The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

[Eusis]

I wouldn't be surprised that Dice's complaints were coming from bandwagoning somebody else's complaints.

If you do that it's because you realized that, yes, that IS a real flaw. Or it's the kind of thing where you could just as easily come to that conclusion as anyone else because of how glaring it is, like repeating an area 3 times, with one of those times being the same as a bad event in a 3D platformer.

I don't think some people are really FAIR to it, but I do feel like it's probably 8/10 worthy. There's the new game shine for one, and two some of these flaws only become obvious or you're willing to ignore some until the game's complete, IE the fact you do repeat 3 areas 3 times and that Fi never really does stop stating blatantly obvious shit. I'm more forgiving on a whole compared to TP (which I ended up enjoying more, as stated) because it TRIED to do something different and to justify Wii controls, and it still wound up a lot more enjoyable than PH since its issues weren't quite as bad as that game's for the most part.

[Prime Mover]

I agree completely, Eusis. And Aeolus, you are coming across as a rediculous fanboy. Seriously, "the most solid console title in the last decade"? Really? Come on. Even if you love the game, objectively, it's not that "solid," there are some serious design and plot flaws, as Eusis pointed out. What makes the game so solid? It really isn't that innovative, other games have done flying better, and while the WiiMote Plus action was interesting, it was certainly not a game changer. I wouldn't say that the dungeons are perticularly clever (save some of the time shift stuff). Honestly, there's nothing particularly special about SS at all, so I don't understand how you could consider it "solid". It's a great game, but stacked up against Xenoblade, Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed II, Dragon Quest VIII, Okami, compared to those it's downright flimsy.

I took a break from Xenoblade to play SS, and honestly, by comparison, SS is unbelievably lazy. It feels like more work went into one region of Xenosaga than the entire world of SS. And SS has HORRIBLE recycling, HORRIBLE. Okay, in the past we've had to revisit areas, but usually they've been changed, it's a different era, a dark world, or some big event has changed those areas into something different. Not only does SS just completely recycle it's regions with little alteration, it does it TWICE! Then I turn to Xenoblade, who's regions are emense, chalk full of interesting alien contours, secrets and exploration that must have taken months to design, and they don't recycle ANYTHING! And SS had a full length, if not long, development time, over 4 years. For the amount of time that went into it, I'm just not all that impressed when I look around and see what else is out there.

But still, for what it's worth, it's a good game, a solid 7/10, maybe 8/10. It's just really hard to have a lot of amazement when games these days have you running across entire cities and continents with individually sculpted landforms and architecture, with unqiue story arcs and great dialog (not that Xenoblade neccessarily qualifies). I get if that SS is your thing, but by most objective comparison, SS isn't really that amazing.

[AuraChannelerChris]

To be fair, Xenoblade and Skyward Sword are totally different games, the first focusing on RPG more than adventure.

[Dice]

To be fair, Xenoblade and Skyward Sword are totally different games, the first focusing on RPG more than adventure.

To maybe add to Prime Mover, it still is curious that, review wise, both games are turning out their 9/10's, but he liked Xenoblade more.  Not a good enough point yet, I realize (hang on)...

I'm on the bandwagon that SS's grade IS being attributed to it being "A Zelda Game".
One of the most *lothed* titles in the series, Spirit Tracks, also earned it's A's, 90%'s, and 5-out-of-5's.
The Zelda effect in full form.

[Eusis]

To be fair, Xenoblade and Skyward Sword are totally different games, the first focusing on RPG more than adventure.

However Xenoblade's emphasis on exploration DEMANDS comparison, even if a lot of the rest of the game doesn't. And the goal with Skyward Sword's repetition IIRC was to get players familiar with the worrld like they were in older titles like LttP, rather than go through an area and have no reason to ever bother again beyond collectibles (hey there TP!). Problem is this probably isn't exactly the right way either, it'd probably work better to have more quests like in Skyloft along with a few more settlements (that AREN'T only at the end of a path) to visit, and perhaps connect it all similarly to Dark Souls pre-endgame so you'd be constantly finding shortcuts.

One of the most *lothed* titles in the series, Spirit Tracks, also earned it's A's, 90%'s, and 5-out-of-5's.

I'm pretty sure that amongst the game that count PH is generally more disliked. Or it's a toss up between the two, some do seem to like PH and didn't like ST, and vice versa some (like myself) like ST way more than they ever liked PH. Either way both exhibit design that I don't want Zelda to continue to embody and Skyward Sword unfortunately does to an extent (controlling progress frequently through MacGuffins more than abilities, segregating areas beyond a few smaller sections).

