Skyward Sword

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

This was a very interesting zelda game. I can't say I completely loved it, but I also can't say I completely hated it too. I overall have a positive view of the game, but there are quite a few things that really didn't work.
First big thing: The motion controls. I actually found the motion controls to be on time and quite intuitive-- Yahtzee, were you using a good set up for your wii? because I never had problems with the timing. Sure, the new directional and critical timing controls took a bit of getting used to over Twilight Princess' random equivalent of hyperactive button mashing, but once I got it down it worked flawlessly.
Another big thing is the lack of a free world. This, in my mind, is the major flaw of this game. Sure, the sky is cool at first glimpse, but I kept wanting to look for new towns, new cities, new outposts. Other people, or at least gorons or zoras or SOMETHING. Even on the surface, while there are other races, there's nothing I would really call a town. You never got a sense for how these other races actually lived. This is something I've really liked about other zelda games (OOT, TP, etc) There are mulitple towns and cities with unique features to visit, unique people to find there, and fun things to do. Thats what Skyward sword was missing.

On to the good side of skyward sword though, I found the story and character development to be far superior to any zelda game I have ever played. For the first time in a major zelda title, I felt emotion from the characters of link and zelda. The whole childhoodfriend thing, while kind of cliche really worked well for this game (in my opinion anyways) Also the villian character Ghirahim was incredibly... colorful. I love the way his character was developed as well. That's a big problem that I've seen with previous zelda games that now isn't present in Skyward sword. Before this game you'd only usually see the main villian about three times. First at the beginning when the shit starts to happen, then again at the "plot twist" after the first three dungeons, and then again in the final battle. This often times lent itself to poorly understood and badly deveoped villians that really held no emotional weight in the game. The way Ghirahim keeps popping up in skyward really makes for a nice impression, especially when you take a look at the less obvious ways his character develops. When you first meet him in the first temple he's rather gentlemanly, not killing link as it would not be fair, speaking eloquently like a true sir. However, as you beat him time and time again and defeat his traps and monsters, you see him gradually become more sadistic and bloodthirsty (and creepy) He stops speaking eloquently and gets more violent and moody. That is something that I really liked in skyward sword. Also, the little nods to previous games added a nice touch.

What I hope to see next from nintendo is a game with the character development and story on par with skyward sword, but a nice freeroaming world more akin to twilight princess/windwaker/etc. That, in my mind would be a perfect zelda game. Oh yeah and better graphics too. I think Skyward sword has the right idea with the impressionistic graphics (It adds a nice adventurey touch and works well with nintendo's limited systems) but needs a bit more refinement and link really needs to lose those girly lips.

Mahoshonen:

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Hal10k:

Why is it that anyone who offers a negative opinion of a Zelda game is unfairly biased?

Yahtzee himself mentioned in the article that he is bias against motion controls...but then he covered that up by saying it's just because he was bias against things that weren't fun.

But here's the thing: what one person considers 'fun' differs from others.

I find it baffling that people can derive enjoyment from Dwarf Fortress. I like the stories that come out of it, but I can't fathom who could put up with it. If I was offered a living salary to explain in detail why I don't like Dwarf Fortress, I would probably due so. And if my appeal was based on humor, I couldn't honestly write the article while trying not to hurt anyone's feelings.

But at the end of the day, my opinion that Dwarf Fortress isn't fun is subjective. So when I say "I don't like it because it's not fun," I mean that I did not find it fun. Same here for Yahtzee

The way he put it wasn't done very well. A reviewer should never base the quality of a game on how much 'fun' they had. It just isn't a very good justification for when you're judging something.

Part of why Yahtzee dislike Skyward Sword is that he dislikes motion controls...and he dislikes motion controls because he doesn't find them 'fun'. He just doesn't do a very good job of defending his position. He's done plenty of semi-positive reviews of games with motion controls, but he really decided to focus all of his hate on this one game for them. It comes off as inconsistent.

METC:
...I never had any issues with control, and they were certainly the best I've ever seen in a game. The game was easy on the eyes, and the characters were memorable and charming...

I feel this response is exemplary of why a binary argument here may not get as far along as we would wish.

Bear in mind that I have not played Skyward Sword but I have watched both Yahtzee's video review and follow up column, and I would assume he is no liar in the sense that what negative points he makes are true.

That said, I see things as two-sided coin only to say that Yahtzee says the controls are bullocks and the graphics are poor while the above quoted claims the controls are smooth and well done and the aforementioned graphics are 'easy on the eyes.'

Well who do we believe then? It would seem too tedious a task for Yahtzee to post a video in which he explains why the graphical details are poor.
~~
I own a Wii, and to that end I can attest that the motion capturing technology is bullocks overall and obviously a cheap toss-about to make money. I watched a great deal of gameplay footage concerning Skyward Sword from E3 and even on my HD television it was mud. Follow up videos I recently watched on Youtube.com serve to confirm the 'muddiness' of things. That's all I have to say about that.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Hal10k:

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Yahtzee himself mentioned in the article that he is bias against motion controls...but then he covered that up by saying it's just because he was bias against things that weren't fun.

See, he defeated the purpose of admitting bias by then trying to present his personal feelings as absolute facts. After that statement, if you don't think that he in particular is irrationally bias and prone to ignore objectivity, then I don't know what to say. The article also herds together anyone who thinks positively of the game into a big group of fanboys who ignore objective flaws, even though that's logically untrue.

Look, of course he's biased. I'm just going to repost what I wrote on the video thread instead of rewriting my opinion on this:

Whether or not you agree with his criticisms is subjective, of course. But don't disregard him just because he's biased. We're all biased in one way or another; that's one of the downsides of actually possessing a long-term memory in conjunction with the capacity for logical reasoning. Yahtzee's opinion is biased because he dislikes the Wii. The argument you made is biased because you disliked Yahtzee's review. The argument I'm making right now is biased because I'm really uptight about semantics for some reason. If you want a genuinely unbiased review of a game, I'd suggest rolling a ten-sided die.

There's no such thing as being "unfairly biased". And as for "ignoring objectivity"- you do realize that whether or not you enjoy a game is the polar opposite of objectivity, right?

