OMG

[PK FIRE!]

I agree with Cucco Lady, Wind Waker may have plot holes but they're nowhere near as bad as those seen in Batman and Robbin or Superman IV. I'm also fairly sure that if you look at the plot of any work of narritive fiction closely enough you'll find plot holes.

- You stupid dog.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by CuccoLady

Wind Waker had its good share of plotholes to be sure. Even I'm not so blind to say it didn't. Still, I'm not sure if I agree with some of those, AI.

Don't get me wrong, a good number of them are clear wtfery, but some of them I thought were less plotholes and more transparent plot devices.

Like, the King of Hyrule, I always figured that when Hyrule was sealed away, with the sword as its seal and the Tower of the Gods to test and lead the person who can permanently put the land to rest, the King of Hyrule's soul was kind of immortalized as a guide to that person. Like, when the Gods sealed away Hyrule, I always thought they kind of were just holding it, waiting for the destined twelve-year-old-in-green-tunic to be led to that place. I figured that the King's soul itself was immortalized by the gods to lead Link when he should arrive.

I have similar thoughts regarding some of the others. Like, the stuff regarding stuff like no fish in the oceans and the others are very definite plotholes, but other things I felt made sense in the way that Zelda games are very fantastical and there's always some way that they can make sense. Like, the sealing of Hyrule and the King himself and all of the other stuff that makes you go 'wait whaaaat' I feel can mostly be shrugged aside on the grounds of "it's Hyrule, weird crap happens there" and then I move on and just play the game. *shrug*

So yes, the game has plotholes, but some of them are just more HYRULE MAJIX than anything else.

Don't get me wrong, it's fun to imagine back story, and inevitably more satisfying than a lot of Nintendo's lazy-ass write-offs (See TML's Book of Mudora for a more-coherent rewrite of the continuity). When you have to imagine fantastical explanations for illogical things, though, just because you can does not make it solid. These are the things I actually want to know about the world of the game, that could have really fleshed out the world. The contradictions might be easy for you to ignore, but for me it just says "we suck at writing" and spoils my already tenuous reception of the hapless characters and ideas at play.

Then again, I suppose my biggest issue with the 3D Zelda games comes from the characterizations, more than anything. I identify with TP Link better than the OoT and WW Links, because he genuinely seems more competent. When people ask if there should be voice acting in Zelda, my response is inevitably not just no, but I want desperately for their not to be linear plot events that this voice acting would even occur during. You know, I don't even mind scripted events so much, as long as the characters are personable and the events are universally trigger-able - but the guys who keep copying OoT don't seem to give a rat's ass about non-linearity. I say Nintendo can take their total linearity and shove it, and I'll happily play games from other sources.

I'll always enjoy the odd playthrough of Zelda 1-4, and maybe Oracle of Seasons or MC, but the rest of the "main" games need some serious rethinking before I'll consider them even close to top-tier for the series. I doubt the 6 mill or so who are playing Zelda these days are all the same fans as those at the start of the series - and if Nintendo keeps playing it like a pop star who can't maintain their audience, their bridges deserve to stay burnt.

</frustration rant>

[CuccoLady]

Don't get me wrong, it's fun to imagine back story, and inevitably more satisfying than a lot of Nintendo's lazy-ass write-offs (See TML's Book of Mudora for a more-coherent rewrite of the continuity). When you have to imagine fantastical explanations for illogical things, though, just because you can does not make it solid. These are the things I actually want to know about the world of the game, that could have really fleshed out the world. The contradictions might be easy for you to ignore, but for me it just says "we suck at writing" and spoils my already tenuous reception of the hapless characters and ideas at play.

I completely get that. What I meant was that, rather than it being a gaping plothole that makes no sense, it is something that can work with the fit of the game, the writers just didn't bother putting that in the actual script. Whereas the fish stuff makes no sense in the game and makes the player go 'wtf', things like the Hyrule King can make sense, the writers were just too lazy to do anything about it so the player can just make up crap on his/her own.

Not plotholes, per se, just not quite complete storytelling. I didn't find this issue with other games so much as WW, however, and I still find it a thoroughly enjoyable game.
--

As for the following paragraph, I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean Link having a voice in general, or are you referring more to the whole "what's your name?" "..." "oh, Link? Awesome" type thing?

And yeah, the old games and new ones definitely focus on different things. Upon playing LttP and comparing it to pretty much all of the other ones I've played [the 3-D games], it feels almost like a different genre.

[Cosmonautical]

To answer your question, I mean one-way plot events - LttP introduced them to a minor extent to get the ball rolling, but it was very sparing. OoT was so small, they were forced to use pointed plot events to direct the player so it felt as though you were progressing in the game; there are countless impassible barriers for the sake of the story, and dungeons inaccessible only for plot points not having been reached. By the time we're playing TP, it's very obvious that you will only visit locations and events as they interlock in a single, direct storyline. I can see that they are using these events to direct the player from one plot point to another, but the player is not playing these sequences. You see that it is necessary for Link to engage Saria because he can't contact her, I see that Nintendo was too sloppy with their level design so they had to come up with a plot event to mandate your movement toward the forest shrine.

