Zelda: Skyward Sword is bad as a Zelda game

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Vickman178 (866 posts) -

OK! Before I explain to you why I think it was an insult to the franchise let me explain that I really enjoyed this game and that it was probably the most fun i've had in awhile with a game! The legend of Zelda is also my favorite game franchise and that will never EVER change.(knock on wood :P)

But now let me explain to you why I think that this game was "bad" as a Zelda game.

And there is only ONE reason for this, but its such a huge thing that it messes up what Zelda is supposed to be.


The games world is structured like a 3D Mario game. Let me compare and show you why.

In Super Mario Galaxy you have the main space station from where you can access all the levels from, and not all of them are accessable right away. In Skyward Sword, Skyloft acts as the HUB in many of the same ways that Galaxies space station does.


Now the three main areas in Skyward Sword consist of the Forest, the Desert, and the Volcano Death mountain type area. All of these areas are much bigger then what you would get in a level in galaxy but also much smaller then what you would find in the areas in previous Zelda games. Not only that but you progress through these levels in a very linear way and they are not interconnected.


Exploration and adventure is such a huge part of what Zelda is and the way this game is structured just completely takes away from what Zelda is supposed to be. Add to the fact that Fi pretty much tells you exactly what to do every time and you can even "douse" for items which takes even more away from the Zelda experience which is figuring out puzzles, problems and where to go next ON YOUR OWN! Oh ya and not to mention all that "filler" where your just running around collecting those relic's in the same three areas.And when the forest level fills up with water and you have to collect music notes? I MEAN COMMON!


Skyloft is pretty much vacant, the only thing there for the most part is the main village. Compared to Wind Wakers oceans which had many islands. Or the world of A Link to the Past which had many secrets that you had to find on your own. Skyward Sword can't even compare its world to the old games.


It was still a great game and I really liked the artstyle and the story was better then in previous games, but as a Zelda game as a whole it was a disapointment.


Whats your Opinions? I'm really excited for the possibilties for Zelda on Wii U but they HAVE to back to the old way. I want to figure things out on my own, I want to find secrets on my own and I want that real Zelda world to explore not some 3D Mario structured game.



#2 Posted by turtlethetaffer (17140 posts) -

I think it was a step forward in some ways (the Adventure Pouch and planning what resources to bring with you) and a step back in others (very limited exploration, exmpty overworld.)

#3 Posted by GamerEye (1607 posts) -

In your opinion.

#4 Posted by ZachMasta (579 posts) -
I agree. The game is not immersive because of the disjointed world and the vacancy of it and exploration. There is really nothing captivating or "homey" about the hub that draws you in like SM64. The best thing is the little shop in the sky that you hit the bell to enter.
#5 Posted by Kaze_no_Mirai (11595 posts) -
I enjoyed Skyward Sword a lot. I can see what you mean though, especially the musical notes. That was annoying. But it's definitely not an "insult" to the franchise.
#6 Posted by TheSacredFlame (324 posts) -

You have a point, but I felt that the reason why Skyloft was basically the only inhabitated area in the game besides the few settlements here and there (like 3?) was becuase the goddesses chose Skyloft to bare her people. I will agree to the sky being a barren wasteland of rock and sky though and how they managed going to and fro the 3 areas quite poorly.

#7 Posted by Minishdriveby (10352 posts) -

I think it was a step forward in some ways (the Adventure Pouch and planning what resources to bring with you) and a step back in others (very limited exploration, exmpty overworld.)

turtlethetaffer
I can agree with this.
#8 Posted by Gamingclone (5224 posts) -

Its not an insult at all.

#9 Posted by wiifan001 (18477 posts) -

There were some steps taken forward in the franchise, and some taken backwards. Skyward Sword's surface structure I like to compare it to Metroid Prime 3's. They're separate from each other and you have to fly over there to get to which area you want to go. The issue with Skyward Sword was you had to revisit each area- desert, woods, and volcano- three different times, whereas in Prime 3 you really only needed to go back to collect those cells.

I do agree that I didn't like the structure of the islands. As soon as you open the map all the islands were given to you right then and then, sort of taking away the mystery and wonder of what's out there. Once you get to the islands you discover that all of them have no purpose being up there except for the occasional mini game and access to a treasure chest once you hit the goddess cubes. There's nothing there; nothing to do for almost every island. This wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue for the Zelda franchise except Windwaker just demolishes Skyward Sword's overworld in every way, other than the time it takes to get from one spot to the next.