It isn't that Yahtzee is bias...it's the fact that he admits his own bias while still insisting that his opinions are objective facts. His entire review came off to me as nothing but a ranting hated for motion controls in general.

The fact that Yahtzee leaves absolutely no room for error and reduces anyone who strongly disagrees with him to gibbering strawmen is what makes him unfairly bias.

I like Yahtzee...I think his entertaining...but that's it. He's an entertainer. As someone who objectively judges the quality of media, I don't think he's good at what he does. And yes, there are ways to objectively judge a videogame.

When did he say that his opinion was an objective fact? The "prove me wrong, fans" line is a bit of a take-that towards the people who think you can prove an opinion piece wrong.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you think a game can be objectively measured outside of simply listing the components of the game. I'm inclined yet again to simply reiterate one of my earlier arguments: you can describe a video game objectively. Describing what music a game has, the layout and nature of the puzzles, the dialogue spoken by the characters- all that is objective. What you can't do is review a game objectively. Describing how the music meshes with the environments, whether or not the puzzles were fun or intuitive, whether or not any of the characters were interesting- i.e., whether or not the game was good- all that depends on personal experience, and is therefore not objective.

Of course he's not good at offering objective views of games. If you describe something in an objective way, it's an encyclopedia entry, not a review.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

The way he put it wasn't done very well. A reviewer should never base the quality of a game on how much 'fun' they had. It just isn't a very good justification for when you're judging something.

Then how else should a game be reviewed? based purely on functionality? in that case just about every working game would get a 10/10. The way I see it, when reviewing stuff they're your objective reviewing and that's when functionality comes into place, does the game work, is it broken, do the mechanics not work or not work as intended... There's your functionality. The rest is about the subjectivity, whether or not you had fun with a game is subjective and is pretty important when it comes to playing a game. We play them to have fun and to be entertained.

What is poor reviewing is if they didn't give you the reasons why they didn't have fun with it. However when they do give a reason (which I believe Yahtzee did in the review), it is subjective, they told you why they didn't have fun with it. However, you can look at that and think "Yeah, that actually sounds fun to me" there you go.

When reviewing a game or a movie your not reviewing it strictly for what others may enjoy, your playing the game and giving your personal opinion on it and justifying it. If they didn't have fun with the experience then its just as good a justification as to why they didn't enjoy it.

Eternal-Chaplain:

METC:
...I never had any issues with control, and they were certainly the best I've ever seen in a game. The game was easy on the eyes, and the characters were memorable and charming...

I feel this response is exemplary of why a binary argument here may not get as far along as we would wish.

Bear in mind that I have not played Skyward Sword but I have watched both Yahtzee's video review and follow up column, and I would assume he is no liar in the sense that what negative points he makes are true.

That said, I see things as two-sided coin only to say that Yahtzee says the controls are bullocks and the graphics are poor while the above quoted claims the controls are smooth and well done and the aforementioned graphics are 'easy on the eyes.'

Well who do we believe then? It would seem too tedious a task for Yahtzee to post a video in which he explains why the graphical details are poor.
~~
I own a Wii, and to that end I can attest that the motion capturing technology is bullocks overall and obviously a cheap toss-about to make money. I watched a great deal of gameplay footage concerning Skyward Sword from E3 and even on my HD television it was mud. Follow up videos I recently watched on Youtube.com serve to confirm the 'muddiness' of things. That's all I have to say about that.

Well, keep in mind, Yahtzee seems to despise motion control in all of its forms. Which is okay, I guess. Some people just dislike them.

But what I especially makes him a poor judge in this case is the fact that he seems far more harsh on Skyward Sword than he was on Red Steel 2, both of which use the Wii Motion Plus technology. He actually seemed to like the control in Red Steel 2, which is about the same precision as it is in Skyward Sword. Lemme break it down. There is no 'waggle' in Skyward Sword. The game detects how you hold the remote and tries to track the position of your right arm. You can slash horizontally, diagonally, vertically. You can also thrust, spin attack horizontally, and spin attack vertically. The game calls for precision...it doesn't want you to flail around wildly, it wants you to be aware of where your arm is and swing accordingly.

If someone is too accustomed to frantic waggling this may end up with you swinging when you don't want to. You approach the game with a different mindset...not erratically wiggling, but being as certain in your movements as possible. You gently aim to change the position and then flick quickly to attack. I found that it worked and the only instance of it failing to read my movements properly is when I tried to flail all around DKCR-style.

So, sword-fighting is good, I think. There are problems though. The cursor will sometimes misalign, which can mess up first person view or your bow-aiming. To remedy it, you just press Down to automatically place the cursor back at the center. It's a little annoying until you get used to it.

That's as objective as I can put it. But, you can't form an opinion without trying it. Wii Motion Plus is pretty different from the typical Wii waggling.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Mahoshonen:

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Yahtzee himself mentioned in the article that he is bias against motion controls...but then he covered that up by saying it's just because he was bias against things that weren't fun.

But here's the thing: what one person considers 'fun' differs from others.

I find it baffling that people can derive enjoyment from Dwarf Fortress. I like the stories that come out of it, but I can't fathom who could put up with it. If I was offered a living salary to explain in detail why I don't like Dwarf Fortress, I would probably due so. And if my appeal was based on humor, I couldn't honestly write the article while trying not to hurt anyone's feelings.

But at the end of the day, my opinion that Dwarf Fortress isn't fun is subjective. So when I say "I don't like it because it's not fun," I mean that I did not find it fun. Same here for Yahtzee

The way he put it wasn't done very well. A reviewer should never base the quality of a game on how much 'fun' they had. It just isn't a very good justification for when you're judging something.

Part of why Yahtzee dislike Skyward Sword is that he dislikes motion controls...and he dislikes motion controls because he doesn't find them 'fun'. He just doesn't do a very good job of defending his position. He's done plenty of semi-positive reviews of games with motion controls, but he really decided to focus all of his hate on this one game for them. It comes off as inconsistent.

