game that has not only aged poorly (graphics, controls, intuitiveness of the puzzles/progression requirements), but wasn't very fun (for me) when it first came out.

 

[Scott!]

I wish

I got stuck on the Great Deku tree.

Remember how I said OoT was my very first Zelda game? I believe in the Great deku tree, one of the first puzzles involves jumping off a tall cliff into a spider web. Now, all the times I jumped off a tall cliff before, I would get hurt. So it never occured to me to go to the highest point on the map and do something like that.

However, I may be mixed up, it was a while ago. But it reinforced my thinking that OoT puzzles are punishingly unintuitive.

Years later, I got OoT for the virtual console, and I was shocked at how bad the controls were, as I had always thought that as I aged I was getting better at video games, not just the controls. That time, I managed to get to the adult link part, went to Korikiri village, and got stuck because I had no idea what i was looking for. A month later I heard that I was supposed to do something in the graveyard, but I just wasn't interested anymore.

That is why I can't understand the incredible nostalgia behind a game that has not only aged poorly (graphics, controls, intuitiveness of the puzzles/progression requirements), but wasn't very fun (for me) when it first came out.

You are entitled to your own opinion, and if you don't like OoT, I'm not going to argue that. I am way too biased in its favor to offer a serious debate on its goodness. But the puzzles weren't really that unintuitive. And for the ones that were, like the spiderweb, you have Navi dropping some not-so-subtle hints on what to do. For all the hate she gets, if you're confused in a tricky area, she's a lifesaver. I'm pretty sure either she or Sheik herself tell you to go to the graveyard once you're an adult too. So that's my only bone to pick with your argument.

(Disclaimer: I only used a guide once, and it turned out I already knew what to do, and was just doing it wrong.)

Yes, the controls are not exactly up to today's standards, though I've never had much trouble with them. I found them to be pretty good, personally, but if you've had problems, then I won't argue.

My only issue, and this is just how I do things, is this. When I judge older games, especially on issues of technology like sound, graphics, controls, etc., I do my best to look at them from the perspective of when they came out. I started played FF VII last summer on my friend's PS1, and was having issues with the controls and how dated it was. The graphics were ridiculously primitive for 3D. But I did my best to put that all aside, and I was enjoying the little of it I got to play. To me, it just doesn't seem fair to judge old games by today's standards.

 

[SuperRacoon]

I just so everyone is clear on where the must unintuitive puzzles are in Zelda, it's the first Legend of Zelda, (still an excellent game btw) but for the most part puzzles are nonexistent, you just wander through mazes. Also, I found OoT puzzles to be a lot more intuitive than the WW puzzles.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

My only issue, and this is just how I do things, is this. When I judge older games, especially on issues of technology like sound, graphics, controls, etc., I do my best to look at them from the perspective of when they came out. I started played FF VII last summer on my friend's PS1, and was having issues with the controls and how dated it was. The graphics were ridiculously primitive for 3D. But I did my best to put that all aside, and I was enjoying the little of it I got to play. To me, it just doesn't seem fair to judge old games by today's standards.

Scott is right it isn't fair to judge games on todays standards and you did replay the game
(even though it was just to kakori village) and yes you are entitled to your oppinion but please next time don't flame on a game just because it's old.

It really deserves credit, because of OoT's game mechanics, all the 3D Zelda games you see today are here.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

You are entitled to your own opinion, and if you don't like OoT, I'm not going to argue that. I am way too biased in its favor to offer a serious debate on its goodness. But the puzzles weren't really that unintuitive. And for the ones that were, like the spiderweb, you have Navi dropping some not-so-subtle hints on what to do. For all the hate she gets, if you're confused in a tricky area, she's a lifesaver. I'm pretty sure either she or Sheik herself tell you to go to the graveyard once you're an adult too. So that's my only bone to pick with your argument.

(Disclaimer: I only used a guide once, and it turned out I already knew what to do, and was just doing it wrong.)

Yes, the controls are not exactly up to today's standards, though I've never had much trouble with them. I found them to be pretty good, personally, but if you've had problems, then I won't argue.

My only issue, and this is just how I do things, is this. When I judge older games, especially on issues of technology like sound, graphics, controls, etc., I do my best to look at them from the perspective of when they came out. I started played FF VII last summer on my friend's PS1, and was having issues with the controls and how dated it was. The graphics were ridiculously primitive for 3D. But I did my best to put that all aside, and I was enjoying the little of it I got to play. To me, it just doesn't seem fair to judge old games by today's standards.

Actually, I couldn't find Sheik.

