Support NeoGAF

[Davey Cakes]

First Zelda where I was dragging my feet to finish. Skyward Sword is one of my least favorite (3D) Zeldas. I don't see why some take it so hard that a number of people genuinely disliked or hated the title.

That's just the nature of games with divisive elements. Some people love things that other people hate, and vice versa. The sides have trouble understanding each other.

From my own perspective, Skyward Sword had flaws but it definitely offered a rewarding gameplay experience and had more good elements than bad ones. Additionally, I feel that a lot of the "flaws" are overblown. For example, the "badness" of the motion controls and the extent of "padding" in the game's structure are rooted in hyperbole of a vocal minority.

That said, I can also mention that Fi's over-explanations, non-optional dialog windows, and multiple Imprisoned battles hampered the overall experience. But I think these things are as forgivable or more so than, for example, Wind Waker's sparseness/lack of dungeons and Twilight Princess's barren overworld.

Skyward Sword isn't perfect but it comes off as a title that seems hard to hate unless you're stubborn in your expectations.

 

[Redford]

Skyward Sword isn't perfect but it comes off as a title that seems hard to hate unless you're stubborn in your expectations.

I just don't see how it's worthy of such rave reviews when alot of the time, the fans themselves sound borderline apologist.

 

[AzureNightmare]

Its worthy of those rave reviews because Zelda titles as a whole are better than 99.9% of games out there. The whining and crying in this thread is mainly over what could be considered spilled milk.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Every once in a while i step into a Zelda thread and i am reminded why i dont post or read these anymore.

Overblown Ss hate, comparing these games to fucking Darksiders. How the formula and polish is just taken for granted and any kind of misstep or lack of something someone somewhere thinks Zelda needs to evolve, results in heavy bitching that even worse games dont deserve.

I would in all honestly, absolutely hate to be a developer of a series with a fanbase like Zelda's. And im saying this as a huge Zelda fan.

Same thing goes for Silent Hill. Goddamn

Oooohhh, I was totally with you until the last line. Fuck that IP.

 

[Redford]

Its worthy of those rave reviews because Zelda titles as a whole are better than 99.9% of games out there. The whining and crying in this thread is mainly over what could be considered spilled milk.

They certainly aren't being compared on the same level as their AAA competition.

But whatever, this arguments been done to death. I just hope Koizumi gets a shot someday.

 

[cartman414]

Sarcasm in the first part?

I guess.

Admit it, though, that chatter wouldn't fly in pre-SNES Zelda.

 

[Tookay]

My biggest beef with modern Zelda is that they have tried to turn it in an RPG with a story. If I wanted that, there are numerous other games doing that and doing that better.

Simply, THERE IS TOO MUCH TEXT. There are too many cutscenes. It used to be that text and cutscenes in Zelda basically linked (in a very, very brief way) two parts of the game. Not anymore. Now, they try to tell you a backstory, they repeat things they really think you should know, you are told every time you pick up a rupee, etc.

I don't like how it shows you a mini-movie whenever you start a new game profile, either. Starting a new file in Zelda nowadays is fucking painful. If you manage to get through a modern Zelda game once, chances are that you will never do it again.

Guess that explains why I've played through Twilight Princess four times and Skyward Sword twice. Thanks, I was wondering what it was that kept me from replaying them.

You know that you can skip cutscenes in both when you replay them right? (TP you can right off the bat, if I recall...)

I just don't see how it's worthy of such rave reviews when alot of the time, the fans themselves sound borderline apologist.

The fans recognize that it has its problems. It has some of the series' highest highs and the lowest lows. However, they sound like apologists when compared to the post next to them calling the game garbage, saying that there shouldn't be any text ever, and claiming that NPCs with character are annoying.

 

[AzureNightmare]

They certainly aren't being compared on the same level as their AAA competition.

But whatever, this arguments been done to death. I just hope Koizumi gets a shot someday.

Zelda games are held to a higher standard of quality than its fellow AAA brethren.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

A few points:

First, if you think SS falls into "save the princess" mode, you should probably keep going.

Spoiler

Zelda admits to emotional manipulation to motivate Link through the quest. She doesn't legitimately need rescuing until the very end of the game.