But steps forward included those timeshift stones. They just don't get enough appreciation. The Adventure Pouch was nice and the sharp motion controls may be the best combat, if not at least the most immersive, combat we'll ever have in a Zelda game seeing the next Zelda will be that Gamepad controller.

I won't go as far as it being an insult to the franchise though. If not for Windwaker, the sky world would not be nearly as hated on as it is. I don't call it "bad for a Zelda game" though I do agree there were some steps taken backwards, I'm going to remember Skyward Sword for the steps they took FORWARD.

#10 Posted by thetravman (3543 posts) -

I would say SS's overworld is more reminiscent to Windwaker's, just less travel time. Little lands here and there with the few larger areas. Exploration is still present in the game although not in the extent of other Zelda games. But that doesn't make it the black sheep. It does lots of things well compared to what hinders it: memorable arsenal items, lots of collectables, side quests, fun minigames, clever dungeons, immersive soundtrack and great boss battles. And yes it does have its tedious moments that recent Zelda games tend to have (WW's Triforce treasure hunt, and TP's magic rod rejuvenation process). While playing it, there was never an instant where I thought this was a bad Zelda game. It's not my favourite but it deserves its namesake.

#11 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

100% agreed.

It did take a step forward in a couple areas that Turtlethetaffer mentioned, but they didn't utilize those things to the best of their ability, and even if they did, it still doesn't make up for all the steps backward they took.

#12 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

I would say SS's overworld is more reminiscent to Windwaker's, just less travel time. Little lands here and there with the few larger areas. Exploration is still present in the game although not in the extent of other Zelda games. But that doesn't make it the black sheep. It does lots of things well compared to what hinders it: memorable arsenal items, lots of collectables, side quests, fun minigames, clever dungeons, immersive soundtrack and great boss battles. And yes it does have its tedious moments that recent Zelda games tend to have (WW's Triforce treasure hunt, and TP's magic rod rejuvenation process). While playing it, there was never an instant where I thought this was a bad Zelda game. It's not my favourite but it deserves its namesake.

thetravman

You discrase Wind Waker. To compare the sky of SS to the ocean of WW is absolutely laughable. I was expecting there to actually be towns, little dungeons, hidden caves and fairies, and so on in the sky. Nope. just a farm and a bunch of little rocks (more or less). Wind Waker may have had some issues, but its ocean is in a whole other league. SS could have had no sky and been virtually the same game.

#13 Posted by ristactionjakso (6115 posts) -

OK! Before I explain to you why I think it was an insult to the franchise let me explain that I really enjoyed this game and that it was probably the most fun i've had in awhile with a game! The legend of Zelda is also my favorite game franchise and that will never EVER change.(knock on wood :P)

But now let me explain to you why I think that this game was "bad" as a Zelda game.

And there is only ONE reason for this, but its such a huge thing that it messes up what Zelda is supposed to be.


The games world is structured like a 3D Mario game. Let me compare and show you why.

In Super Mario Galaxy you have the main space station from where you can access all the levels from, and not all of them are accessable right away. In Skyward Sword, Skyloft acts as the HUB in many of the same ways that Galaxies space station does.


Now the three main areas in Skyward Sword consist of the Forest, the Desert, and the Volcano Death mountain type area. All of these areas are much bigger then what you would get in a level in galaxy but also much smaller then what you would find in the areas in previous Zelda games. Not only that but you progress through these levels in a very linear way and they are not interconnected.


Exploration and adventure is such a huge part of what Zelda is and the way this game is structured just completely takes away from what Zelda is supposed to be. Add to the fact that Fi pretty much tells you exactly what to do every time and you can even "douse" for items which takes even more away from the Zelda experience which is figuring out puzzles, problems and where to go next ON YOUR OWN! Oh ya and not to mention all that "filler" where your just running around collecting those relic's in the same three areas.And when the forest level fills up with water and you have to collect music notes? I MEAN COMMON!


