Skyward Sword

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

i love Skyward Sword, it may not be my favorite game but it's certainly in the top 10

i dont see what all the fuss is about honestly. the controls work fine, at least for me, at best their precise controls that reward reflexes, at worst their just waggling, which i dont mind. they fail occasionally but nothing a quick recalibration doesnt fix. above all else the punishments for failure were never that immense, sure i tried swinging horizontally but ended up hitting an electrical stun gun, but i only lost one heart, and with a quick search around my hearts are back up again

as for the lack of more than three areas to explore, i honestly didnt mind. the traditional structure of Zelda games is to go to a new area, talk to a few people, and then tackle the local dungeon. but in Skyward Sword the lines were blurred, the way i saw it, the entirety of the surface was a dungeon, with puzzles to be solved, areas to explore, and treasures to find. sure other Zelda games had huge open maps but the space was an illusion. there was nothing, nothing to do in those huge sandboxes except kill monsters while on the way to the next enclosed area. especially in Wind Waker, where 90 percent of the map is just water, you spend most of your time sitting on your boat waiting for it to reach your destination. Skyward Sword has the sky area but if you spend more than 2 minutes flying to your destination, your playing it wrong.

and of course there is the tired old argument that all the games are basically alike. but in reality they arent, in every one of them the details are different. the hero has to save the princess, by collecting a list of objects, found in several dungeons across the land. from a story stand point, that is where the similarities end. every game has new puzzles, new obstacles. every Zelda game is basically a Reboot of the last one, all of them self contained stories, with gameplay that always brings something new to the table.

but that's just my opinion, i still enjoyed Yatzhee's review of the game, as well as this. i just disagree with every part of it (except for Fi, i agree 100 percent about Fi)

Crono1973:
So the controls worked properly MOST of the time. If you had been using a standard controller, they would have worked ALL of the time.

I was never comparing it to a standard controller. All I said was that they worked great 90% of the time, which is pretty much unheard of for a Wii game. Even though they didn't work as well as they might have if we were using something other than a Wiimote, Skyward Sword is still some of the best and most fluid use of the Wiimote I've ever seen. And I think that's a positive.

DarthFennec:

Crono1973:
So the controls worked properly MOST of the time. If you had been using a standard controller, they would have worked ALL of the time.

I was never comparing it to a standard controller. All I said was that they worked great 90% of the time, which is pretty much unheard of for a Wii game. Even though they didn't work as well as they might have if we were using something other than a Wiimote, Skyward Sword is still some of the best and most fluid use of the Wiimote I've ever seen. And I think that's a positive.

Ok, well people who are complaining about the controls probably are comparing it to standard controllers and let's face it, the Wii Mote is inferior to standard controllers. Ever try playing with the sun shining in?

Mahoshonen:

Nate-ndo:
While it is impossible for the controls to be as bad as Yahtzee/GameSpot/etc claim and still have the majority of players/reviewers say they work near flawlessly, it's entirely possible for the controls to work near flawlessly but have a handful of players that merely suck at using them and blame the controls and not the operator. I don't think it's impossible to believe that there are a number of gamers who lack the physical reflexes/hand-eye coordination to be successful with motion controls.

Yes, that's right, I'm going there. It's the only explanation that reconciles the differences other than claiming that the majority is simply lying about their experiences.

Wow. So people that have played shooters and platforms successfully on other systems now "lack the physical reflexes/hand-eye coordination" to play wii games. That is probably the most absurd explaination I've ever heard.

I have a different theory: You have cognitive disonance and are ready to excuse and ignore any flaw because it's easier than admitting your tribe is not the best that's out there.

I'm not just talking out of my ass. I bought into the excitement for Master of Orion 3, a game now universally considered so bad it killed the franchise. I bought the game on release and for 2-3 weeks I was convinced that it was the greatest game of all time. Eventually, the flaws were so obvious I just couldn't ignore them (or more accurately, I stopped playing for a while and realized I had absolutely no desire to start playing again).

Now, MoO3 is an undead fetus next to Skyward Sword, so that's not the comparison I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that the human brain will go to great lengths to justify, excuse, and ignore any fact that contradicts what it has beforehand established as a fundamental truth.

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," explores the phenomenon in greater detail, but it's the basis for why people hold onto opinions that in hindsight seem irrational. It's why a man as brilliant as Einstein could refuse to accept Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle because "God does not play dice."

You've missed the point by a wide margin. My point is that it's impossible for the controls to work (as claimed by about 90% of reviews) and to also not work as claimed by the others. There are only two two explanations 1) one of the groups is lying (tinfoil hat) or 2) that they do work but some subset of players will fail at using them. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the decision to use controls that some won't excel at, but to claim they don't work or are laggy is dishonest. There's no feasible explanation to how I (or IGN, or Edge, or Eurogamer, etc) played for 40 hours and believe the controls work if that is truly not the case.

Nope.

YOU get to prove everyone else wrong, Yahtzee.

See, the beauty of this situation is that those who disagree with you didn't start the fire, you did. The burden of proving your own statements is on you, sir. It's not our job to find fault in your word, as if yours is the divine word of God and all others are wrong. You are a internet reviewer, and whether you're more popular than many or not is irrelevant. Your word does not pass as divine law, and so when you make wild accusations, it is YOUR job to prove them true or false, not ours.