I'll let you know right now, when I judge games, I judge them by todays standards. I do this because I'm bored with most the games for the wii, and I want to buy something because it is good, not because it was good at the time. In fact, I am actively looking for good games, which is why I'm so critical of OoT being the best game ever, as it no longer is. I made the mistake with Final Fantasy 7 of buying it because it is so overrated that I figured it must be somewhat good, but I ended up never finishing because I could no longer appreciate it enough to trudge through the game, as it simply wasn't good enough anymore. (I got to the third disk, and simply lost interest, even though I was at the entrance of the Final Dungeon. It might be a JRPG thing as well, though.)

My issue with the N64 era however, has always been that it is not a fun era. Never totally understood Super Mario World 3 either; it had a couple of secret keys necesary for finding Bowser that I could never quite find. Ended up taking the star road a few years later. But back to the 64 bit era - Quite simply, I was never convinced that 3D games were good. It was only when the gamecube came out that I started liking 3D games, but before that, I had control issues, I got frequently stuck (this issue happened less the more familiar developers became with 3D environments), and the games' appearances were far beneath what I expected. Yoshi's Island was a very pretty game, one that is still very good. It became timeless because it looks and feels exactly the same as it did over a decade ago, and because you rarely got "stuck", but more importantly; it was timeless because additional technology would not have made it any better. Super Mario 64 and OoT were not Yoshi's Island; rather they were like NES games, which would have benefitted from a technical upgrade if one were available.

Once the gamecube came out, the 3D graphics I expected existed, and I was satisfied. However, the issues of getting lost, stuck, or unclear on the next objectives remained for quite some time, and minor control issues remained (major ones for FPS's I'd imagine though - it took me two months to become not terrible at Halo because of the dual-analogue stick scheme). However, for me the technology was satisfactory; I didn't really ever need a graphical upgrade after that era, because the 3D games wouldn't have significantly benefitted IMO. At least the ones made in the classic Nintendo style - the realistic style absolutely was in need of upgraded hardware back then.

So basically, I always felt that the N64 era was kinda disappointing; the graphics simply needed a power boost because all the games would have been better with more power, with a few very fun exceptions (Paper Mario 64 - storybook style couldn't be significanlt improved with better hardware. Pokemon puzzle league - same game no matter how much power, better hardware unnecesary. there were a few others that would have benefitted, but they were fun anyway - Like mario kart 64 and embarasingly, Mario Party. although i must admit I stopped liking Mario Party, while Mario Kart 64's successors turned out better than it was.)

To be honest, I get annoyed when people tell me an old game is good when it will no longer seem good, because I'm looking for games to play, and another person's nostalgia is not what I consider fun.

EDIT: You know, I actually have the same issue with motion controls. The IR pointer is perfected, but motion controls are simply to unrefined to be fun, and at the very least need a technical boost (Not that I'm interested in Tennis either, but I could see picking up wii motion+ for a star wars game).

 

[Scott!]

Actually, I couldn't find Sheik.

I'll let you know right now, when I judge games, I judge them by todays standards. I do this because I'm bored with most the games for the wii, and I want to buy something because it is good, not because it was good at the time. In fact, I am actively looking for good games, which is why I'm so critical of OoT being the best game ever, as it no longer is. I made the mistake with Final Fantasy 7 of buying it because it is so overrated that I figured it must be somewhat good, but I ended up never finishing because I could no longer appreciate it enough to trudge through the game, as it simply wasn't good enough anymore. (I got to the third disk, and simply lost interest, even though I was at the entrance of the Final Dungeon. It might be a JRPG thing as well, though.)

My issue with the N64 era however, has always been that it is not a fun era. Never totally understood Super Mario World 3 either; it had a couple of secret keys necesary for finding Bowser that I could never quite find. Ended up taking the star road a few years later. But back to the 64 bit era - Quite simply, I was never convinced that 3D games were good. It was only when the gamecube came out that I started liking 3D games, but before that, I had control issues, I got frequently stuck (this issue happened less the more familiar developers became with 3D environments), and the games' appearances were far beneath what I expected. Yoshi's Island was a very pretty game, one that is still very good. It became timeless because it looks and feels exactly the same as it did over a decade ago, and because you rarely got "stuck", but more importantly; it was timeless because additional technology would not have made it any better. Super Mario 64 and OoT were not Yoshi's Island; rather they were like NES games, which would have benefitted from a technical upgrade if one were available.