Skyloft is pretty much vacant, the only thing there for the most part is the main village. Compared to Wind Wakers oceans which had many islands. Or the world of A Link to the Past which had many secrets that you had to find on your own. Skyward Sword can't even compare its world to the old games.


It was still a great game and I really liked the artstyle and the story was better then in previous games, but as a Zelda game as a whole it was a disapointment.


Whats your Opinions? I'm really excited for the possibilties for Zelda on Wii U but they HAVE to back to the old way. I want to figure things out on my own, I want to find secrets on my own and I want that real Zelda world to explore not some 3D Mario structured game.



Vickman178

My review of the game basically said the same thing, but I compared it to Demon's Souls. You have a hub world that is the center for all your adventure points. Nexus/Skyloft is vacant and the most poor part of each game. Both are linear and offer less exploration. Zelda really downgraded with this game, but it was still a good game. There was no exploration aspect of the game. You get to find boxes, but honestly they were like always in front of you. Compare that to the golden skulletas in Ocarina of Time. They need to back to the Ocarina of Time style of exploration/overworld map, but with keeping all the things Skyward Sword improved on like buying shields/potions/ammo ect. But with that said, Skyword Sword was a breath of fresh air in the franchise and was welcomed. Not the right direction for the franchise, but still a good game.

#14 Posted by Pikminmaniac (9331 posts) -

Yeah, if there was one problem with Skyward Sword, it would be the limited exploration. However, the pacing, combat, upgrade system, etc were greatly improved. Motion controls did things to Zelda that I believe should stick with the series for many years to come.

I would even go as far as saying that the lack of exploration is the ONLY thing that was worse in Skyward Sword and that every other aspect was better than previous Zeldas (if you also don't count Wind Waker having by far the best story in the series).

#15 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

Yeah, if there was one problem with Skyward Sword, it would be the limited exploration. However, the pacing, combat, upgrade system, etc were greatly improved. Motion controls did things to Zelda that I believe should stick with the series for many years to come.

I would even go as far as saying that the lack of exploration is the ONLY thing that was worse in Skyward Sword and that every other aspect was better than previous Zeldas (if you also don't count Wind Waker having by far the best story in the series).

Pikminmaniac

If you lump the linear environemnts, lack of things to do, and dissapointing overworld, all into exploration then yeah that is a big part of it, as well as a big part of what makes a zelda game. Any step back in that is a huge step back for the series. Then just toss out the boring and drawn out beginning, repeated boss battle 3 times (And it was the only bad boss battle in the game. of all the bosses to pick!), somewhat lifeless townsfolks (given it is one town and they almost all just stand there), extreme handholding, pointless items (harp, sailcloth, and more), and so on...yeah then it is better than all other Zelda games ;)

#16 Posted by DragonQuestHero (1105 posts) -

Personally I really enjoyed it.

I find Wind Waker to be the worest of the 3-D games. I dind not care for the style...nor all the water, WAY to much water. That is just what I think, I still love the game...but compared to the other 3-D Zelda it the one I least enjoy.

It was sad to see Link become a right handed hero. =/ I guess from this point were not going to see many left handed heroes with Motion control.

#17 Posted by meetroid8 (21140 posts) -
I enjoyed it. It didn't entirely lack exploration, and the more structured world isn't an inherently bad design choice. The level design was phenomenal, and it represents the best use of motion controls to date. Zelda was getting stale, Skyward Sword needed to do something to differentiate itself from the rest of the franchise and I believe it succeeded, even if I'd rather they go back to the old formula in the next iteration.
#18 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

I enjoyed it. It didn't entirely lack exploration, and the more structured world isn't an inherently bad design choice. The level design was phenomenal, and it represents the best use of motion controls to date. Zelda was getting stale, Skyward Sword needed to do something to differentiate itself from the rest of the franchise and I believe it succeeded, even if I'd rather they go back to the old formula in the next iteration. meetroid8

No it's not and No it wasn't.

Metroid Prime 1-3 reperesent the best motion controls, as the upgrade is just that, an upgrade. Skyward Sword, while good with motion controls, has flaws, has it used too much at times, and could have been done on a traditional controller in some ways even better. Metroid Primes however, were just simply better. Just like a mouse is to dual analog.