I don't buy into most RPG's for that reason alone, because their stories and characters are usually rather bland, unimaginative, or composed almost entirely of transparent plot devices. Ever wonder why Nintendo's so keen on princesses being kidnapped? It's a motive for the player to act, and it's an easy one - these simple concepts weren't important enough to take too seriously back when action and motorskills ruled the day.

If they want to obsess over plot, though, I don't like the majority of the stories they've wrought - they're blatant rehashes of retelling the same first few Zelda games over and over again, but these plots have to change things to fly. So you take something I liked, and take parts away from it - attach something new in its place. But the differences look intentional - it's obvious that they're trying to make something the same that's different.

So my point isn't that actual voices are unimportant or otherwise, it's that the scenes they would support should not exist. Nintendo does not provide the player choices in communicating with NPC's. This part of the story is not playable. I loathe that with a passion.

[CuccoLady]

^ OK I gotcha now.

Although I, being an RPG whore, don't really mind that kind of forced-plotline thing, I admit that in a game that is as adventure-based as Zelda games are, it gets really annoying, especially when you know exactly what you're supposed to do, but the game makes you go back to a certain place to talk to a certain person before you can do that. Usually it doesn't really get in the way of my enjoyment of a game, but it DEFINITELY [for me, at least] cuts into the replay value of a game. If I know to go to the forest temple, I don't need to talk to fifty people before going there.

So yeah, I get where you're coming from, but it's not as big of a deal for me unless we're talking about replay value, in which case yeah it does get annoying.

I think OoT is the worst when it comes to this. With regards to WW, TP, and MM, I really don't remember having that much of a problem. OoT really spammed the 'talk to these twenty people in this order before advancing' thing, and that mellowed down in the games after it, thankfully. I love OoT, but the endless talking to NPCs to advance really hinders its gameplay value when I already know what I'm supposed to do.

[Cosmonautical]

Yeah, but you're still not totally solid on this. Zelda 1 was completely nonlinear. There isn't somewhere you specifically have to go, you can enter any dungeon whenever you can manage to access them. There shouldn't be many places you have to go next, and that should be something you get to figure out yourself. The newer games are notorious for bungling up the gameplay with NPC directives, which come off like obvious plot devices because the NPC's do not have complex or well-considered motives for any requests or missives.

And I'm sorry to have to make the distinction, but you play JRPG's - I tend to prefer the more western fair that keeps the role-playing part intact. The shift to scripted NPC-oriented plot devices has not come with the same freedom that the action and exploration-oriented gameplay did, the game shouldn't play like a singular plot in a novel.

[Robotazy]

Are you sure you don't just hate the Legend of Zelda Series? Because it appears to me that you hate everything after A Link to the past, and since that's about 3 games, it means those 3 do not depict what the series is about anymore.

What this means is that The Legend of Zelda Series is now about a linear story and helping NPCs, not nonlinearness caused by a lack of story

[Cosmonautical]

I have no way of responding to any aspect of that without implying rude things, so I think I'll take a step back at the moment and appreciate the full ignorance of your suggestion.

[CuccoLady]

Yeah, but you're still not totally solid on this. Zelda 1 was completely nonlinear. There isn't somewhere you specifically have to go, you can enter any dungeon whenever you can manage to access them. There shouldn't be many places you have to go next, and that should be something you get to figure out yourself. The newer games are notorious for bungling up the gameplay with NPC directives, which come off like obvious plot devices because the NPC's do not have complex or well-considered motives for any requests or missives.

Alrighty, I gotcha. For me, it works out because the newer games tend to focus more on a storytelling aspect than WOO EXPLOREEEE, and obviously this would upset people who played the early Zelda games for that aspect. What I'm trying to say is that the doing everything in order and linear plot events and stuff work with the games because they focus on telling a story etc etc, but if you play Zeldas for the getting lost in vast overworlds and trying to figure out what to do next on your own, that adventure aspect, I can see where there would be a not-too-happy attitude toward the newer Zeldas.

And I'm sorry to have to make the distinction, but you play JRPG's - I tend to prefer the more western fair that keeps the role-playing part intact. The shift to scripted NPC-oriented plot devices has not come with the same freedom that the action and exploration-oriented gameplay did, the game shouldn't play like a singular plot in a novel.

Exactly. I should've made that distinction. Since I play games that focus more on those linear plot events and much less of an exploration aspect, I'm fine with the layouts of the newer Zeldas, but for the people who enjoyed what the games used to play like, I can see how that could be an issue.

[Robotazy]

Originally Posted by Harrowing o thy Dragoon

I have no way of responding to any aspect of that without implying rude things, so I think I'll take a step back at the moment and appreciate the full ignorance of your suggestion.