Once the gamecube came out, the 3D graphics I expected existed, and I was satisfied. However, the issues of getting lost, stuck, or unclear on the next objectives remained for quite some time, and minor control issues remained (major ones for FPS's I'd imagine though - it took me two months to become not terrible at Halo because of the dual-analogue stick scheme). However, for me the technology was satisfactory; I didn't really ever need a graphical upgrade after that era, because the 3D games wouldn't have significantly benefitted IMO. At least the ones made in the classic Nintendo style - the realistic style absolutely was in need of upgraded hardware back then.

So basically, I always felt that the N64 era was kinda disappointing; the graphics simply needed a power boost because all the games would have been better with more power, with a few very fun exceptions (Paper Mario 64 - storybook style couldn't be significanlt improved with better hardware. Pokemon puzzle league - same game no matter how much power, better hardware unnecesary. there were a few others that would have benefitted, but they were fun anyway - Like mario kart 64 and embarasingly, Mario Party. although i must admit I stopped liking Mario Party, while Mario Kart 64's successors turned out better than it was.)

To be honest, I get annoyed when people tell me an old game is good when it will no longer seem good, because I'm looking for games to play, and another person's nostalgia is not what I consider fun.

EDIT: You know, I actually have the same issue with motion controls. The IR pointer is perfected, but motion controls are simply to unrefined to be fun, and at the very least need a technical boost (Not that I'm interested in Tennis either, but I could see picking up wii motion+ for a star wars game).

I actually do agree with some of what you are saying. For me, when it comes to playing old games, it's not based on one factor, but really just a matter of priorities. With FF VII, I was annoyed by the controls, and the graphics were just terrible, and I had trouble navigating the world, but I was enjoying the battles, and the story as well, so I thought it was worth it. For you, compared to myself, the controls and related issues seem to play a more important role in determining what you play, and I can respect that. We all have different priorities.

I also think we were arguing for different things. You're arguing on what you want to play, and I'm arguing for deciding what makes games great. I can definitely understand not wanting to play an old game because of it being outdated and almost unplayable. But I also don't think that things that become outdated should be judged against today's games when determining which was the overall better game.

And as for Sheik, if I remember correctly, Sheik talked to you and dropped hints on where to go before you left the Temple of Time as an adult, so you must have run into her if you played as an adult at all.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I actually do agree with some of what you are saying. For me, when it comes to playing old games, it's not based on one factor, but really just a matter of priorities. With FF VII, I was annoyed by the controls, and the graphics were just terrible, and I had trouble navigating the world, but I was enjoying the battles, and the story as well, so I thought it was worth it. For you, compared to myself, the controls and related issues seem to play a more important role in determining what you play, and I can respect that. We all have different priorities.

I also think we were arguing for different things. You're arguing on what you want to play, and I'm arguing for deciding what makes games great. I can definitely understand not wanting to play an old game because of it being outdated and almost unplayable. But I also don't think that things that become outdated should be judged against today's games when determining which was the overall better game.

And as for Sheik, if I remember correctly, Sheik talked to you and dropped hints on where to go before you left the Temple of Time as an adult, so you must have run into her if you played as an adult at all.

I knew I had to go to Korikiko village, but after I got there I wasn't clear on what to do. I was supposed to find Sheik there, but I couldn't find her for some reason.

TBH, controls are actually my #1 issue. #2 would be gameplay (which is why I still admit to liking Shadow; the gameplay was unique, interesting, and pretty fast; although the controls were only managable). Those two issues are the reason I like Nintendo games best.

It's fair enough if we are being fair to the game, to judge it based on it's time. Although I would be careful suggesting games that are rated based on their era; as Paper Mario has aged more gracefully than Super Mario 64, and is probably a better way to introduce a new player to Mario for the first time for $10.

Incidently, is Yoshi's Island ever coming to Virtual Console? It's one of the few games I ever actually got 100% completion on (it's also one of my parent's favorite games to this day, oddly enough).

 

[Spire]

Holy mackerel, can you guys not type "Kakariko Village"?

First I saw Kokiri Village, then Kakori village, and now Korikiko? COME ON. K-A-K-A-R-I-K-O.

On this debate, I can put it plainly - Ocarina of Time was incredible at the time that it came out. Unlike pretty much anything else at the time, it introduced so many commonly used elements to the newly forming world of 3D games. Any of you familiar with locking on to enemies? Yeah, OoT invented that -- a feature used in almost EVERY game even remotely similar to the 64-bit gem.

Now, I've tried playing OoT in recent times, and it hasn't aged greatly. It feels a bit archaic, kind of like a wobbly bridge between the now ancient A Link to the Past and the new-age 3D games such as Wind Waker and Twilight Princess (who share almost the same engine, so hence, are very similar games). There will probably be a time when OoT attains that ancient status and can be accepted as a retro title, but right now, it, along with the N64 and PS1 stand as a strange, yet incredibly unique midway point between the 2D games of old and the mass amount of 3D games now (starting with the PS2/GCN/XBOX).