Zelda was not getting stale. Twilight Princess, while an awesome game, may have made it seem that way as the game lacked the richness of past games. Ocarina of Time was a masterpiece. Majora's mask was incredibly unique and a worthy successor. Wind Waker changed it all up again and surprised evryone. They all did this while maintaing Zelda's core principals. Twilight Princess also did a good job, but lacked in areas (and came out at the console transition period). They just needed to continue with what they do best, not make it a different game altogether. HOpefully they revert back to the old sty1e, just as they did after they made Zelda II.

#19 Posted by thetravman (3543 posts) -

[QUOTE="thetravman"]

I would say SS's overworld is more reminiscent to Windwaker's, just less travel time. Little lands here and there with the few larger areas. Exploration is still present in the game although not in the extent of other Zelda games. But that doesn't make it the black sheep. It does lots of things well compared to what hinders it: memorable arsenal items, lots of collectables, side quests, fun minigames, clever dungeons, immersive soundtrack and great boss battles. And yes it does have its tedious moments that recent Zelda games tend to have (WW's Triforce treasure hunt, and TP's magic rod rejuvenation process). While playing it, there was never an instant where I thought this was a bad Zelda game. It's not my favourite but it deserves its namesake.

NaveedLife

You discrase Wind Waker. To compare the sky of SS to the ocean of WW is absolutely laughable. I was expecting there to actually be towns, little dungeons, hidden caves and fairies, and so on in the sky. Nope. just a farm and a bunch of little rocks (more or less). Wind Waker may have had some issues, but its ocean is in a whole other league. SS could have had no sky and been virtually the same game.

Maybe but it's still the same layout as with WW than it is with Mario Galaxy. That's all I'm saying. Discovering the island's secrets were fun, although the excessive sailing and wind direction management did get tedious after a while until you obtain the teleporting song.

#20 Posted by wiifan001 (18477 posts) -

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

[QUOTE="thetravman"]

I would say SS's overworld is more reminiscent to Windwaker's, just less travel time. Little lands here and there with the few larger areas. Exploration is still present in the game although not in the extent of other Zelda games. But that doesn't make it the black sheep. It does lots of things well compared to what hinders it: memorable arsenal items, lots of collectables, side quests, fun minigames, clever dungeons, immersive soundtrack and great boss battles. And yes it does have its tedious moments that recent Zelda games tend to have (WW's Triforce treasure hunt, and TP's magic rod rejuvenation process). While playing it, there was never an instant where I thought this was a bad Zelda game. It's not my favourite but it deserves its namesake.

thetravman

You discrase Wind Waker. To compare the sky of SS to the ocean of WW is absolutely laughable. I was expecting there to actually be towns, little dungeons, hidden caves and fairies, and so on in the sky. Nope. just a farm and a bunch of little rocks (more or less). Wind Waker may have had some issues, but its ocean is in a whole other league. SS could have had no sky and been virtually the same game.

Maybe but it's still the same layout as with WW than it is with Mario Galaxy. That's all I'm saying. Discovering the island's secrets were fun, although the excessive sailing and wind direction management did get tedious after a while until you obtain the teleporting song.

Even after obtaining the teleporting song, there was still a degree of being tedious, a lesser degree. But Windwaker had mini dungeons, communities, sidequests; There was something to do in every 7x7 square. Outside of Skyloft, Skyward Sword's sky world was mostly empty with just a couple mini games and vast, vast majority of islands serving no purpose but to hold a chest for later. It was flat land with grass patches and one chest.
#21 Posted by thetravman (3543 posts) -

Skyward Sword, while good with motion controls, has flaws, has it used too much at times, and could have been done on a traditional controller in some ways even better.

NaveedLife

I agree in regards to the swimming, bomb chucking and other minor things but everything else was made better with motion. Of course that could depends on your preference. Motion swordplay is the main revolution for the Zelda series as it adds a new dimension of strategy, if you can get it to work that is. Some people can't for some reason (gamespot).

#22 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

[QUOTE="thetravman"]

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

You discrase Wind Waker. To compare the sky of SS to the ocean of WW is absolutely laughable. I was expecting there to actually be towns, little dungeons, hidden caves and fairies, and so on in the sky. Nope. just a farm and a bunch of little rocks (more or less). Wind Waker may have had some issues, but its ocean is in a whole other league. SS could have had no sky and been virtually the same game.

wiifan001

Maybe but it's still the same layout as with WW than it is with Mario Galaxy. That's all I'm saying. Discovering the island's secrets were fun, although the excessive sailing and wind direction management did get tedious after a while until you obtain the teleporting song.