He also criticized the art direction, the level design, the characters, and the comparative lack of innovation. He did not, as you say, "focus all of his hate on them". The games that he's complimented that had motion controls either utilized them infrequently or utilized them in a way he enjoyed. Skyward sword apparently hit neither of these marks for him.

And what do you mean that a reviewer shouldn't base his opinion on whether or not something is fun? If the aim of a game is to provide the player with fun, and the reviewer did not have fun, then what is his review supposed to look like? "Every second I spent playing this game was an unending chasm of misery that made me envious of the dead! 10/10!"

Reviews are supposed to explain to you whether or not the reviewer enjoyed the game, and why or why not. Of course "fun" is going to factor into that.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

The problem with that is it's anecdotal evidence.

I've played the game. I have no problem with the precision or timing of the controls. My sword is held where I want it to be hold. I attack from the direction that I want and it happens when I want it to happen. Any lag that may exist has never negatively impacted my gameplay to the point where I think it's a legitimate flaw.

And yet there are still people who insist that the controls in any motion game don't work the way they want. I don't have anyway to disprove that because my satisfaction is all from personal experience. It's a hard topic to discuss.

Yes, controller lag is a real thing, but both sides are anecdotal. God bless the false equivalence fallacy.

But at least that was more honest than "if it exists, I dismiss it."

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Skyward Sword

Prove me wrong, fans.

Read Full Article

You can't expect anything else from fans of a game that's been re-released in several incarnations since the late eighties. Like every other Nintendo title.

Hal10k:

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Hal10k:

Look, of course he's biased. I'm just going to repost what I wrote on the video thread instead of rewriting my opinion on this:

There's no such thing as being "unfairly biased". And as for "ignoring objectivity"- you do realize that whether or not you enjoy a game is the polar opposite of objectivity, right?

It isn't that Yahtzee is bias...it's the fact that he admits his own bias while still insisting that his opinions are objective facts. His entire review came off to me as nothing but a ranting hated for motion controls in general.

The fact that Yahtzee leaves absolutely no room for error and reduces anyone who strongly disagrees with him to gibbering strawmen is what makes him unfairly bias.

I like Yahtzee...I think his entertaining...but that's it. He's an entertainer. As someone who objectively judges the quality of media, I don't think he's good at what he does. And yes, there are ways to objectively judge a videogame.

When did he say that his opinion was an objective fact? The "prove me wrong, fans" line is a bit of a take-that towards the people who think you can prove an opinion piece wrong.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you think a game can be objectively measured outside of simply listing the components of the game. I'm inclined yet again to simply reiterate one of my earlier arguments: you can describe a video game objectively. Describing what music a game has, the layout and nature of the puzzles, the dialogue spoken by the characters- all that is objective. What you can't do is review a game objectively. Describing how the music meshes with the environments, whether or not the puzzles were fun or intuitive, whether or not any of the characters were interesting- i.e., whether or not the game was good- all that depends on personal experience, and is therefore not objective.

Of course he's not good at offering objective views of games. If you describe something in an objective way, it's an encyclopedia entry, not a review.

There are objective ways to determine whether or not characters are dynamic, whether the music compliments the layout and graphical look of the game or not, whether the puzzles or objectives are constructed in a way that gives any player enough information to work with, etc.

Games can have objective flaws.

Also, the context in which 'prove me wrong' is used as well as the suggestion that he's only bias towards things that aren't fun is enough for me to come to the conclusion that Yahtzee is incapable of differentiating between personal opinions and objective facts.

I forgot:

Kaulen Fuhs:

I forgot:
Yahtzee resorting to middle school antics with "if I don't gush it with praise, zelda's fanboy army will attack me" is really fucking pathetic. Use your brain for a minute. People aren't mad because you "pointed out a flaw" but because it's actually horseshit that isn't really a flaw, one you contrive or one you don't explain. You've been doing this for how long and you can't accept criticism yourself?

Except, wonder of wonders, he was actually right.

Zelda fanboys aren't attacking him because he pointed out flaws; that much is true. They are attacking him because he expressed a negative opinion of a game they liked.

For example, I've seen someone outright state that they cannot handle the fact that someone doesn't like a game they like (in reference to Zelda: SS), and that was why they were so upset.

No, he isn't. That isn't something you can say he's "right" because you saw one guy say it and it's not hard to imagine that many don't like the review because of what I already said in my first post. Not everyone that dissmissed the review is a "fanboy"; it's an abstract argument but that much is just common fucking sense.

Granted, but I haven't seen just one guy do it. That was the most poignant example, and while I agree that not everyone who dismissed the review is a fanboy, the outrage and vitriol has made it all too clear that many of those blasting Yahtzee are taking his review extremely personally.

played it in my friend's house and all i can say that mandatory motion controls can eat sh*t and die game was meh as it is, coupled with motion controls it was simply unbearable.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

There are objective ways to determine whether or not characters are dynamic, whether the music compliments the layout and graphical look of the game or not, whether the puzzles or objectives are constructed in a way that gives any player enough information to work with, etc.

One could argue that all of those are subjective. Like how much information is needed to be able to work the puzzle. You could put a short sentence and say "That's enough" however it might be in my opinion that you'd need a little more than that to work it. Also, music is a again is extremely subjective, the graphical look is a mixed bag as is the characters dynamic.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Games can have objective flaws.

Yes, yes they can. However many if not all of those are down to pure functionality. It would be near impossible to make a review of a game while remaining completely objective. Truly would just sound like you're describing a game. The second where you start to use words like good and bad, it becomes subjective.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Yahtzee is incapable of differentiating between personal opinions and objective facts.

A review isn't an objective fact it is a personal opinion. A review, at its bare basics is giving someone a product and asking them to come back and tell you what they thought of it.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Hal10k:

Mr. Fahrenheit:

It isn't that Yahtzee is bias...it's the fact that he admits his own bias while still insisting that his opinions are objective facts. His entire review came off to me as nothing but a ranting hated for motion controls in general.

The fact that Yahtzee leaves absolutely no room for error and reduces anyone who strongly disagrees with him to gibbering strawmen is what makes him unfairly bias.