The problem I see with the N64 and its games is that it introduced 3D, but aesthetically, is incredibly lacking in comparison to the 'industrial revolutionized' 6th Gen consoles, whose ability to render graphics and sound has been rising more and more with every coming year. The N64 was pivotal, and while it hosted some of the most memorable games (simply because of their innovative nature -- YES, OoT was intuitive for those bright enough to TRY jumping off a cliff, as they probably discovered already that Link can roll upon falling), it certainly was a strange console. I'll give you that much.

Now, I've said this before, but simply put, if it weren't for OoT, TP would probably be considered the best Zelda game, gaining higher and more favorable scores from reviewers, and garnering a much wider and accepting audience. But the thing is, the game was designed as much of a remake of OoT as OoT was a remake of ALttP. I see the three as a trilogy moreso than any other grouped titles in the series (even those considered direct sequels). While these three may not be considered the absolute best - besides OoT - they certainly embody what a "Hyrule legend" is supposed to be, in 2D, premature 3D, and refined 3D. I'm hoping that Nintendo goes some strange "4D" route with a future Zelda game, reinventing not only Twilight Princess, but all three of these in a format unlike any other.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I mostly agree, but I don't believe OoT will ever age into retro. It needs to be improved in a couple ways, as it can no longer stand without it's legacy, if it's going to be retro. It's not pong.

(simply because of their innovative nature -- YES, OoT was intuitive for those bright enough to TRY jumping off a cliff, as they probably discovered already that Link can roll upon falling)

I found this comment hilarious.

OoT was my first Zelda game; in fact, it was among my first 3D games ever. I jumped off a cliff, I felt pain, and lost half a heart out of three while adjusting to the lack of a jump or a ground pound to stop your fall. If you suggested falling from the highest point into the spider web, I would probably respond "What kind of idiot falls 3 stories into a giant spider nest?"

Forget bright, the solution to that puzzle was outright moronic

 

[Scott!]

I mostly agree, but I don't believe OoT will ever age into retro. It needs to be improved in a couple ways, as it can no longer stand without it's legacy, if it's going to be retro. It's not pong.



I found this comment hilarious.

OoT was my first Zelda game; in fact, it was among my first 3D games ever. I jumped off a cliff, I felt pain, and lost half a heart out of three while adjusting to the lack of a jump or a ground pound to stop your fall. If you suggested falling from the highest point into the spider web, I would probably respond "What kind of idiot falls 3 stories into a giant spider nest?"

Forget bright, the solution to that puzzle was outright moronic

I will admit, it wasn't the most obvious thing to do, jumping onto the web. I think I kind of just got lucky though, cause the first time I tried jumping from a great height in OoT was from a middle level in the Deku Tree, and I landed on the web, and it stretched a lot. I just thought it was awesome, and continued on until I had nowhere else to go, so I tried from the top, and bam, I was through.

 

[SuperRacoon]

OoT was my first Zelda game; in fact, it was among my first 3D games ever. I jumped off a cliff, I felt pain, and lost half a heart out of three while adjusting to the lack of a jump or a ground pound to stop your fall. If you suggested falling from the highest point into the spider web, I would probably respond "What kind of idiot falls 3 stories into a giant spider nest?"

Forget bright, the solution to that puzzle was outright moronic

Having taken a full semester of physics, I can explain to you in terms of physics why its not quite as moronic as you think. First of all, no material is truly perfect, if you stretch a rubber band to far it breaks, with enough force you can bend steel, and apply enough heat you can burn diamonds. Second of all, objects accelerate as the fall, which means the further they fall, the faster they fall and therefore the more force it requires to stop in the same amount of time.

With these two facts in mind, it's easy to understand how Link could exceed the force capacity of the web and break it by jumping from a high place and landing on it.

To see this work in real life: Next time you see a spider web, take two small stones of about the same mass, you can easily place one on the web with out breaking it. With the other one, you could easily bust a hole in the web but chucking the stone through it. happy physics.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Having taken a full semester of physics, I can explain to you in terms of physics why its not quite as moronic as you think. First of all, no material is truly perfect, if you stretch a rubber band to far it breaks, with enough force you can bend steel, and apply enough heat you can burn diamonds. Second of all, objects accelerate as the fall, which means the further they fall, the faster they fall and therefore the more force it requires to stop in the same amount of time.

With these two facts in mind, it's easy to understand how Link could exceed the force capacity of the web and break it by jumping from a high place and landing on it.