Even after obtaining the teleporting song, there was still a degree of being tedious, a lesser degree. But Windwaker had mini dungeons, communities, sidequests; There was something to do in every 7x7 square. Outside of Skyloft, Skyward Sword's sky world was mostly empty with just a couple mini games and vast, vast majority of islands serving no purpose but to hold a chest for later. It was flat land with grass patches and one chest.

This. Well said.

#23 Posted by Zodiac_attack (618 posts) -

Are you kidding me! The story line for this game is amazing! I mean come on you making the master sword. This games story is the beginning of LoZ. I have to admit at first the gfx didnt really excite me but the it grew on me. I peraonally enjoyed this game just as much as I enjoyed OOT. People need to look past the gfx and just see the game for what its meaning is.

#24 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

Are you kidding me! The story line for this game is amazing! I mean come on you making the master sword. This games story is the beginning of LoZ. I have to admit at first the gfx didnt really excite me but the it grew on me. I peraonally enjoyed this game just as much as I enjoyed OOT. People need to look past the gfx and just see the game for what its meaning is.

Zodiac_attack

Did you read the post? :?

#25 Posted by Vickman178 (866 posts) -

Are you kidding me! The story line for this game is amazing! I mean come on you making the master sword. This games story is the beginning of LoZ. I have to admit at first the gfx didnt really excite me but the it grew on me. I peraonally enjoyed this game just as much as I enjoyed OOT. People need to look past the gfx and just see the game for what its meaning is.

Zodiac_attack

Ok i'm assuming you didn't read my post -_-" I said I really enjoyed the game and its graphics, but it was a huge step back as a Zelda game.

I will agree with a lot of people are saying here in that it takes the series forward in some ways, like the item pouch and upgrading system. But the hand holding (I hate Fi!) and lack of exploration/structure of the world killed it pretty hard.

On another plus note though I thought the final battle was pretty flubbing awesome! I wish it was a little harder though :\

#26 Posted by Litchie (16618 posts) -

Yeah, it's probably my least favourite 3D Zelda game that I've played. I found it too linear and uninteresting. Wind Waker was an easy game, which I forgave because of its awesomeness, but Skyward Sword is both easier and worse. I might finish the game sometime, but right now I don't feel like it at all. Playing that game, without thinking about a crapload of things they could've done to make the game better, is impossible.

#27 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9884 posts) -
the item system is great, the weapon system is great, the controls are great but need work. The core gameplay is extremely flawed however. And no, the game is not copying the Galaxy games. It's an almost slavish copy of Demon's Souls in terms of level design, overworld, and even plot.
#28 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

Are you kidding me! The story line for this game is amazing! I mean come on you making the master sword. This games story is the beginning of LoZ. I have to admit at first the gfx didnt really excite me but the it grew on me. I peraonally enjoyed this game just as much as I enjoyed OOT. People need to look past the gfx and just see the game for what its meaning is.

Zodiac_attack

Uh,no.

It's about the same level as the story of,say,TWW.

There are like one or two twsts,but it's NOT what ppl expected.

Nintendo made a God out of the game while promoting it.

It proved to be good,but the story is just about on the same level other entries are.

#29 Posted by boonetown (90 posts) -
QUESTION ABOUT SKYWARD SWORD is it perfectly fine to only play with this:
#30 Posted by SteveTabernacle (2584 posts) -
[QUOTE="boonetown"]QUESTION ABOUT SKYWARD SWORD is it perfectly fine to only play with this:

No.
#31 Posted by boonetown (90 posts) -
[QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"][QUOTE="boonetown"]QUESTION ABOUT SKYWARD SWORD is it perfectly fine to only play with this:

No.

is it better that way ?
#32 Posted by turtlethetaffer (17140 posts) -

[QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"][QUOTE="boonetown"]QUESTION ABOUT SKYWARD SWORD is it perfectly fine to only play with this:  boonetown
No.

is it better that way ?

It's not a control option.