Second, most of my complaints are simple programming oversights like resetting the item notifications every time the game loads. Fi was Captain Obvious but she got out of the way fast enough. My complaint was that when I actually needed help she was totally useless. I got stuck in the fire temple at the point where you had to impale the water fruit with your sword and fling it at the door. I had to find a goddamn walkthrough because at no point was it obvious that you could do that.

Third, the intro doesn't take very long the second time especially in hero mode which lets you skip cutscenes the first time.

Yeah most of SS problems are stupid shit like these things. I just can't believe these all made it through testing.

 

[GC|Simon]

He is right with the "Zelda doesn't need more complicated gameplay elements" thing - but Zelda does actually need a more complex story...

 

[Cygnus X-1]

The Zelda series needs to evolve. Skyward sword was great and sure better then the boring Twilight princess, but it still is the same, plus some minor changes.

The only problem I see with Retro developing a new Zelda game is that their team is composed by 60 people: a bit low for a Zelda game.

Monolith is composed by 75 people roughly. Thus same story.

 

[AzureNightmare]

The Zelda series needs to evolve. Skyward sword was great and sure better then the boring Twilight princess, but it still is the same, plus some minor changes.

The only problem I see with Retro developing a new Zelda game is that their team is composed by 60 people: a bit low for a Zelda game.

Monolith is composed by 75 people roughly. Thus same story.

You're absolutely insane. Zelda doesn't need to evolve. People just need to get over themselves and stop obsessing on minor issues.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

You're absolutely insane. Zelda doesn't need to evolve. People just need to get over themselves and stop obsessing on minor issues.

It's a matter of opinions. Not insanity. Some of the best games of certain franchises were made after a total change of development team and direction. Retro's Metroid sure is an example, but also Amusement Vision's F-Zero GX, Alphadream's Mario & Luigi, Rare's Donkey Kong Country and EAD Tokyo's Super Mario Galaxies.

So, based on that, why should the Zelda franchise remains in Aonuma's hands forever? This is true insanity if you ask me.

By the way, AzureNightmare, was is your first Zelda game you've played?

 

[MYE]

If you took off the Zelda logo, SS would be critiqued on the same tier as a Sonic game. It's unremarkable. There is just too much competition pushing production value ahead out there for me to ever see SS as a AAA release.

One of the dumbest posts i've seen in the history of this forum

 

[IrishNinja]

You have to actually find things to scan in Prime, instead of having them spoon-fed to you. Makes you feel almost like a detective.

true, i mispoke a bit there - just went through prime again and the fact many of them are hidden later does kinda play into that; i had to seek them out because i actively wanted to know more about the lore.
i just didnt feel as though info/lore was being vomited at me in SS either though.

uhhhh no they're not. Scanning for lore is definatey a viable alternative, personally I don't think it's a very good one, but they're not the same thing at all.

oh boney
that other guy just said the same thing, and we've talked about you contradicting me in public like that man

 

[RagnarokX]

The Zelda series needs to evolve. Skyward sword was great and sure better then the boring Twilight princess, but it still is the same, plus some minor changes.

The only problem I see with Retro developing a new Zelda game is that their team is composed by 60 people: a bit low for a Zelda game.

Monolith is composed by 75 people roughly. Thus same story.

"So you want a realistic down-to-earth show that's completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots?"

Let's see. 3D Zelda games. OoT came out in 1998, and since then we've had MM, WW, TP, and SS. 5 games in 14 years, people. How is this game stale when they actually do change things up quite a bit and the most important things, the dungeons, the boss fights, are always brand new? What else could they possibly change for you that would make still be Zelda? Why don't Mario fans get upset that almost every 2D Mario game has 8 worlds and he fights bowser in most of them? Mario formula is stale!

To me, the dumbest idea is that Zelda needs to return to NES Zelda levels of non-linearity. That would reduce puzzle complexity and fill the game with frustrating dead ends.

 

[abstract alien]

SS has low production values!? What in the bloody fuck...I'm out of here lol

Later.

 

[Eusis]

He is right with the "Zelda doesn't need more complicated gameplay elements" thing - but Zelda does actually need a more complex story...

