ThePizzaCheese

@Synecdoche
Sales don't transfer that way though. The 3DS remakes sold about the same as much as on the N64, despite the 3DS having over double the user base. Super Mario Sunshine didn't sell all that much better on Switch than on the GameCube either. Considering the other Switch ports' sales, it's difficult to imagine WW on switch could sell more then maybe 4 million. Not to mention that TP HD is literally the second worse selling Zelda game ever, despite TP's supposed popularity. And then there's the fact that ports of WW/TP would significantly lower the value of a potentially GameCube service for NSO. (Although I feel that might technically be unlikely to happen as well...)

And, again, it's just a three month delay. It's not that big of a deal, especially for a franchise like Zelda.

And yes, Nintendo has no choice but to release some form of new hardware since Nvidia no longer produces the chips that the Switch is made from. Whatever it is will likely be compatible with switch games, but Mario Kart DLC by no means makes that certain. New Pokemon games have historically been used as a safety net for when Nintendo does something risky like new hardware, and the fact they've skipped any enhanced gen 8 games makes this even more likely.

What's with the sudden interest in WW? Nintendo has already tried to sell that thing twice now and nobody bought either time. You can't say you "missed out" on a game/console you refused to buy.

Considering that Nintendo will likely launch new hardware this year, it's unlikely they will release WW along side it, given its inability to sell consoles in the past. TP, on the other hand, has already saturated the market for it. Having to release the same game 4 times would not be a good look for Nintendo.

I mean, come on, we're already getting Pokemon and probably Metriod Prime, I doubt Nintendo is going to release 2 more high profile games just to make up for a mere 3 month delay.

@Farflung
Now you're the one being rude. Why can't people talk about this stuff in a polite manner?

This issue has already been addressed, I recommend we just report any comment that keeps bringing it back up and move on.

@somebread
All I've done is advocate for forgiveness and respect.

@PBandSmelly
Reported for doxxing.

@PBandSmelly
Please be more respectful of other people. This isn't the place for this kind of conversation.

@PBandSmelly
You should be more forgiving.

Zelda has always had an explicit timeline, why does everyone seem to think it didn't?

The second game was literally called Zelda II and is explicitly set after the first one, and Alttp's promotional material advertised it as a prequel. OOT's plot is based on Alttp's prologue and was, again, promoted as such.

MM and WW are obvious sequels to OOT. Awakening and the oracle games were the only ones with no clear placement.

It was only when Twilight Princess came out that people started to question the timeline because it contradicted WW so much. But that really only lasted about 5 years before Hyrule Historia came out.

The truth is Zelda has had a pretty clear timeline for the majority of its 35 year history.

@Abes3
Actually Nintendo owns Pokemon in its entirety. They just contract Gamefreak for game development. Same thing with Kirby and HAL.

@Kazman2007
It's legal because users have to provide those assets themselves via their own legally obtained ROM.
Have a read through the comments here if you're interested in a deeper explanation.

I think at this point NLife should just feature an article explaining all this, since people ask about it every time they post about these kinds of projects.

@ModdedInkling
Yeah the legality of this basically hangs on where you source the ROM from, and the country you live in of course.

But, yes, this project is technically a port. The decompiled code base this is made from is for creating a 1:1 N64 ROM. That N64 C code has been adapted for x86 PC, ie a port.

It's not really a remake, since the codes was made to replicate the N64 code 1:1, "replication" would be a better word. A remake would generally be an entirely new thing, like Link's Awakening on Switch.

Oh, and fyi, the GameCube versions were also emulation.

@Benjamillion
This isn't emulation.

@NotSoCryptic
The ROM is for extracting assets from, not validation. There's about 17 different N64 versions of OOT. This port so far requires the EU GameCube OOT debug rom. There's no way to validate where you get it from, that's up to you.

@GrailUK
Basically because it still requires you to actually own the game to be useful. You can have a read through the comments here if you want more details.

@Banjo-
Sure, but those thing can't be "ported". My point is that this project isn't any different any other game port. All ports just combine assets with code.

@Banjo-
Right, but you said otherwise, which didn't really make any sense, so I was just asking for clarification.

@Banjo-
Other then the code, what else is there to port? All game ports just port code. Saying this is like emulation is like saying Skyward Sword on Switch is like emulation, which it isn't.

@ModdedInkling
Bingo

@Banjo-
The code is the game. That's how computer games work. Sure both methods are legal, but I'd argue porting is a vastly better outcome then emulating.

@Banjo-
Because it does include the game, just not any copyrighted assets. It doesn't use any N64 machine code, instead all the code was rewritten in C and compiled for x86 computers. Which is exactly what a port is.

An emulator would just attempt to convert the existing N64 code into similar x86 commands on the fly.

@ModdedInkling
You misunderstand, this project doesn't contain any assets at all. No models, textures, music, or anything owned by Nintendo. To use it you have to provide that stuff yourself.

There are already a bunch of decomplied Nintendo games online that Nintendo still haven't taken down, so rest assured this one is safe too.

@Banjo-
It's not at all like an emulator, that the whole point.

@retrokong
I think you're getting close to figuring it out. Considering it seems to have features from newer prints (such as the white logo and EDTV symbol), could it simply be a test print of a newer version without any foil added?

The white/grey design just screams Wii. But it pretty much makes half the Nintendo logo completely invisible, so it's almost certainly not an official release, especially considering that in doesn't even have the Nintendo seal. In fact, a bootleg cover would probably try to mimic the seal, so the fact that it's missing suggests that it's either a promo or prototype version.

The Hylian crest also seems to have an unusual pattern to it, almost as if it was lifted from somewhere. The photo isn't a high enough resolution to make it out very well though.

Did it come with a disc? If it did I wonder what version of the game it is? If you're able to inspect the game files you can find the build date in a file.

https://tcrf.net/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess#Build_Date