I like Yahtzee...I think his entertaining...but that's it. He's an entertainer. As someone who objectively judges the quality of media, I don't think he's good at what he does. And yes, there are ways to objectively judge a videogame.

When did he say that his opinion was an objective fact? The "prove me wrong, fans" line is a bit of a take-that towards the people who think you can prove an opinion piece wrong.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you think a game can be objectively measured outside of simply listing the components of the game. I'm inclined yet again to simply reiterate one of my earlier arguments: you can describe a video game objectively. Describing what music a game has, the layout and nature of the puzzles, the dialogue spoken by the characters- all that is objective. What you can't do is review a game objectively. Describing how the music meshes with the environments, whether or not the puzzles were fun or intuitive, whether or not any of the characters were interesting- i.e., whether or not the game was good- all that depends on personal experience, and is therefore not objective.

Of course he's not good at offering objective views of games. If you describe something in an objective way, it's an encyclopedia entry, not a review.

There are objective ways to determine whether or not characters are dynamic, whether the music compliments the layout and graphical look of the game or not, whether the puzzles or objectives are constructed in a way that gives any player enough information to work with, etc.

Games can have objective flaws.

Also, the context in which 'prove me wrong' is used as well as the suggestion that he's only bias towards things that aren't fun is enough for me to come to the conclusion that Yahtzee is incapable of differentiating between personal opinions and objective facts.

You can objectively ascertain whether a character is dynamic. You cannot objectively ascertain whether that character is interesting, or pleasant to talk to, or even whether or not that character being dynamic is a good thing.

You can ascertain whether or not the rhythm and tone of music fits the stereotypical depiction of a setting. You cannot ascertain whether or not the setting and music is interesting, overplayed, or just pleasant to experience.

You can ascertain whether or not a puzzle gives you the necessary information to complete it. You cannot ascertain whether or not that information makes sense in the context of the puzzle, whether or not the way the information is presented makes it too easy or too difficult, or whether or not the steps you take to complete the puzzle are fun or not.

This is the difference between objectivity and opinion.

When Yahtzee says he's biased against games he doesn't consider fun, it's perfectly obvious that he's referring to games he considers not to be fun. He stated back in the mailbag showdown that his reviews weren't meant to be taken as the end-all, be-all. You're the one who started trying to apply objectivity to an opinion piece, not him.

Look there isn't anything me or anybody else is going to say that won't sound like Fanboyism to you Yahtzee. If i thought it actually mattered i'd send you an e-mail responding to each of your points. Some games aren't for everyone. Doesn't mean that the game isn't good. For instance. I hate PH. The narrative is downright dull, the controls are crap, the temples are practically copy//paste versions of each other, the characters can be summed up with one word. "eh" and returning to the Temple of the Ocean King and having to do the missions again and again and again is almost as tedious as finding and collecting the triforce shard charts then getting the 300 rupees required to decipher them and then finally going to get the shards. This isn't counting getting the wallets which makes it slightly less tedious and the title deed to that one house which was completely pointless. Not counting having to play with the WW every 6.02 seconds if you so much as turn the ship 30 degrees in another direction. In terms of boring annoying monotony Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass are the kings. But eh... different strokes for different folks.

chaosyoshimage:
That said, the new Mario which I just started playing is really good and that's coming from someone who was disappointed with the Galaxy games.

That's probably because Nintendo isn't trying to shove its motion controls down your throat with Galaxy and NSMB Wii.

Also, I stopped bothering with Phantom Hourglass an hour in after realizing I couldn't stand not seeing 100% of the screen because of the unnecessary and forced "all touch" controls. Had button controls been an option, you know, like SM64 DS, I might've given it a chance. At least Skyward Sword's forced and imprecise controls required a semblance of skill instead of partially covering half the fucking screen because of your adult yeti hands.

Frostbite3789:

itsmeyouidiot:

Having a different opinion is one thing, but saying nothing but the meanest and cruelest insults imaginable is another.

There's a common saying where I come from, it goes something like: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Constructive criticism is one thing, but spewing hatred and bile is another thing entirely, and it certainly isn't comedy.

Imagine that I verbally ripped everything you hold dear to shreds. How exactly would anyone in their right mind find that funny?

Mother of god, do you even know what a fanboy is and how you might come off as one in every single one of your posts in this thread?

You act like by criticizing your preferred piece of entertainment, let me repeat that, your preferred piece of entertainment, we're kicking your dog and harming a beloved family member.

I mean, did you really miss where the beginning of this article pretty much directly addressed people like you?

"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" was something used to keep five year olds from fighting. As far as real world application, it's up there with people saying you can't criticize an athlete because "you couldn't do that". Christ, without critics and criticism, nothing would ever advance.

Or should we always be 100% happy with everything all the time? If he found to be lackluster, he has a column in which he is paid to voice his opinion and name the reasons. All you've done is go "NUH UH THAT WASN'T A FLAW! IT'S A GREAT GAME!"

A masterful defense.

I honestly think that Skyward Sword is the best Zelda game ever made, and Mr. Crosshaw here is basically insulting me for thinking that.

Going "NUH UH THAT WASN'T A FLAW" is as valid an argument as any. A flaw that you fail to notice isn't a flaw. There's a difference between actual flaws that reduce enjoyment and nitpicking "flaws" that you have to actively search for in order to find.

And what exactly is there to miss about the first paragraph, anyway? Of course people are defensive when the best games on the market are attacked instead of the hundreds of thousands of games more deserving of it.

To be honest, I actually pity Yahtzee for being so spoiled that he can't see the game as a masterpiece. It's like he doesn't even know what a bad game is.

Hal10k:

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Hal10k:

When did he say that his opinion was an objective fact? The "prove me wrong, fans" line is a bit of a take-that towards the people who think you can prove an opinion piece wrong.

I'm genuinely curious as to how you think a game can be objectively measured outside of simply listing the components of the game. I'm inclined yet again to simply reiterate one of my earlier arguments: you can describe a video game objectively. Describing what music a game has, the layout and nature of the puzzles, the dialogue spoken by the characters- all that is objective. What you can't do is review a game objectively. Describing how the music meshes with the environments, whether or not the puzzles were fun or intuitive, whether or not any of the characters were interesting- i.e., whether or not the game was good- all that depends on personal experience, and is therefore not objective.