Zelda's sort of awkwardly stuck in the middle. The same thing could be said in that Zelda needs LESS story, but at the same time if it's going to be as prevalent as it is it needs to be richer and full of more serious twists. As is it just kind of lamely hangs in the middle, present enough to annoy people who just want to get to the game, yet not going far enough for people who want a good story. And sometimes they ARE the same: I feel if you're going to bog something like Zelda with cutscenes you better make it worth my while, and I only REALLY liked Wind Waker's enough to make it feel like it was worth it.

 

[Tookay]

"So you want a realistic down-to-earth show that's completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots?"

Let's see. 3D Zelda games. OoT came out in 1998, and since then we've had MM, WW, TP, and SS. 5 games in 14 years, people. How is this game stale when they actually do change things up quite a bit and the most important things, the dungeons, the boss fights, are always brand new? What else could they possibly change for you that would make still be Zelda? Why don't Mario fans get upset that almost every 2D Mario game has 8 worlds and he fights bowser in most of them? Mario formula is stale!

To me, the dumbest idea is that Zelda needs to return to NES Zelda levels of non-linearity. That would reduce puzzle complexity and fill the game with frustrating dead ends.

I like you.

This formula is timeless. There are tweaks to be made (the presentation needs a facelift, but I think Wii U will suit that), and complaints to be addressed (I'm sure they've heard our whining about Fi loud and clear by now), but the fundamentals are still strong and uniquely Zelda.

This isn't a problem of stagnation. If it was, then you wouldn't have so many differing opinions on what is the best game. It's just that it cannot be all things to all people anymore.

 

[Redford]

One of the dumbest posts i've seen in the history of this forum

And why is that?

Bloated dev cycle =/= production value.

This is exactly my position. I honestly can't understand this urgent need for Zelda to "change". Go play something else.

It doesn't need to change, it needs to be tightened up.

 

[StunandStab]

SS has low production values!? What in the bloody fuck...I'm out of here lol

Later.

It does...

I'm not even sure you could say any Wii game has "high production values"; but hey, a lot of Wii games have voice acting, SS doesn't

 

[Magicpaint]

"So you want a realistic down-to-earth show that's completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots?"

Let's see. 3D Zelda games. OoT came out in 1998, and since then we've had MM, WW, TP, and SS. 5 games in 14 years, people. How is this game stale when they actually do change things up quite a bit and the most important things, the dungeons, the boss fights, are always brand new? What else could they possibly change for you that would make still be Zelda? Why don't Mario fans get upset that almost every 2D Mario game has 8 worlds and he fights bowser in most of them? Mario formula is stale!

To me, the dumbest idea is that Zelda needs to return to NES Zelda levels of non-linearity. That would reduce puzzle complexity and fill the game with frustrating dead ends.

This is exactly my position. I honestly can't understand this urgent need for Zelda to "change". Go play something else (?)

 

[Locke_211]

The single biggest piece of evidence in favour of the need for massive overhauls is the interface for selecting how many things you want to buy or sell. Ugh.

 

[Jocchan]

To me, the dumbest idea is that Zelda needs to return to NES Zelda levels of non-linearity. That would reduce puzzle complexity and fill the game with frustrating dead ends.

But it would remind me of my childhood, because everything was better when I was a kid.

 

[The Xtortionist]

I'd be up for OoT-levels of non-linearity again. So not too much, but enough to keep it interesting.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

I'm replaying OoT at the moment and the 'hand holding' is charming and nice.

Pro mode would sort the haters

 

[IrishNinja]

But it would remind me of my childhood, because everything was better when I was a kid.

oh, man - you too!? i was just telling my older friends about that, i thought we were alone.

 

[AnGer]

This is exactly my position. I honestly can't understand this urgent need for Zelda to "change". Go play something else (?)

Why, well, the series has always undergone minor changes whilst upholding its basic formula. Otherwise it wouldn't have been able to stick around for 25 years. IMO.

But, yes, what Zelda really needs would be a back to the roots (which I personally consider to be ALttP, not TLoZ) while still being open to things that can actually create the feeling that this game wasn't made in 1986, but in 2012 (or whenever the next installment comes out). So what would Zelda need? An open world, free exploration, more interesting side quests (honestly, those in Skyward Sword sucked big time) while trying to be less story driven. Is that possible? It might be, but it may take some guts to pull this through.

