If you really need someone to explain the similarities to you, when you seemingly have played through both games, then.......... stop being silly, it's obvious how similar they were.
How is Twilight Princess similar to Ocarina of Time?
- Thread starter Scrustle
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The degree of cannibalism between Nintendo's games used to be the byproduct of progress; A Link to the Past built upon much of Zelda 1, but you wouldn't dare say that the two games played exactly the same.
But Twilight Princess was the first in the series that didn't significantly improve upon its predecessors and lacked any significant originality (Wolf Link being the only major deviation from the formula. And it's technically not the first time Link has been..."Furried" before); it literally played like a graphically-updated Ocarina of Time.
And I think for the first time, many gamers were actually getting tired of the same-old-games from Nintendo. It's just a hunch.
But Twilight Princess was the first in the series that didn't significantly improve upon its predecessors and lacked any significant originality (Wolf Link being the only major deviation from the formula. And it's technically not the first time Link has been..."Furried" before); it literally played like a graphically-updated Ocarina of Time.
And I think for the first time, many gamers were actually getting tired of the same-old-games from Nintendo. It's just a hunch.
The problem with people wanting a new, innovative Zelda game is that if they do so, there's a very high chance many of the fans will dislike it if done wrong, which wouldn't be hard to do. Most people (and I say most, not all) who want a completely new take on Zelda probably aren't die-hard fans or even really big fans. They might like one or two games, but wouldn't mind a completely new reboot.
Being one of those die-hard fans personally though, I don't want to see a reboot/remake/something completely different. It's too easy to screw it up, f**k canon or whatever else people do when given artistic license to change something. I've seen far too many crappy reboots lately and I don't want to see it happen to my favorite beloved games for the sake of "innovation."
Being one of those die-hard fans personally though, I don't want to see a reboot/remake/something completely different. It's too easy to screw it up, f**k canon or whatever else people do when given artistic license to change something. I've seen far too many crappy reboots lately and I don't want to see it happen to my favorite beloved games for the sake of "innovation."
Yes, I am aware of the thread title, I created it after all. And there should be a question mark at the end there because the point of the thread was to pose the question. Your post seems to offer no more of an answer than "they are similar and if you don't think so you're stupid".The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
I'd say it's only similar in its general look. Otherwise, most stuff is different. It feels like a different culture even, almost older than OoT. But the light and dark world stuff doesn't fit in there. The Twilight is only one area in TP, while in OoT, it's more of an entire light world and dark world, much more like ALttP. Meanwhile, TP is also missing quite a few themes, such as magic, major trade quests, and a whole lot of the medieval vibe. It doesn't really feel, to me, like it lives up to the standards that OoT set, and the 3D games have been following since. OoT was the first 3D game, and that was it's gimmick. MM allowed you to become a Zora, Goron, or Dekuscrub, as well has making you go back in time many times to keep the moon from crashing into the earth, and that was it's gimmick. WW gave you a MASSIVE ocean to explore by boat, and that was it's gimmick. Then comes TP, and what does it have? Being a wolf. It's not even particularly useful, and in a way retreads ground that MM already went down. Now there comes SS, which allows precise sword swinging action. Story-wise, TP doesn't do much either. While of course OoT isn't one to talk, it's a much older game that was able to get away with this, yet it still gave us high stakes. MM had a very basic story structure that packed an astonishing amount of detailed story in by making the entire game take place within three days, allowing very rigid and set schedules for things to take place, and for people to have their individual epiphanies. It had absolutely high stakes, giving us the save the world bit, but then putting it under a timer, making everything weigh so much more. Then came WW. It didn't quite do so well on the story bus either, simply being Link trying to save his sister, then of course with all the Hyrule being drowned stuff and learning the truth about their world. The stakes weren't very high in that game until the very very end, when Ganon could have made a wish. TP... the stakes felt low. No one really realized what calamity was upon them, and even then it didn't seem to even matter much, other than the evil Twilight creatures. My point here is, TP is not very similar, and what it holds similar is simply trying to be stolen from other games. Plus it's just a bad game in general.
TLDR; Twilight Princess sucks, and it was only similar in the most pointless ways possible.
TLDR; Twilight Princess sucks, and it was only similar in the most pointless ways possible.
Well first off I didn't call you stupid (I'm not that arrogant). Maybe I didn't make sense, what I meant was that the similarities between the two are fairly obvious, and that explaining them to you would be pointless. Anyway, if you're saying the two shouldn't be compared, I'd agree with you. I like TP, I found it much more "approachable" than any of the other games in the series.Scrustle said:
You can't go twenty meters without tripping over some reference, shoutout, or complete reuse of something from Ocarina of Time. Seriously. It's not the massive clone that some people whine about it being, but it could have done a bit better in the innovation department. I may be a massive fan boy of the series who claims it can do no wrong, but I'm not blind.