#33 Posted by boonetown (90 posts) -
i mean , is it a better Zelda game with the "remote" or stick or wutever
#34 Posted by GreekGameManiac (6439 posts) -

i mean , is it a better Zelda game with the "remote" or stick or wuteverboonetown

God,are you a noob gamer or something?

Wiimote + Nunchuck.

And yes,in the case of Skyward Sword,it's better.

#35 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22550 posts) -
Even by Zelda standards it isn't that bad. Hell the DS titles and Zelda 2 are much worse.
#36 Posted by meetroid8 (21140 posts) -

[QUOTE="meetroid8"]I enjoyed it. It didn't entirely lack exploration, and the more structured world isn't an inherently bad design choice. The level design was phenomenal, and it represents the best use of motion controls to date. Zelda was getting stale, Skyward Sword needed to do something to differentiate itself from the rest of the franchise and I believe it succeeded, even if I'd rather they go back to the old formula in the next iteration. NaveedLife

No it's not and No it wasn't.

Metroid Prime 1-3 reperesent the best motion controls, as the upgrade is just that, an upgrade. Skyward Sword, while good with motion controls, has flaws, has it used too much at times, and could have been done on a traditional controller in some ways even better. Metroid Primes however, were just simply better. Just like a mouse is to dual analog.

Zelda was not getting stale. Twilight Princess, while an awesome game, may have made it seem that way as the game lacked the richness of past games. Ocarina of Time was a masterpiece. Majora's mask was incredibly unique and a worthy successor. Wind Waker changed it all up again and surprised evryone. They all did this while maintaing Zelda's core principals. Twilight Princess also did a good job, but lacked in areas (and came out at the console transition period). They just needed to continue with what they do best, not make it a different game altogether. HOpefully they revert back to the old sty1e, just as they did after they made Zelda II.

Metroid Prime 3 barely used motion controls. You're thinking of the pointer. Which I wish SS would have used. I'll agree they they were used in a lot of unnecessary ways, but the swordplay and the flight were excellent and more than enough to make up for it.

Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks were what was making Zelda feel stale. MM and WW both made a lot of great deviations from the OoT formula. That's part of what made them feel so fresh and those other three so stale. Skyward Sword did need something to make it feel unique. And SS certainly is unique, and for what it does, it does well. Hopefully they do go back to the old style now, but SS was a nice change of pace.

#37 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -
I thoroughly enjoyed it. Then again, I also thoroughly enjoyed Twilight Princess after playing it a second time. The first time I played it I wasn't the biggest fan.
#38 Posted by Vickman178 (866 posts) -

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Then again, I also thoroughly enjoyed Twilight Princess after playing it a second time. The first time I played it I wasn't the biggest fan.Haziqonfire

Looking back, Twlight Princess was really great. Some of the wolf parts were pretty annoying and it tried a little to hard to be Ocarina of Time but it was still great and I kind of appreciate it more now after how Skyward Sword felt.

#39 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22550 posts) -

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]I thoroughly enjoyed it. Then again, I also thoroughly enjoyed Twilight Princess after playing it a second time. The first time I played it I wasn't the biggest fan.Vickman178

Looking back, Twlight Princess was really great. Some of the wolf parts were pretty annoying and it tried a little to hard to be Ocarina of Time but it was still great and I kind of appreciate it more now after how Skyward Sword felt.

zelda cycle in a nutshell folks
#41 Posted by VendettaRed07 (14012 posts) -

The game had a very weird feel to it. It felt like if Nintendo went to Konami or something and said.. "Hey make us a Zelda game, would ya?"

It just didn't have that Zelda feel to it. In almost every way. And im not entirely sure why. it really didn't have anything to do with the pacing or exploration.

#42 Posted by fluffy_kins (2453 posts) -

I completely agree. The art direction was totally wrong for a Zelda game (and I loved the cel shaded WW and its sequels), the overworld, if you can call it that, sucked, the music was very bland. The controls weren't awful but to me, they were trying to fix something that didn't need fixing. It felt like a chore to play at times, especially with the "use dowsing to find x". It did, however, have some of the best dungeons of any Zelda game.

#43 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9884 posts) -

the problem for me is that it functions well as a Zelda game but poorly as an adventure game. It pushes the Zelda plot to the next level. It pushes the combat and item system to the next level. However, the game world has never felt more cold, dead, linear, and scripted. The player is dragged along and instructed what to do next one step at a time, rather than the game world reacting to the player. That is how to kill a sense of adventure.