[Aeolus]

I agree completely, Eusis. And Aeolus, you are coming across as a ridiculous fanboy. Seriously, "the most solid ZELDA!!! console title in the last decade"

Fixed!

I was referring to the Zelda series in particular. Not console games on the whole. Christ where did you get that assumption? It's like you didn't even read the other half of my post. You think I would be stupid enough to make that kind of generalized remark, or do you think I need to include a forced tutorial segment in all my posts from now on?

[Dice]

I agree completely, Eusis. And Aeolus, you are coming across as a ridiculous fanboy. Seriously, "the most solid ZELDA!!! console title in the last decade"

Fixed!

I was referring to the Zelda series in particular. Not console games on the whole. Christ where did you get that assumption? It's like you didn't even read the other half of my post. You think I would be stupid enough to make that kind of generalized remark, or do you think I need to include a forced tutorial segment in all my posts from now on?

You can't yell at him for his inability to understand your lack of clarity.  And your post-fix does nothing. =/

Frankly I still feel that it's the most solid console title released in the last decade.

*shrug*

Whatever.  Make an ACTUAL post about WHY you think the game "is all that".  You've done a lot of complaining to any opinion contrary, except provide you own. :)

Vaguely coming off the "decade" stuff, this decade just started, if I had to pick, SS ranks low.  Hope remaining decade is better.  Wii-U Zelda looks purdy.  Want less motion gimmickry.

[Aeolus]

I agree completely, Eusis. And Aeolus, you are coming across as a ridiculous fanboy. Seriously, "the most solid ZELDA!!! console title in the last decade"

Fixed!

I was referring to the Zelda series in particular. Not console games on the whole. Christ where did you get that assumption? It's like you didn't even read the other half of my post. You think I would be stupid enough to make that kind of generalized remark, or do you think I need to include a forced tutorial segment in all my posts from now on?

You can't yell at him for his inability to understand your lack of clarity.  And your post-fix does nothing. =/

Frankly I still feel that it's the most solid console title released in the last decade.

*shrug*

Whatever.  Make an ACTUAL post about WHY you think the game "is all that".  You've done a lot of complaining to any opinion contrary, except provide you own. :)

*sigh*

I wouldn't be surprised that Dice's complaints were coming from bandwagoning somebody else's complaints. Frankly I still feel that it's the most solid *ZELDA* console title released in the last decade. Granted the game has flaws; no game is perfect, but the end product doesn't feel like it wasted an opportunity with what it was trying to do like WW and TP did.

What I was trying to "Fix" was my grammatical typo from my previous post that PM made an assumption on. Right now I'm just pissed at this shit storm that spawned from the typo rather than anyone seeking to confirm that I was being a stupid fanboy or not. As for your request my point was that the reason why I see this game being better than the two ZELDA console titles of the past decade (GB-Wii era) was that it actually lived up to its promise (entirely new control style/Metroid-like style (albeit MP3 but close enough)) versus WW with its traveling between islands among the sea kinda like traveling between planets among the sea of the stars but only if the only planets were dungeons and the two towns and everything else was an asteroid or space station and offered maybe one point of interest at best, and TP with its theme of Hyrule getting invaded by a new foe that required maybe untraditional means or methods to combat all the while making the mistake that trying to fight an unknown power with an unknown power could blow up in one's face which got dumped at the first sign of Ganon.

Those two games both made promises that they either couldn't live up to or bailed on whereas this one didn't and for that reason I view this game as the superior of the three. The rest of the issues can hopefully get ironed out in the next inevitable sequel (or get properly lambasted if they don't). And frankly I don't care how it's rated as an 8/10 or a B- because unlike all those other 10/10 AAA+ games released during the season, this one did something different rather than adding an extra layer of sheen on an already polished formula (well Skyrim's an exception to this where the sheen layering polishing happens after release by modders and bug fixes). And besides Game Journalism has basically fallen to Film Critic status at this point (quick to sell out; quicker to ignore anything that doesn't cater to their tastes)....

Vaguely coming off the "decade" stuff, this decade just started, if I had to pick, SS ranks low.  Hope remaining decade is better.  Wii-U Zelda looks purdy.  Want less motion gimmickry.

But then again, I doubt that you care about any of this.

[Ashtrot]

I think the contention was more the fact that you dismissed their complaints and implied (purposefully or not) that they were being whiny.

I like Skyward Sword A LOT - it probably ranks as my favorite Zelda - but their complaints have merit.

[Maxximum]

Man, I was one of the first people on these forums that picked this up and I'm only half way in at best. Need to start playing again.