Of course he's not good at offering objective views of games. If you describe something in an objective way, it's an encyclopedia entry, not a review.

There are objective ways to determine whether or not characters are dynamic, whether the music compliments the layout and graphical look of the game or not, whether the puzzles or objectives are constructed in a way that gives any player enough information to work with, etc.

Games can have objective flaws.

Also, the context in which 'prove me wrong' is used as well as the suggestion that he's only bias towards things that aren't fun is enough for me to come to the conclusion that Yahtzee is incapable of differentiating between personal opinions and objective facts.

You can objectively ascertain whether a character is dynamic. You cannot objectively ascertain whether that character is interesting, or pleasant to talk to, or even whether or not that character being dynamic is a good thing.

You can ascertain whether or not the rhythm and tone of music fits the stereotypical depiction of a setting. You cannot ascertain whether or not the setting and music is interesting, overplayed, or just pleasant to experience.

You can ascertain whether or not a puzzle gives you the necessary information to complete it. You cannot ascertain whether or not that information makes sense in the context of the puzzle, whether or not the way the information is presented makes it too easy or too difficult, or whether or not the steps you take to complete the puzzle are fun or not.

This is the difference between objectivity and opinion.

When Yahtzee says he's biased against games he doesn't consider fun, it's perfectly obvious that he's referring to games he considers not to be fun. He stated back in the mailbag showdown that his reviews weren't meant to be taken as the end-all, be-all. You're the one who started trying to apply objectivity to an opinion piece, not him.

Yahtzee prompted readers to 'prove him wrong' with this opinion.

He said he was only bias against things that were not fun, implying fun is something that can be objectively measured.

The problem isn't Yahtzee's opinions...it's the fact that he takes those opinions and does present them as facts, regardless of whatever backpedaling he does later. Then, whenever a group of people disagree with his opinions, he dismisses them as 'fanboys' and insults their intelligence for not agreeing with him.

I'm not speaking out of personal attack to Yahtzee...simply acknowledging the fact that he isn't a legitimate reviewer. He's an entertainer. He wants to rile people up. He wants to make negative reviews because negative reviews mean more attention and more pageviews. This is something that's profitable for him.

It just surprises me that there are people who get genuinely anger over him or try to defend him as a legitimate journalist. He's got a way with words and that's about it.

You guys noticed that some points that he advocates here are not even in the video review (busywork)? I bet he hasn't even read the comments, that this text should be ready for some time and that the reaction of the fan boys (both sides) is so predictable that not even matter.
As you battle to death he must be on vacation, enjoying the sun, surfing... with hat.

It's not much more than what was in the video review. Largely the same complaints, with emphasis taken away from a few of them to give it to other ones.

As for my own experiences with the game, I can say that the motion controls work fine for me (unless you move the controller too quickly). It took me until I was nearing the end of the first dungeon to get used to them, and until that point I honestly didn't like them much, despite liking them just fine in most other games I've played that have them. Once I did get used to them, however, it was one of the most satisfing experiences I've had in a game yet. If you're having problem with the controls, you're going to have to accept that with motion controls that's oftentimes your fault. It takes some practice to learn to use them correctly. I recommend taking your time with the first boss to get a grasp on some of the finer points of the controls. I will say, however that it was used far too often when another action would have been much easier while providing the same experience. for example, wiggling the Wii Remote and nunchuck to get out of a spiderweb or to get an enemy to let go could have been done just as easily by having to run, roll or spin-attack. The biggest offender, however is swimming. You can controll your movement on a horizontal plane with the control stick, but if you want to swim upwards or downwards, you have to press A and move the remote towards where you want to move, which means that if you point the remote forward while link is facing left, he'll gotowards what would be "forward" to him, which would be left this time around. What's more, while you're doing this you can't use the analog stick for horizontal movement, which would have been a great improvement. Instead you have to twist the remote left or right to do it.

The overworld is pretty boring (the sea of clouds, that is). I personally liked the one in Twilight Princess. I liked discovering a hidden cave or other previously-inaccessible areas after getting a new item, and while Skyward Sword has some of this down at the ground, it's usually just a some rupees or a heartpiece at best. There were dissapointingly few islands other than Skyloft that had anything interesting to do.

The dungeons were much smaller than TP's, although making the paths leading up to them more dungeon-like more than makes up for it. In fact, I almost didn't realize the pirate ship was a dungeon because there was little difference between it's feel and the fell of the place I'd just come from.

Fi is in fact annoying, and this is coming from someone who didn't find Navi annoying (granted, I only played through the first half of Ocarina, but still).

I've yet to reach the part of the game that people say is the most padded one, but so far the padding hasn't been too bad. I enjoyed the Silent Realm and going back to the ground areas has been more enjoyable than I expected with some new enemies, and you don't spend enough much time in the same section to get bored of it.

The game is much harder than TP, which I like. The only part of TP where I lost was the Cave of ordeals, and everything else was dissapointingly easy.

I'm not good for talking about stories and all I can usually say about them is "I liked it" or" I didn't like it. I'm liking this one so far, but not as much as Twilight Princess's. Still, I'm only a bit more than halfway through the game (at the pirate ship, to be exact) and the best off TP's story was at the end, so it can still get better.

I like the characters in general better this time around, with the exception of Fi, although there has yet to be anyone I like as much as Zant or Midna.

Despite the flaws, it's still a great game.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

I'm not speaking out of personal attack to Yahtzee...simply acknowledging the fact that he isn't a legitimate reviewer. He's an entertainer. He wants to rile people up. He wants to make negative reviews because negative reviews mean more attention and more pageviews. This is something that's profitable for him.

It just surprises me that there are people who get genuinely anger over him or try to defend him as a legitimate journalist. He's got a way with words and that's about it.