To see this work in real life: Next time you see a spider web, take two small stones of about the same mass, you can easily place one on the web with out breaking it. With the other one, you could easily bust a hole in the web but chucking the stone through it. happy physics.

So to be clear, not only is it not stupid to jump on a spider web, it is not stupid to jump on a spider web from 3 stories up hoping to crash down a forth story into the creepy basment containing the giant spider that created that web?

It was one of my first video games. I don't think I understood the concept of "putting yourself in danger lets you advance in the storyline" yet.

Come to think of it, I still don't quite get it. Nothing about trying to break the floor by falling face first into it from the highest spot you can find so that you can meet the spider that created a web for Link-sized insects seems like a good idea.

I think I remember why I never got very far in Ocarina of Time.

(I know Physics, BTW. Even if he wasn't moving when the web broke, it was fairly likely he would have broken his legs falling the one floor, let alone adding the momentum from the previous 3 floors minus the resistance of the web.)

 

[SuperRacoon]

Nevermind the fact the web had obviously been abandoned, (No skultullas jump out and attack you for just standing on it).

The web behaves like an elastic band, as it stretches it exerts more force in the direction opposite of which it it was being stretched. Below that, link fell into a pool of water not too far below the web, basically there was never enough force being exerting on Link at any given instant to inflict damage, all the work done to stop link had been spread out overtime. It's sort of like bungee jumping (only in this case max capacity for the cord is less than the the total force exerted on the cord thereby breaking it) the cord slows you down gradually so it doesn't hurt you, with a good cord you can fall a pretty far without getting hurt (of course the elastic nature of the cord pulls you back up into the air).

Yeah at a glance it doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense but it could logically work in a physically situation. What we should do to settle this, is to test it experimentally. (I just don't have the equipment to test and of course record the test)

Also "putting yourself in danger lets you advance the storyline" makes sense, aren't putting yourself in danger when you attack Ganon? Aren't you putting your self in danger when you fight any of the bosses 10 times the size of Link? Isn't it a little bit dangerous to be climbing up a frozen mountain in the middle of a blizzard? Aren't all the dungeons themselves supposed to be 'dangerous'? You spend the whole game putting yourself in danger to advance the story.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Nevermind the fact the web had obviously been abandoned, (No skultullas jump out and attack you for just standing on it).

The web behaves like an elastic band, as it stretches it exerts more force in the direction opposite of which it it was being stretched. Below that, link fell into a pool of water not too far below the web, basically there was never enough force being exerting on Link at any given instant to inflict damage, all the work done to stop link had been spread out overtime. It's sort of like bungee jumping (only in this case max capacity for the cord is less than the the total force exerted on the cord thereby breaking it) the cord slows you down gradually so it doesn't hurt you, with a good cord you can fall a pretty far without getting hurt (of course the elastic nature of the cord pulls you back up into the air).

Yeah at a glance it doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense but it could logically work in a physically situation. What we should do to settle this, is to test it experimentally. (I just don't have the equipment to test and of course record the test)

Also "putting yourself in danger lets you advance the storyline" makes sense, aren't putting yourself in danger when you attack Ganon? Aren't you putting your self in danger when you fight any of the bosses 10 times the size of Link? Isn't it a little bit dangerous to be climbing up a frozen mountain in the middle of a blizzard? Aren't all the dungeons themselves supposed to be 'dangerous'? You spend the whole game putting yourself in danger to advance the story.

I'm not convinced Link knew about the pool of water beneath him when he jumped several stories. Because I sure didn't. Besides, even if the web was abandoned, there was obviously a Spider looking for Link sized creature to eat, probably at the bottom of the hole that's sealed with a spider web?

Link is an idiot, and OoT is a terrible game to introduce oneself to videogames. How was I supposed to know that I had to try to kill myself repeatedly to advance the story?

It wasn't my first game, but it was among my first. I think I played Yoshi's Island, Mario 64, and Sim City before it (and a couple others). Never an adventure game though. So falling great heights hoping to crash through the floor into the creepy, dangerous part of the dungeon probably would never have occured to me at the time, as I didn't really play any adventure games, and it wouldn't have made sense in real life.

 

[SuperRacoon]

, and it wouldn't have made sense in real life.

And neither does using the mold that grows on bread to cure diseases, again I say, at a glance. However, I will acknowledge that there is a even better way the the puzzle could have been solved, that is by dropping an empty chest through the web first, just to be safe. However I still stand by my claim that works and that it makes physical sense for it work.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

And neither does using the mold that grows on bread to cure diseases, again I say, at a glance. However, I will acknowledge that there is a even better way the the puzzle could have been solved, that is by dropping an empty chest through the web first, just to be safe. However I still stand by my claim that works and that it makes physical sense for it work.