 

[MoogleWizard]

Skyward Sword has low production values? You can dislike the game all you want but that's just ridiculous. It's up there with FFXIII as one of the most polished games this gen.

The visuals are amazing considering the hardware they're on. And no voice-acting has nothing to do with production values, it's a deliberate artistic choice to not include them. Nintendo wants its games to be timeless and it's incredibly hard to get the voice-acting right for that, I can only imagine how hard it would have been to find the right voice actor for eccentric characters like Ghirahim or Groose without it sounding ridiculous and over the top.

 

[jonno394]

Skyward Sword is my 2011 GOTY, so I would love to see the same team develop another title. The opening was a necessity imo to make you care about Skyloft and actually want to revisit and interact with the denizens instead of just racing through the adventure.

I loved every minute of it, I don't think there was a single moment where I thought "I really can't be arsed with this now", it kept me hooked throughout, i'm sure I put 25 hours into it in the space of 4 days!!

 

[Shion]

Nintendo wants its games to be timeless and it's incredibly hard to get the voice-acting right for that, I can only imagine how hard it would have been to find the right voice actor for eccentric characters like Ghirahim or Groose without it sounding ridiculous and over the top.

If they pay money for good voice acting, it will be timeless, if they don't, it won't be.
Various Disney movies have weird characters, but the voice acting is good.

 

[Nekofrog]

I really don't understand people who claim the Zelda formula is "perfect", "timeless", "doesn't need changed".

Shooting an arrow at an eye above a door is not a puzzle. Moving a block on top of a switch is not a puzzle. Been doing this for about 25 years now, time to come up with something new.

 

[Diablos54]

It does...

I'm not even sure you could say any Wii game has "high production values"; but hey, a lot of Wii games have voice acting, SS doesn't

No Wii games have "high production values"? Well that's just plain stupid...

 

[Scarecrow]

I can only imagine how hard it would have been to find the right voice actor for eccentric characters like Ghirahim or Groose without it sounding ridiculous and over the top.

Having no voice acting for those types of characters is more out of place than if they were provided voices. A wild, gesticulating Ghirahim is pointless if you are more distracted by reading the text instead.

 

[Raging Spaniard]

Didnt you guys know? Its so easy to make art for underpowered systems!

/sarcasm

If you dont think SS has extremely high production values, you dont know anything about videogames. Simple as that. Find another hobby that you can pretend to know something about.

 

[The Boat]

I really don't understand people who claim the Zelda formula is "perfect", "timeless", "doesn't need changed".

Shooting an arrow at an eye above a door is not a puzzle. Moving a block on top of a switch is not a puzzle. Been doing this for about 25 years now, time to come up with something new.

You clearly played a lot of Skyward Sword.

 

[Nekofrog]

You clearly played a lot of Skyward Sword.

I stopped after I got booted back to look for some fire or something like that.

But my point stands; what I described are core elements of the Zelda FORMULA. Just because it was used much more lightly doesn't make it not an ingredient of... say it with me, the formula.

 

[Jocchan]

oh, man - you too!? i was just telling my older friends about that, i thought we were alone.

The best of all are the things that came out when I was 12. Nothing ever came close to that again.

Didnt you guys know? Its so easy to make art for underpowered systems!

/sarcasm

If you dont think SS has extremely high production values, you dont know anything about videogames. Simple as that. Find another hobby that you can pretend to know something about.

Pretty much.

I stopped after I got booted back to look for some fire or something like that.

But my point stands; what I described are core elements of the Zelda FORMULA. Just because it was used much more lightly doesn't make it not an ingredient of... say it with me, the formula.

No, they're not. Recurring "puzzles", sure, but not core elements of the formula.

 

[DynamicG]

I stopped after I got booted back to look for some fire or something like that.

But my point stands; what I described are core elements of the Zelda FORMULA. Just because it was used much more lightly doesn't make it not an ingredient of... say it with me, the formula.

So these supposed "eyeball doors" are fundamental to the Zelda formula? I guess Metroid should REALLY dump those "shoot it doors" because they are all over the place in Metroid while the eyeball doors are used only in temples in Zelda.

Perhaps the real problem is that Ganon hasn't really innovated much in the way of door opening technology.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

I really don't understand people who claim the Zelda formula is "perfect", "timeless", "doesn't need changed".