It's a cold, dead, uncaring, unfeeling world filled with mindless automatons who don't feel anything, care about anything or do anything. All with a gorgeous coat of paint on them of course.

#44 Posted by bbkkristian (14967 posts) -
"Is as bad as a Zelda game" You must be saying it's awesome; I agree with that statement
#45 Posted by NaveedLife (17179 posts) -

"Is as bad as a Zelda game" You must be saying it's awesome; I agree with that statementbbkkristian

You added an as.

#46 Posted by bbkkristian (14967 posts) -

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]"Is as bad as a Zelda game" You must be saying it's awesome; I agree with that statementNaveedLife

You added an as.

Oh darn. My eyes aren't what they used to be, I tell ya.
#47 Posted by Vickman178 (866 posts) -

the problem for me is that it functions well as a Zelda game but poorly as an adventure game. It pushes the Zelda plot to the next level. It pushes the combat and item system to the next level. However, the game world has never felt more cold, dead, linear, and scripted. The player is dragged along and instructed what to do next one step at a time, rather than the game world reacting to the player. That is how to kill a sense of adventure.

It's a cold, dead, uncaring, unfeeling world filled with mindless automatons who don't feel anything, care about anything or do anything. All with a gorgeous coat of paint on them of course.

GunSmith1_basic

Yeah this is pretty much it! You pretty much summed it up for me right there. I really hope Zelda on Wii U doesn't do this. We need something like Majora's Mask where you actually had to talk to people to find things out and the game was genuinly hard because half the time you had no idea what to do but thats what made it fun.

The whole point of Zelda was to find things out on your own I mean just look at the first game in the series!

#48 Posted by Sgt_Crow (4443 posts) -
I honestly don't find myself in this opinion. Skyward Sword is awesome imo, and in general better than Twilight Princess. The world didn't feel dead to me at all, and there is enough to do in the overworld. The story is great, the characters are memorable and Skyloft is a great place to wander around for hours. Furthermore, the controls are fantastic. Every time I see someone say how they are awful I conclude that they must either be stupid or are simply hating motion control. My biggest gripe is with Fi. She looks amazing from an artwork point of view, but her personality just doesn't match. I hate her personality so much. She is bland and boring.
#49 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9884 posts) -
[QUOTE="Sgt_Crow"]I honestly don't find myself in this opinion. Skyward Sword is awesome imo, and in general better than Twilight Princess. The world didn't feel dead to me at all, and there is enough to do in the overworld. The story is great, the characters are memorable and Skyloft is a great place to wander around for hours. Furthermore, the controls are fantastic. Every time I see someone say how they are awful I conclude that they must either be stupid or are simply hating motion control. My biggest gripe is with Fi. She looks amazing from an artwork point of view, but her personality just doesn't match. I hate her personality so much. She is bland and boring.

honestly, I think I've been corrupted by Bethesda. After playing in those fully realized worlds, worlds so big and real that you have to turn your brain on or else you'll get lost, I just can't go back. It makes me look sideways when I have to go to a castle and there's only one convenient puzzley route to get there. Tom McShea was completely right when he said the series was begging to be opened up. I loved the motion controls because they are fun to play around with and give more power to me, the player, in stark contrast to everything else in the game. In the rest of the game, I'm dragged around like a dog on a leash by one NPC after another.
#50 Posted by ekalbtwin (1044 posts) -
I cannot say I agree with the tc on this one. I found Skyward Sword to be a great game, and if it had given the player the ability to walk from one location to another without having to go back up to the sky, it would have been perfect. It did spoon feed you more than any other Zelda has before, but in the end I still felt more than happy with the amount of exploration. In an odd way, the whole game functioned as a rabbit hole and each time you traveled to the surface, you were in a dungeon which then rabbit holed into another dungeon. Where games like Ocarina of time made a huge hub world that had different dungeons scattered throughout it, Skyward Sword is a game built on different levels Level one is Skyloft, then the surface, and then the dungeon that is seemingly under the ground. I would go into more detail, as this explanation needs to be fleshed out so as to no be confusing, but I have to go to work. Maybe I will expound later.