No. I'm don't care if it hypothetically works or not, I refuse to acknoledge that it is intelligent to jump down the hole. Because it is in fact, very stupid to jump down the hole.

You don't test hypotheses with your face.

I don't remember any empty chest that could be dumped down the creepy spider hole though. Was there one of those?

 

[SuperRacoon]

I don't remember any empty chest that could be dumped down the creepy spider hole though. Was there one of those?

I was merely suggesting a possible alternative that the programmers could have made (they didn't btw), and yes, there are empty chests at the top there, they just aren't in the main main room, you get the map in the back of the room at the top floor and voila, there is your empty chest.
Actually though, I'm surprised you haven't harped the the intelligence level of the only giant spider species of Hyrule, the Skulltula, seriously what kinda of creature fights by dangling for a few seconds and then exposing it's weak points.

Oh and for everyone who isn't The Halloween Captain, have you seen Songbird Ocarina's newest replica of the Ocarina of Time?

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/articles/reviews/review-songbird-ocarinas-oot-ocarina/
I own one of the older less accurate in appearance replicas, but it still has an excellent sound, this Is by far the most accurate replica I've seen. Songbird makes some really good ocarinas for the price range of $30 - $100. This one no doubt has an excellent sound quality too.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I was merely suggesting a possible alternative that the programmers could have made (they didn't btw), and yes, there are empty chests at the top there, they just aren't in the main main room, you get the map in the back of the room at the top floor and voila, there is your empty chest.
Actually though, I'm surprised you haven't harped the the intelligence level of the only giant spider species of Hyrule, the Skulltula, seriously what kinda of creature fights by dangling for a few seconds and then exposing it's weak points.

I kind of expect the giant spiders to be stupid.

More importantly, I don't complain about things being easy to kill. Especially if it is a giant spider.

I do complain about bosses being easy to kill though, but that's because they are supposed to be tough.

 

[Scott!]

Just a point. I don't think I noticed it the first time I played, but you can see the water through the web if you look from above. I'm pretty sure Navi tells you to look down through the web at some point, saying there's a room down there, so I think it can be assumed that Link would see the water if it were up to him rather than us the players.

 

[SinkingHigher]

Totally off topic right now, but...

I just finished Phantom Hourglass.

WORST. ZELDA. EVER. Well, I suppose the CD-i ones will always hold that title, but **** this makes a pretty close second.

Tetra is USELESS in this game. She does LITERALLY nothing. Cliche characters, a story that goes NOWHERE, which turns out to be a dream (or is it? Hmmm. Don't care). I've never considered not playing a game all the way to the end before, but this game made me stop caring so many times. The same temple 6 times? Really? ... REALLY?! The puzzles were pathetic. Completely and utterly pathetic. Not only were they all guessing games, but the answer sheet was right there next to each and every one of them.

God. This game fails.

Someone please explain the ending to me in a way that would make it slightly more interesting. The boss was as hard as she-pirate joan joanna jolene whatever her name was.

The only things I liked about this game was ToonLink's expressions. Meh, the boomerang and occasional use of double screen was okay too.

 

[Spire]

Look, here's the thing. We play as Link because he's supposed to bring out the courage in us, the players, to take risks in order to solve puzzles and press forward in the games. Within the Great Deku Tree, if you could build up enough courage to jump onto the web, then you're filling Link's shoes appropriately. If you are like Halloween Captain and quit playing right then and there because you're too scared to jump and risk your life in a game, then you should play games like Phantom Hourglass, where you don't have to risk anything.

In terms of what games evoke the most fear, and hence, the most courage-based obstacles, I list the following:

1. MM
2. OoT
3. ALttP
4. A slur of everything else, besides...
5. PH

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Look, here's the thing. We play as Link because he's supposed to bring out the courage in us, the players, to take risks in order to solve puzzles and press forward in the games. Within the Great Deku Tree, if you could build up enough courage to jump onto the web, then you're filling Link's shoes appropriately. If you are like Halloween Captain and quit playing right then and there because you're too scared to jump and risk your life in a game, then you should play games like Phantom Hourglass, where you don't have to risk anything.

I was still a little kid. Giant spiders and Boos were scary back then. Deku shrubs were outright terrifying in their own way. I got over it.

 

[c3gill]

In terms of what games evoke the most fear, and hence, the most courage-based obstacles, I list the following:

1. MM

Best all-around:
1) MM

Most Brutal:
1) MM

Most Epic:
1) MM

That better make it on VC soon:
1) MM

 

[SuperRacoon]

That better make it on VC soon:
1) MM

Seriously, I might have to do something drastic if they don't put MM on the VC soon.