Yahtzee is a critic. He's a critic with extremely negative views, and he's a critic who happens to disagree with you on this point. Neither of these things revoke his status as a critic. The only things that make a review "legitimate" are having experienced the entirety of a story and a detailed explanation of the reviewer's opinion. If he disagrees with you, he is not an illegitimate reviewer, that's just proof that the two of you do, in fact, operate on a different set of opinions and assumptions. If he's biased in a certain direction, that doesn't mean he's an illegitimate reviewer, that just means he possesses a long-term memory in conjunction with the capacity for logical reasoning.

In short: there is no such thing as a "legitimate reviewer". There are just reviews you agree with, and ones you don't.

Moving on.

He said he was only bias against things that were not fun, implying fun is something that can be objectively measured.

Or perhaps he sat down with the game, played it for the expected length of time, and- get this- did not have fun? "Fun" is something that varies from person to person. Yahtzee knows this, and has acknowledged it several times in the past. I know this. You probably know this. There are several species of sponge that, despite lacking a proper nervous system, are nonetheless familiar with the fact that the idea of "fun" is different for different people. Yahtzee's just saying that he isn't going to give a positive review to a game that heavily emphasizes motion controls being used in a way he doesn't enjoy.

The problem isn't Yahtzee's opinions...it's the fact that he takes those opinions and does present them as facts, regardless of whatever backpedaling he does later.

I ask you again: when has Yahtzee ever presented one of his opinions as a fact, outside of hyperbole or quotes taken out of context like the one above? The very fact that it's listed as a review series should have tipped you off in some way.

Then, whenever a group of people disagree with his opinions, he dismisses them as 'fanboys' and insults their intelligence for not agreeing with him.

I don't seem to recall him ever insulting the Zelda fanbase in this article or his original review. All he acknowledged was that the Zelda fanbase had torn into him for giving a negative review for Skyward Sword, which, if you'll examine the original video thread, they did.

Yahtzee prompted readers to 'prove him wrong' with this opinion.

Which, as I previously pointed out, was an insult towards the sort of people who think you can actually prove an opinion piece wrong.

Hal10k:
snip

Alright, I bow out, you and I seem to be saying the same things, probably doesn't need double teaming with it and you seem to be able to put it better than my arse can :) -thumbs up- I'ma make a pizza and play some video games while pushing the refresh button on the page.

Grenge Di Origin:

chaosyoshimage:
That said, the new Mario which I just started playing is really good and that's coming from someone who was disappointed with the Galaxy games.

That's probably because Nintendo isn't trying to shove its motion controls down your throat with Galaxy and NSMB Wii.

I was talking about Super Mario 3D Land, if I recall those two games did have annoying motion controls. I hated shaking the Wii Remote like an idiot after I died in New Super Mario Bros. Wii and those annoying bird levels in Super Mario Galaxy 2 made me quit realizing I wasn't going to get a 100%.

Kaitengiri:
Full power skyward snip.

Excellent post. I was hoping to find one such as this in this stream of near-mindless hate.

As for the EP, I'll just correct one little point: The whip may not be used for a whole lot, but you can use it to steal the horns from the sides of certain bokoblins which not only adds to your materials an item that was previously not very common to find, but it makes the bokoblin react in anger and become vulnerable for an easy kill. That's something completely optional. It can also be used to reach drops like hearts, but that can be difficult concerning aiming. :/

And I'll just list a few moments I heartily enjoyed in SS:
- Rolling into the walls of certain houses, breaking things, and making the residents get ticked.
- The harp minigame at the pumpkin bar. More fun than it should've been.
- Groose. He had his funny moments.
- Pipit. He's just a great friend.
- Fi singing. It made me laugh.
- The Beetle item. Each zelda game has their just plain fun tools and this is one of them.

Sure, the imprisoned fights were annoying and the clawshots were disappointing (I think they've been used enough by now.), but the game was very enjoyable to play through. Also, new game+ is always a bonus.

Yahtzee Croshaw:

Prove me wrong, fans.

Sorry Yahtzee, don't have to. I liked the artstyle and thought it had better structure and character development. "Because some people like that sort of stuff."

Okay Yatzee I am up to your game and I can prove it. You are unwillingly biased due in part that you hate any/all motion controls for the Wii. You will go in unwillingly to judge the game fairly based on this I don't care if it's Zelda, Madworld or No More Hero's you always bitch about them.

This comment is in no way meant to harass or flame you, but I need a challenge. Also here is fun fact I don't even like the game myself.

itsmeyouidiot:
I honestly think that Skyward Sword is the best Zelda game ever made, and Mr. Crosshaw here is basically insulting me for thinking that.

Going "NUH UH THAT WASN'T A FLAW" is as valid an argument as any. A flaw that you fail to notice isn't a flaw. There's a difference between actual flaws that reduce enjoyment and nitpicking "flaws" that you have to actively search for in order to find.

And what exactly is there to miss about the first paragraph, anyway? Of course people are defensive when the best games on the market are attacked instead of the hundreds of thousands of games more deserving of it.

To be honest, I actually pity Yahtzee for being so spoiled that he can't see the game as a masterpiece. It's like he doesn't even know what a bad game is.

I want to say that you're trolling, but I'll respond anyway.

A flaw that you fail to notice doesn't make it any less of a flaw. That's like saying a tree that falls with no one around to hear it doesn't make a sound.

Unlike most fans of this game, I'm assuming, I wasn't hyped for Skyward Sword; I was trying not to be. Last time I was, I felt that Twilight Princess didn't live up to the hype, so I tried to keep my expectations modest so I would enjoy the game more.

All that did was prevent me from glossing over its numerous flaws.

That's right: I'm claiming that even though you think the game is a flawless masterpiece, that's because you refuse to acknowledge its flaws because you were too excited for it. You played through this game, ran into several things that you normally wouldn't like, but actively ignored them because you didn't want to think that the game you've been anticipating all this time didn't meet your expectations.

Let's be honest here: any game that incorporates the design philosophy of Skyward Sword would have been panned by critics and gamers alike if it weren't so heavily anticipated.