Shooting an arrow at an eye above a door is not a puzzle. Moving a block on top of a switch is not a puzzle. Been doing this for about 25 years now, time to come up with something new.

There was not one move the block puzzle or any shoot the eye puzzles. Majority of the puzzles in ss were brand new.

 

[King of the Potato People]

You clearly played a lot of Skyward Sword.

But... but it's much easier for some people to generalise and say "it's hasn't changed", rather that come up with a well-thought out argument that actually discusses the new additions in each Zelda, what features are enough to grow the franchise and which ones aren't. I mean you expect everyone to actually bother to do a quick Wiki reminder of what features have changed in the series?

Nekofrog's argument is like saying Mario hasn't changed, "you just jump on Goombas, hit blocks and knock Bowser off, this is not platforming" and not mention how elaborate the level/dungeon designs can get.

Places in SS like Sky Keep, the mines and the Buddhist-style temple are just a few of the levels unlike anything in the series before.

I don't even think SS is that great of a game, but it's not fair to say it doesn't come up with new ideas. Zelda isn't the great franchise it once was, but it still deserves some credit for when it comes to new ideas.

 

[royalan]

I really don't understand people who claim the Zelda formula is "perfect", "timeless", "doesn't need changed".

I do agree with this.

To me, the people saying that the Zelda formula is so perfect that it doesn't need to be changed are just as irrational as those on the other end insisting that the games are complete crap.

 

[Sgt.Pepper]

I really want to know what some people here would do to 'evolve' the franchise.

I bet more people are tired of Zelda/Link/Ganondorf than the gameplay itself.

 

[royalan]

I really want to know what some people here would do to 'evolve' the franchise.

I bet more people are tired of Zelda/Link/Ganondorf than the gameplay itself.

For me, "evolve" isn't the most accurate word to describe what Zelda needs because, really, the parts are all there.

I think a better word would be "refinement."

That's really all I could think about while playing Skyward Sword. Interesting concepts and some great design moments, but definitely in need of some polishing. They could have made Skyloft more interesting (especially since it's the one NPC hub in the entire game). They could have smoothed out the intro to the game so that it was still fun while teaching players the game. They could have cut the backtracking and made the pre-dungeon zones more involved than just being mini-dungeons.

To me, Skyward Sword played like the first draft of a great idea.

 

[Davey Cakes]

I really want to know what some people here would do to 'evolve' the franchise.

I bet more people are tired of Zelda/Link/Ganondorf than the gameplay itself.

There is definitely something going on with the fact that Zelda is a 25-year-old franchise. You could say the same for Mario, as some folks definitely seem to be tired of the "saving Peach" aspect of that series, but at least the Mario franchise spans multiple genres. Zelda is more limited and thus, I think, people are more fatigued with the "same old Zelda and Ganondorf" stories (even though not every game uses Ganondorf anymore).

I can see where potential fatigue in the Zelda series comes from. The idea of going to a forest, a volcano, and a desert may be uninteresting to people. The idea of traversing open spans of land/sky/ocean may be getting old. Collecting rupees may be getting stale. Using signature equipment like slingshots, arrows, hookshots, and bombs may be wearing thin.

I've said this before in Skyward Sword threads, but even though the game does stick to many trends within the series, it also does a lot to push Zelda forward:

If you think about it, the mere implementation of motion controls certainly changed how the typical items are used, in terms of how it "feels" to use the items. Bombs in particular took quite a leap with Skyward Sword: you could set them down, roll them, throw them, and carry them around with the beetle (which was a great new addition). The uses of the bomb are far more dynamic than in any other Zelda game thus far.

And what about rupees? It's pretty obvious that Twilight Princess really dropped the ball with the majority of secrets being rupee chests, with hardly any good uses for rupees. Hell, Wind Waker was bad too, with the best use of rupees being relegated to one of the worst fetch quests of all time. In Skyward Sword, yeah you still in the end get way more rupees than necessary, but at least the uses for them are more interesting. You not only buy new items, but you upgrade them by spending more rupees and using materials. If you want to upgrade potions, it's a similar case, where you spend some rupees and also use bugs. These systems for rupee use are more complex than anything seen before in Zelda.