 

[SinkingHigher]

I hear it's out in Japan...

*grumbles*

 

[Scott!]

Sorry, c3gill, but MM is definitely not the most epic Zelda game. TP, WW, and OoT would like a word with you.

But it is the one that should most definitely make it to VC for me to not download because I already have two working versions.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I hear it's out in Japan...

*grumbles*

Don't forget about Europe. and Australia.

And the moon. But not America, because we need 3 more months of shovelware first.

Maybe Nintendo wants to try that thing with the Rabbids Go Home, see if we'll make a giant pile of shovelware to the moon so we can download it off the moon servers.

 

[SinkingHigher]

What's with the delay? Is there a reference to fat girls or terrorists or something that's taking a while to censor?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

What's with the delay? Is there a reference to fat girls or terrorists or something that's taking a while to censor?

One day you'll have to come to terms with the fact that while Nintendo is the best video game maker in the world, it is also the most arbitrarily annoying one.

 

[Alzi]

I might be winning $50 AU soon so i will go buy some wii points and get Majoras Mask. I will also show c3gill how awsome it is on VC.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

That's a great timeline, but I have a question about it. I know that WW and TP are alternae timelines, but is it really appropriate to put the rest of the Zelda games under the WW arc?

Spoiler

How did Hyrule return from being submerged after Wind Waker?

I haven't played Phantom Hourglass, Four swords, or Four Swords adventures, so may you please explain it to me?

On a side note, I find it odd the the second quest of Zelda on the NES has only 1 100 ruppee location.

 

[c3gill]

I might be winning $50 AU soon so i will go buy some wii points and get Majoras Mask. I will also show c3gill how awsome it is on VC.

Yea, be sure to critique MM for me. I would pay 4000 wii point bull****s for MM right now

 

[Spire]

That's a great timeline, but I have a question about it. I know that WW and TP are alternae timelines, but is it really appropriate to put the rest of the Zelda games under the WW arc?

Spoiler

How did Hyrule return from being submerged after Wind Waker?

I haven't played Phantom Hourglass, Four swords, or Four Swords adventures, so may you please explain it to me?

On a side note, I find it odd the the second quest of Zelda on the NES has only 1 100 ruppee location.

I hate that MM and TP are left alone in Timeline B too, but it's the logical and righteous move.

Basically here's what happens in Timeline A:

OoT -- Hyrule gets flooded -- WW/PH

WW/PH -- Link and Zelda (Tetra) defeat Ganondorf, literally killing the guy; either Hyrule begins to drain, or Link and Tetra find a new land to establish the new kingdom of Hyrule -- FS/FSA (because the Hyrule seen in these games is on an island, not landlocked like in OoT and TP)

FS/FSA -- Link draws the Four Sword which he uses to defeat Vaati, who turns out to be a sacrifice to resurrect Ganon, and so he obtains his trident and Link defeats him, banishing the beats to the Dark World, which is introduced in these games -- ALttP/OoS/A/LA

ALttP/OoS/A/LA -- The Four Sword is sealed in a temple built for it, and a new Link must rise to defeat Ganon once again, although he rules from the Dark World as he cannot travel to the world of light (Hyrule), so he uses Agahnim, blah blah blah. After defeating him, Link travels to Hyrule castle far later on and confronts the Triforce, which transports him to Holodrum/Labrynna (OoS/OoA), where he saves both the Oracle of Seasons (Din) and Ages (Nayru) with the help of Impa by defeating Twinrova and the [again] resurrected Ganon. From there, he set sail to travel back to Hyrule [supposedly], but was shipwrecked and awakened on Koholint island (albeit being in a dream) where he awoke the Windfish, woke up himself, and who knows, maybe got eaten by a shark. Years and years later -- LoZ/AoL

LoZ/AoL -- A new Link from the neighboring land of Catalia travels to Hyrule and ends up fighting Ganon again, saves Zelda, yadda yadda yadda. In AoL, Ganon is on the brink of being resurrected AGAIN, but Link stops this from happening by defeating Dark Link, and so this is as far down the line as we've come.

Hope that helps

 

[Phantom7]

Actually, Hyrule is probably drained, because in WW, you find out from the King of Hyrule that the goddesses flooded Hryule to prevent evil from entering the Sacred Realm; however, when the Hero of Winds picks up the Master Sword, a new hero has arisen and proceeds to defeat and literally kill Ganondorf. The Goddesses do not pay much attention to the fact that Vaati's spirit sealed in the Four Sword can revive Ganon, so they proceed to drain the Great Sea back into Hyrule, since now there is no evil to invade the Sacred Realm.