Oh yeah? Well, Zelda is Evil.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

This may be a bit off topic but, I think NPCs should be more integrated into the stories in JRPGs. RPGs are one of my favorite genres and even I'm sick of blatant NPCs standing around and forcing my interaction with them.

[Chaos Deviot]

^ Or at the very least, be able to talk to them. Sorry, that was a major annoyance of mine of Twilight Princess.(really the only one that severely bothered me. I enjoyed the rest of the game, though, regardless of plot holes, etc.)

Nobody read my man-fish explanation a couple/few(depending on your setting) page back? Aww...

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

I'm just kinda scanning this topic, throwing out random opinions.

[PK FIRE!]

The one thing I really can't stand are those chain of deals sidequests. Really now a heat container fragment and the magic armour don't seem like a fullfilling enough reword for that waste of time and money.

Ah NPCs and looping dialog that goes with them, I've got to say that Lunar Silver Star Story Complete handle that problem rath well what with the translation/ localization team going out of thier way to give the NPCs more to say then just looping the same conversation.

- You stupid dog.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by Black Belt Tazy

Oh yeah? Well, Zelda is Evil.

yse

Originally Posted by I REALLY HATE POKEMON!

This may be a bit off topic but, I think NPCs should be more integrated into the stories in JRPGs. RPGs are one of my favorite genres and even I'm sick of blatant NPCs standing around and forcing my interaction with them.

No, that's definitely on topic. That's part of my point - NPC's in Zelda especially are usually just poorly if at all disguised plot devices. I sincerely resent my inability to hit on a conversation with them, to resolve their issues without them triggering a linear event, or to simply say **** off to their petty errands. I'm saving the goddamn world, I don't have time to get your rapidly-aging bottle of goat's milk or whatever it is you want. Not even if you're the king of the universe. BTW, I just picked up the Witcher recently and it is slick in a lot of ways. It's no elder scrolls, but the ability to interact with many NPC's as I choose is seriously great - and the subtlety in character is fantastic. One guy just tried to get me drunk and rip me off on some merc work, and my guy totally threatened to make him a eunich or something.

Originally Posted by Chaos Deviot

^ Or at the very least, be able to talk to them. Sorry, that was a major annoyance of mine of Twilight Princess.(really the only one that severely bothered me. I enjoyed the rest of the game, though, regardless of plot holes, etc.)

Nobody read my man-fish explanation a couple/few(depending on your setting) page back? Aww...

I try not to pick arguments with everyone on the forum, I'd get nowhere and people make weird assumptions like just because you disagree with one thing means you agree with some irrationally perceived opposite. I'll give it a once-over when I can.

[Kargath]

Just before I make comment, I'd like to ask - when you say you can do the things in any order in the original LOZ, do you mean absolutely any order? IE is it possible to go and beat the boss immediately when you start the game, if you're good enough? Or does the system of collecting items to let you access other areas dictate where you go?

[Cosmonautical]

Yeah, you have to have the necessary tools to kill Ganon and to access level 9. You've got the freedom of deciding how that's done, though, and keys are interchangeable - even between dungeons. So at some point in time there are certain things you have to get, etc, but that's not something that bothers me - beside the silver arrows and the raft, the items you receive are all quite versatile. I hardly ever defeat all of the dungeons in sequence.

Having a one-dimensional character plot point restrict the progression of the game is what I'm talking about here, not a situation of simply not having equipped yourself.

[Kargath]

To me that seems more artificial - it's like hunting for a red key in DOOM.
If I'm going to be sidetracked, I prefer to be given a plot reason for being sidetracked, rather than feeling that I'm being arbitrarily strung along by item placement by the game developer.

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

Which is a funny thing to say, given you haven't played the game. It's really not like that.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by Kargath

To me that seems more artificial - it's like hunting for a red key in DOOM.
If I'm going to be sidetracked, I prefer to be given a plot reason for being sidetracked, rather than feeling that I'm being arbitrarily strung along by item placement by the game developer.

You're joking, right? Imagine two scenarios:

1. You cannot access death mountain because there has been a rock slide, you need explosives to clear the slide and finish your ascent.

2. You cannot access death mountain because there is a guard here who says it is dangerous, you must obtain a royal order saying you're allowed to die where you please.

One scenario is at the end of the game, you can rush directly to it but you will likely be unprepared and will be crushed by powerful enemies.

The other scenario is about 9% through the game, you must do this to even introduce yourself to the person who will tell you your task, and to achieve that you must play a pretty song on your flute that makes him dance. After you walk up an uneventful hill with 3 enemies in the way. To obtain the song, you must light some torches that conveniently allow you to light a naturally occuring exploding plant and clear the way to talk to another person who will teach you. This is the person who gave you the ocarina in the first place, and had every chance to teach you as you have known her since you can remember.