The game is padded with long, unnecessary, and mandatory fetch quests, there are several gameplay instances that don't advance the plot (including a contrived mine cart sequence ending with a boss you already beat that doesn't amount to anything), the art direction is random to the point that it's almost difficult to look at, we go full circle back to the launch days of the Wii where motion controls are needlessly tacked on in so many aspects of the game, you revisit areas that you already beat (including an entire dungeon), you fight three bosses at least twice, the game is constantly reminding you of things that you already know, there's only one town in the game and three areas to explore, it takes longer to find dungeons than it takes to beat them, and the combat lacks refinement but still punishes you if it doesn't work properly (I want to swing one direction, but it makes me swing in another and I take damage from an enemy).

And that's not even going into comparing this to other Zelda games: there are fewer towns, fewer dungeons, fewer enemy types, fewer bosses, fewer items, the overall game is smaller, and if it weren't for all the padding, the story probably would have lasted us about six to eight hours.

But wait, there's more: let's remember that Nintendo claimed to work on this game for five years, and they had all the funding brought in by their Wii and DS sales, and they were completely unrestrained due to working on a full DVD while incorporating modest production values with no voice acting.

And you're telling me that this is the 'best Zelda game ever made?' I get that people are entitled to their opinions... but yours is awfully flimsy.

The chap in the video is taking the piss. We do all rember that right?

This might be a good time to say this but I never hated Navi, ever. She always pointed out helpful information to me (I was 8 at the time) she pointed out enemy weak spots, and for fucks sake, at least she gave me the OPTION to listen to her.

Also I remember hearing a lot about the argument with the art style in this game. Here's my opinion, most Nintendo Gamecube games looked better than this.

Honestly, I don't take Yahtzee seriously as a reviewer. A comedian/entertainer sure, but I don't really take his opinions to heart. If I did, I'd never play a goddamn game in existence.

Granted, he could be right about this game. I'm only a few hours into Skyward Sword, and although I've enjoyed it so far, I'm not far enough to form a good opinion about the game. Still, in general, I feel like he's not a person who enjoys gaming, just a person who enjoys the occasional game.

I agree with some of the points brought up in the article, but where I disagree is what probably makes this my favorite Zelda game so far. I truly liked Fi. At first she got on my nerves, but as soon as I turned off the overlay I didn't even notice when Fi wanted to tell me anything other than cutscenes and dowsing. Fi never interrupted my fights because she would only say something when you talk to her explicitly. Fi's character actually grew which is something no other Zelda companion managed, even my favorite, Midna. I also real enjoyex the motion controls. I agree with the example given about pointless fetch but throughout most of the game I didn't even notice that it was fetch, with the exception of the example from the article.

Mr. Fahrenheit:

Dunkerloop:
Personally, I really did like the game, but in the end, Fi would probably, no, has a GUARANTEED spot as my pick for the worst sidekick ever. I plugged my ears whenever I heard her voice, which was rather often, and got annoyed at how often she repeated stuff we already learned literally 10 seconds before.

Eh, I liked her. The fact that she made her statements with such absolute certainty made her seem so cynical...like she was treating Link as an idiot. I didn't find her to be as intrusive as so many made her out to be.

Before playing the game, I was under the impression that she interrupted you whenever you were low on health. Instead, when you get down to three hearts, a soft chime sounds three times and then doesn't repeat...and you don't even have to talk to her. Probably the least annoying way of making it absolutely clear that you're low on health in any Zelda game. Her Rumors and Monster Analysis also were very helpful.

I thought she served more of a purpose than Midna...who didn't really know much about anything.

She's no Ezlo though.

Ezlo was amazing. The Minish cap is one of my favorite games in the series.

itsmeyouidiot:

Anoni Mus:
Without exaggerating I can name about 20 or 30 flaws in Skyward Sword including some and even more of what Yahtzee mentioned.

Name them.

The "flaws" that Mr. Crosshaw mentioned aren't flaws at all, because I did not notice them and they did not hinder my enjoyment in any way whatsoever.

Sure, some of these are normal in the Zelda series, but I'm still going to mention them.

- Fi, no words need more to say.
- Less areas
- Battle 3 times the same boss (the big monster), that boss was already one of the most boring ones, so 3 times was terrible, this was the part of the game I least enjoyed.
- Slow start and breaks the flow constantly.
- Slow text and you can't pass it.
- Whip is hardly used and never in side quests and the Bow being an extremly fun item to use was not as important as it should be.
- Less exploration
- The prize for all hapiness cristals is dumb and unecessary in that part of the game (the end lol). A medal saying "You are great at this game", would be better, because at least gives you prestige.
- Vilain in the end is slightly disapointing.
- There could be more variety of monster, specially more human look alike monsters.
- Repeating of bug description every time you catch it for the first time after you turn on the console, so when you turn it off you have to ear it again.
- The severe game breaking bug which makes you impossible to progress the game unless you restart it.
- Flying is less fun than using the horse
- Swiming controlls are mediocre, the only time I felt the wii mote shouldn't have been used.
- Few citizens in the city, they should have put more of them, and making them tell stories about skyloft for example, or something else, like Majora's Mask. (At least almost every citizen has side quest)
- No cam control (doesn't bother me, but must bother some people).
- The pointing system in this Zelda (with motion controls) works worse than with the sensor bar, because of that calibration thing, if you chose to click the bow (or similar item) while not center, your aim is going to be disrupted (doesn't bother me and it's easy to avoid as it has been said in the topic you made by a user).
- No run and slice, makes the game unecessary slower.
- Fragmentation of the game, for example when you elave skyloft it has a cutcene instead of real time, that breaks the flow, and when entering skyloft is even worse because there are only specific areas where you can enter.

19 of them :P

But I'm on your side, because despite all of these, the game is one of the best of the decade. And most of these are nitpicks.

At least notice I didn't mention the graphic/aestethics, because they are almost perfect for SD. And the motion controls are great (except swiming and flying maybe). Who say the oposite is just lazy or is trying to find faults where there aren't any, unless they were expecting 100% 1/1, but if that's the case they are ignorant.
I don't blame if people don't like the motion controlls to battle, but don't say they don't work, because they FUCKING DO!.