Also, I'd like to add that when you travel to Hyrule in WW, Hyrule Castle and the area around it closely resemble Hyrule in FS - and Hyrule Castle looks exactly the same.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I hate that MM and TP are left alone in Timeline B too, but it's the logical and righteous move.

Basically here's what happens in Timeline A:

OoT -- Hyrule gets flooded -- WW/PH

WW/PH -- Link and Zelda (Tetra) defeat Ganondorf, literally killing the guy; either Hyrule begins to drain, or Link and Tetra find a new land to establish the new kingdom of Hyrule -- FS/FSA (because the Hyrule seen in these games is on an island, not landlocked like in OoT and TP)

FS/FSA -- Link draws the Four Sword which he uses to defeat Vaati, who turns out to be a sacrifice to resurrect Ganon, and so he obtains his trident and Link defeats him, banishing the beats to the Dark World, which is introduced in these games -- ALttP/OoS/A/LA

ALttP/OoS/A/LA -- The Four Sword is sealed in a temple built for it, and a new Link must rise to defeat Ganon once again, although he rules from the Dark World as he cannot travel to the world of light (Hyrule), so he uses Agahnim, blah blah blah. After defeating him, Link travels to Hyrule castle far later on and confronts the Triforce, which transports him to Holodrum/Labrynna (OoS/OoA), where he saves both the Oracle of Seasons (Din) and Ages (Nayru) with the help of Impa by defeating Twinrova and the [again] resurrected Ganon. From there, he set sail to travel back to Hyrule [supposedly], but was shipwrecked and awakened on Koholint island (albeit being in a dream) where he awoke the Windfish, woke up himself, and who knows, maybe got eaten by a shark. Years and years later -- LoZ/AoL

LoZ/AoL -- A new Link from the neighboring land of Catalia travels to Hyrule and ends up fighting Ganon again, saves Zelda, yadda yadda yadda. In AoL, Ganon is on the brink of being resurrected AGAIN, but Link stops this from happening by defeating Dark Link, and so this is as far down the line as we've come.

Hope that helps

I have a problem with the time line MM is a Direct sequel to OoT so why isn't i below that and TP/WW run offs?

And if they do find an island to make a new Hyrule on wouldn't it be convenient that there is a huge land mass that no one has ever been on?

 

[Scott!]

I have a problem with the time line MM is a Direct sequel to OoT so why isn't i below that and TP/WW run offs?

And if they do find an island to make a new Hyrule on wouldn't it be convenient that there is a huge land mass that no one has ever been on?

Look at the complete timeline on the first page. MM is in its rightful spot directly following OoT in one timeline there.

And considering they're fairly medieval and all, it's no more unlikely than Columbus finding America. We don't know that the new Hyrule is unpopulated. In fact, it kind of has to be populated, somewhat. Link, Tetra, and the pirates would not make much of a kingdom. I prefer the idea of Hyrule draining, though.

 

[c3gill]

Actually, Hyrule is probably drained, because in WW, you find out from the King of Hyrule that the goddesses flooded Hryule to prevent evil from entering the Sacred Realm; however, when the Hero of Winds picks up the Master Sword, a new hero has arisen and proceeds to defeat and literally kill Ganondorf. The Goddesses do not pay much attention to the fact that Vaati's spirit sealed in the Four Sword can revive Ganon, so they proceed to drain the Great Sea back into Hyrule, since now there is no evil to invade the Sacred Realm.

Also, I'd like to add that when you travel to Hyrule in WW, Hyrule Castle and the area around it closely resemble Hyrule in FS - and Hyrule Castle looks exactly the same.

Hyrule does NOT get drained, check the ending to WW. King of Hyrule, Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule, gets the completed Triforce and wishes for that Hyrule to be washed away, which would stop Ganondorf from ever conquering it again. The goddesses then grant his wish- the final fight in the game is done during a massive downpour, which is the goddesses granting the king's wish.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Hyrule does NOT get drained, check the ending to WW. King of Hyrule, Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule, gets the completed Triforce and wishes for that Hyrule to be washed away, which would stop Ganondorf from ever conquering it again. The goddesses then grant his wish- the final fight in the game is done during a massive downpour, which is the goddesses granting the king's wish.

Deku tree's success.

The Deku tree wanted to slowly turn Hyrule from oceans to groves of trees. When you consider that Four Sword adventure takes place on a large island, well...

There is a big question on how the deku tree returns Hyrule to land, be it by draining, or some other method.