And what about all new features? I already mentioned the beetle, which is probably the best new item in Skyward Sword. You can use it to carry bombs, attack distant enemies, explore areas that you can't yet reach (or look to see what obstacles lie ahead), hit cleverly-placed buttons, etc. And then there's the stamina meter, which was a great addition for a couple of reasons: one, it allows you to move faster in general, and two, it's actually used for puzzle-like environmental traversal (such as running through quicksand).

I'm going to stop there, but I hope I got my point across. Skyward Sword wasn't developed as a revolution of Zelda (in a way that radically changes the formula), but it was definitely developed as an evolution, grounded in some of the series staples while incorporating new features and reinvigorating old features in order to move the Zelda series forward in the ever-changing gaming climate. I'm not going to deny the hiccups that the game had along the way, but I will deny that if there's a good example of a game fighting against series fatigue/stagnation while trying to keep its franchise identity, it's Skyward Sword without a doubt.

 

[King of the Potato People]

I do agree with this.

To me, the people saying that the Zelda formula is so perfect that it doesn't need to be changed are just as irrational as those on the other end insisting that the games are complete crap.

What do you mean by formula? The only parts that are essential to the Zelda formula are puzzles, sword-fighting and discovering items. These are age-old concepts that anyone can resonate with. I don't see why there has to be anything wrong by necessarily following this formula, the execution varies from game-to-game though.

 

[RagnarokX]

I really don't understand people who claim the Zelda formula is "perfect", "timeless", "doesn't need changed".

Shooting an arrow at an eye above a door is not a puzzle. Moving a block on top of a switch is not a puzzle. Been doing this for about 25 years now, time to come up with something new.

The Zelda formula isn't perfect, that's a straw man. The Zelda formula is what makes a Zelda game a Zelda game. It's exploring a world and dungeons, solving puzzles, and fighting monsters. If you change those things it ceases being Zelda. They vary it up quite a bit. Skyward Sword has, I think, 2 block puzzles total, and only 1 dungeon has arrow switches. It sounds like the only Zelda game you played was Zelda NES, because apart from collecting keys and planting bombs that pretty much describes the breadth of the "puzzles" in that game.

 

[spekkeh]

I loved the beginning of Zelda SS. But I mostly loved the interaction with Zelda. The moment she disappeared was when I lost interest in Skyloft. The thing is, with games where you should quickly go after a character to find/rescue her, it feels utterly pointless to meander around a town and do pedestrian little quests for its inhabitants.

 

[ElFly]

To me, the dumbest idea is that Zelda needs to return to NES Zelda levels of non-linearity. That would reduce puzzle complexity and fill the game with frustrating dead ends.

SNES levels of non linearity would be perfect, though.

There are a tons of orders you can do the dark world puzzles, and some of the puzzles are pretty hard. Including the fucking ice palace drop-a-block-from-several-stories-above puzzle that had to be nerfed in the GBA rerelease.

Or that you can solve trivially by getting the staff that creates blocks.

That kind of hard puzzles that can be solved in different ways is with zelda needs again.

That said, I thought that the dungeons in SS are ok, particularly the desert one. But the game is so bogged down in other issues that it's a bad game overall.

 

[Tookay]

I really don't understand people who claim the Zelda formula is "perfect", "timeless", "doesn't need changed".

Shooting an arrow at an eye above a door is not a puzzle. Moving a block on top of a switch is not a puzzle. Been doing this for about 25 years now, time to come up with something new.

You're right, that isn't a puzzle; it's a part of a puzzle, because something usually affects something else when you do those things.

Did you ever get to the Lanaryu sections of the SS? Because, while you're shooting arrows and using bombs to hit buttons, they're being used to facilitate the actual puzzling part of the game, ie the timeshift mechanic. The timeshift stuff changes the world and requires you to think about the interrelation of past and present. The shooting/bombing part is just the lever to achieve it. And those parts were brilliant.

It's usually never as simplistic as just hitting a switch, at least not anywhere past an introductory puzzle. And those introductory puzzles, despite everyone's moaning, are integral to a game, because it builds up the game's logic to newcomers. If they didn't do that, it'd be like an essay that didn't have an opening paragraph. You might want to get past it and read on, but it's important to explain the boundaries of a mechanic, so it can expound/deviate from them later.