Kenkaku:
That's right: I'm claiming that even though you think the game is a flawless masterpiece, that's because you refuse to acknowledge its flaws because you were too excited for it. You played through this game, ran into several things that you normally wouldn't like, but actively ignored them because you didn't want to think that the game you've been anticipating all this time didn't meet your expectations.

Not really, no. I still wouldn't have disliked it for what it is even if it were different. Many of the things that people are quick to point out as flaws aren't really even flaws in my eyes, and that goes for any game.

And really, I could just as easily accuse you of only hating the game because you were too excited to hop on the "mimic Yahtzee" bandwagon. I could just as easily say you genuinely enjoyed the game, but actively ignored everything that made it good because you wanted to hated it like the cool kids down at The Escapist.

Let's be honest here: any game that incorporates the design philosophy of Skyward Sword would have been panned by critics and gamers alike if it weren't so heavily anticipated.

Correction: it would be panned by some critics and gamers, particularly the ones who like to be overly negative about everything.

The game is padded with long, unnecessary, and mandatory fetch quests

I still don't really understand how fetch quests are so bad. If you spent an equivalent amount of time doing something else that didn't fit the arbitrary label "fetch quest," you'd be happy.

there are several gameplay instances that don't advance the plot (including a contrived mine cart sequence ending with a boss you already beat that doesn't amount to anything)

Again, why is this bad? Having more content in a game is suddenly something people don't want?

the art direction is random to the point that it's almost difficult to look at

It's a half-way meeting between the art styles of Twilight Princess and Wind Waker, so what? While I do agree it looks weird at first, it really doesn't do anything to make the game less fun.

we go full circle back to the launch days of the Wii where motion controls are needlessly tacked on in so many aspects of the game

If by "needlessly tacked on," you mean "masterfully executed in a manner that the Wii was supposed to do in the first place," then yes.

you revisit areas that you already beat (including an entire dungeon), you fight three bosses at least twice

I don't see how this could be anything more than an very mild annoyance.

the game is constantly reminding you of things that you already know

People made that same complaint in Ocarina of Time, yet that's widely considered to be the greatest game ever made.

there's only one town in the game and three areas to explore

As opposed to the other games where there are tons of areas to explore but more than half of them are ultimately pointless. Wind Waker was especially bad in this regard, more than 90% of the Great Sea was utterly pointless.

it takes longer to find dungeons than it takes to beat them

Again, you're asking for less content for your money?

and the combat lacks refinement but still punishes you if it doesn't work properly (I want to swing one direction, but it makes me swing in another and I take damage from an enemy).

Okay, let me explain:

Bad controls is not the same as YOU being bad AT the controls.

People who think the motion controls in SS are bad simply don't know how to play. I myself thought the controls were unresponsive, but then, like any sentient creature capable of learning, figured them out.

The mistake most people make is that they try to use the motion controls with their arms, when they are actually done almost entirely with the wrist.

Mistakes are possible, but can almost always be corrected on the second try. What many people mistake for a major flaw is simply a mild inconvenience.

Kenkaku:

itsmeyouidiot:
I honestly think that Skyward Sword is the best Zelda game ever made, and Mr. Crosshaw here is basically insulting me for thinking that.

Going "NUH UH THAT WASN'T A FLAW" is as valid an argument as any. A flaw that you fail to notice isn't a flaw. There's a difference between actual flaws that reduce enjoyment and nitpicking "flaws" that you have to actively search for in order to find.

And what exactly is there to miss about the first paragraph, anyway? Of course people are defensive when the best games on the market are attacked instead of the hundreds of thousands of games more deserving of it.

To be honest, I actually pity Yahtzee for being so spoiled that he can't see the game as a masterpiece. It's like he doesn't even know what a bad game is.

I want to say that you're trolling, but I'll respond anyway.

A flaw that you fail to notice doesn't make it any less of a flaw. That's like saying a tree that falls with no one around to hear it doesn't make a sound.

Unlike most fans of this game, I'm assuming, I wasn't hyped for Skyward Sword; I was trying not to be. Last time I was, I felt that Twilight Princess didn't live up to the hype, so I tried to keep my expectations modest so I would enjoy the game more.

All that did was prevent me from glossing over its numerous flaws.

That's right: I'm claiming that even though you think the game is a flawless masterpiece, that's because you refuse to acknowledge its flaws because you were too excited for it. You played through this game, ran into several things that you normally wouldn't like, but actively ignored them because you didn't want to think that the game you've been anticipating all this time didn't meet your expectations.

Let's be honest here: any game that incorporates the design philosophy of Skyward Sword would have been panned by critics and gamers alike if it weren't so heavily anticipated.

The game is padded with long, unnecessary, and mandatory fetch quests, there are several gameplay instances that don't advance the plot (including a contrived mine cart sequence ending with a boss you already beat that doesn't amount to anything), the art direction is random to the point that it's almost difficult to look at, we go full circle back to the launch days of the Wii where motion controls are needlessly tacked on in so many aspects of the game, you revisit areas that you already beat (including an entire dungeon), you fight three bosses at least twice, the game is constantly reminding you of things that you already know, there's only one town in the game and three areas to explore, it takes longer to find dungeons than it takes to beat them, and the combat lacks refinement but still punishes you if it doesn't work properly (I want to swing one direction, but it makes me swing in another and I take damage from an enemy).

And that's not even going into comparing this to other Zelda games: there are fewer towns, fewer dungeons, fewer enemy types, fewer bosses, fewer items, the overall game is smaller, and if it weren't for all the padding, the story probably would have lasted us about six to eight hours.

But wait, there's more: let's remember that Nintendo claimed to work on this game for five years, and they had all the funding brought in by their Wii and DS sales, and they were completely unrestrained due to working on a full DVD while incorporating modest production values with no voice acting.

And you're telling me that this is the 'best Zelda game ever made?' I get that people are entitled to their opinions... but yours is awfully flimsy.

The only part of the whole game that felt unneeded was the flooded forest section where you have to gather tad-tones. It felt really weird that you had to prove your worth to the water dragon again. In my opinion, the rest of the character's motivations for sending link to do their fetching were completely plausible.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here