[Prime Mover]

Come on, Xenoblade and Skyward Sword are totally comparable. As Eusis pointed out, their exploritory aspects are very much related. So Xenoblade uses numbers, Skyward Sword uses icons... big deal. They're both hybrid action-adventure/RPGs, they both focus on exploration, they're both on the same system, they were released within 6 months of eachother. In the grand scheme of things, they're very comparable. In fact, I don't think I can think of a more comparable game to SS since... well... the last Zelda. Or would you rather me start drawing up Nier comparisons? Well for one, both SS and Nier blatently recycle areas!

And I really don't understand the Metroid comparisons... at all... Metroid and Zelda both occupy a similar genre of action-adventure with huge interconnected worlds... oh wait, scratch that, both SS and Metroid Prime 3 both abandond the interconnected worlds things. SO FUCK THAT! Anyway, what makes SS more "Metroidy" then Twilight Princess or Majora's Mask? I heard a lot of "the overworld is like a dungeon!" But wasn't that true with Twilight Princess? Every dungeon had a battle-heavy overworld section leading up to it, some of them quite long and drawn out. Wait... so did Ocarina of Time... so did Link to the Past... wait a minute... the overworlds have ALWAYS been like dungeons. Granted, it wasn't until recently that there was intense puzzle solving in the overworlds. But seriously, the difference between overworld and dungeon wasn't any more seemless in SS than it was in TP. They still kept the old world map / dungeon map dichotomy. They still had floors and keys in the dungeons only, they give you maps items in dungeons, in the overworld you're on your own.

In Metroid, there is only one map system, and you're likely to find the same kinds of items and perform the same kind of tasks everywhere, not just inside specific caves that you crawl into. But really, the differences aren't that big to begin with. Link to the Past had a lot of instances where you had quite a bit of "dungeon crawling" in the overworld, it even had some dungeons that were integrated into the overworld, so that you had to go back and forth between overworld and dungeon. The only real difference between Metroid and Zelda are A) NPCs, B) SPACE! C)... wait, there is no C, the two series are actually pretty similar.

[FlamingR1ft]

I heard a lot of "the overworld is like a dungeon!" But wasn't that true with Twilight Princess? Every dungeon had a battle-heavy overworld section leading up to it, some of them quite long and drawn out. Wait... so did Ocarina of Time... so did Link to the Past... wait a minute... the overworlds have ALWAYS been like dungeons.

Uh, no, it's really not.

For starters, Skyward Sword lacks any 'feeling' the world is connected. Yes, there's The Sky, but compare that to Termina Field, Hyrule Field, The Great Sea etc. and they're totally different. Twilight Princess certainly has a more linear overworld than previous Zelda titles, but it still HAS an overworld. Skyward Sword does not.

A REAL overworld is seen in A Link to the Past, Oracle of Ages/Seasons, Legend of Zelda, and pretty much all the 2D ones. I don't understand how they feel like dungeons to you. They're wide and open and interconnected.

[Eusis]

I think it's more that they're always meant to be tricky to traverse. A good comparison is your typical RPG with Zelda, Zelda's worlds have tradtionally been built more like the dungeons, maybe stages if you prefer, whereas a lot of RPGs are more like a map you have an avatar move around on to represent your travels. Skyward Sword takes it much further in general than at least recent 3D games, but it's not inherently new like doing similar in an FF is.

[FlamingR1ft]

I think it's more that they're always meant to be tricky to traverse. A good comparison is your typical RPG with Zelda, Zelda's worlds have tradtionally been built more like the dungeons, maybe stages if you prefer, whereas a lot of RPGs are more like a map you have an avatar move around on to represent your travels. Skyward Sword takes it much further in general than at least recent 3D games, but it's not inherently new like doing similar in an FF is.

I'd argue there's still a difference between a 'overworld' and a 'world map' though. World map in the sense of having your giant-sized character walk around. I personally feel like an overworld is something to explore, rather than to just get you from place to place like world maps do in early FFs.

[Prime Mover]

I guess I wasn't even thinking about the sky, you spend so little time in it, I didn't even think to view that as an "overworld", I'm just talking about the areas that aren't technically in the dungeons proper, like the forest area, the desert, etc. Maybe I should refer to that as "Field" instead of "overworld".

And honestly, go back to the original Legend of Zelda game. The field has just as many enemies as the dungeons. The only difference is that dungeons are puzzley. Well, enter LttP which adds some puzzles to the field. All that's lacking are keys. The day they seemlessly integrate the dungeon map system into the field map system is the day the two are finally one and the same... until then, I don't really seen any progression between Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword in terms of merging the two.