Metacritic has already spoken in regards to Skyward Sword. Fan acclaim has, as well. You're the one who decided to rattle the cages with bizarre and provably false statements, and now you want people to rush to your side in sympathy because people fired back at you? Nuh-uh. Doesn't work that way. If you choose to tear down someone's work, you should be prepared to defend it, don't give us a sob story about how the fanboys are getting to you.

Don't get me wrong. I get it. You don't like the game and a lot of your review's expressed hatred was misappropriated. You didn't have time to highlight all the things that frustrated you so you vented on a general scale. And now that I've played the game, I can say that some of what you're upset about is fair enough.

Fi is not a good character. Her advice occasionally tends to be quite helpful, but more often tends to be absurdly stupid. There were many times where I'd complete some task and then turn to my brother and say "and now Fi will pop up and say 'I CONJECTURE THAT THE KEY YOU JUST FOUND GOES TO THAT DOOR'" or whatever would fit the situation, and lo, was I proven to be a natural psychic. Midna was definitely a far superior support character and had legitimate depth enough to get an emotional response from me. I actually LIKED Midna and I've never been able to say that about very many support characters, in any game I've ever played. Navi, though, I'll disagree with you on....she was always useless and she was probably about as weak of a character as Fi is. She's a barely concealed OOC help desk, and not even a very good one.

I'll agree that the world isn't very open and sections of the game feel very padded. I see what they were trying to do in some places: they wanted to condense things down so that you saw repeated use of different locations rather than visiting ten different places exactly one time like you tended to in OoT. But it doesn't work entirely in the game's favor and it bothers me that I have to keep running back and forth to different places in meaningless fetch quests.

I'll even add that the controls aren't always perfect. Many a time did a Beamos blast me in the face because the Wiimote interpreted my "stab" at its eye as a horizontal slash instead. And that got frustrating quickly.

BUT you didn't address the biggest problem with your review, dear Yahtzee, and that fact is not lost upon me. In your review (and others) you are quoted as saying that every console Zelda since OoT has been "the same exact game", and many MANY people were quick to point out that not only is that a measurably incorrect statement, in the case of SS it's *extremely* wrong because the differences between this and OoT are quite numerous indeed. Not only in mechanics and gameplay, but in story as well. SS's storyline takes a radically different approach to the world's pantheon and system of beliefs, not to mention the introduction of these "great dragons" and other elements which kind of muddle up a lot of the timeline of Zelda. Heck, the main bad guy isn't actually Ganondorf for once, or even Vaati!

The changes in this game were pretty hard not to spot, and yet you quickly and cleanly say "same game, the end". And you provide no defense for that statement here, which tells me one thing: you don't defend it because you know you can't.

Look, I enjoy your reviews (though for comedy only, I've long since passed the point at which I could take your word on a game's actual value) and I'm not saying you can't go right ahead and rant or even exaggerate for comedy's sake. But don't blatantly LIE about something and then get fussy and upset when people point out how clearly wrong you are. It's childish, especially from a reviewer of your stature. Man up and admit to your faults and inaccuracies, or at least tone down the subjectivity of your rants so that viewers can make their own judgments on a game. But remember, some of your fans will follow like sheep, so when you make statements that are provably false, you should be well prepared for some people to call you out on it.

Nate-ndo:

Mahoshonen:

Nate-ndo:
While it is impossible for the controls to be as bad as Yahtzee/GameSpot/etc claim and still have the majority of players/reviewers say they work near flawlessly, it's entirely possible for the controls to work near flawlessly but have a handful of players that merely suck at using them and blame the controls and not the operator. I don't think it's impossible to believe that there are a number of gamers who lack the physical reflexes/hand-eye coordination to be successful with motion controls.

Yes, that's right, I'm going there. It's the only explanation that reconciles the differences other than claiming that the majority is simply lying about their experiences.

Wow. So people that have played shooters and platforms successfully on other systems now "lack the physical reflexes/hand-eye coordination" to play wii games. That is probably the most absurd explaination I've ever heard.

I have a different theory: You have cognitive disonance and are ready to excuse and ignore any flaw because it's easier than admitting your tribe is not the best that's out there.

I'm not just talking out of my ass. I bought into the excitement for Master of Orion 3, a game now universally considered so bad it killed the franchise. I bought the game on release and for 2-3 weeks I was convinced that it was the greatest game of all time. Eventually, the flaws were so obvious I just couldn't ignore them (or more accurately, I stopped playing for a while and realized I had absolutely no desire to start playing again).

Now, MoO3 is an undead fetus next to Skyward Sword, so that's not the comparison I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that the human brain will go to great lengths to justify, excuse, and ignore any fact that contradicts what it has beforehand established as a fundamental truth.

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," explores the phenomenon in greater detail, but it's the basis for why people hold onto opinions that in hindsight seem irrational. It's why a man as brilliant as Einstein could refuse to accept Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle because "God does not play dice."

You've missed the point by a wide margin. My point is that it's impossible for the controls to work (as claimed by about 90% of reviews) and to also not work as claimed by the others. There are only two two explanations 1) one of the groups is lying (tinfoil hat) or 2) that they do work but some subset of players will fail at using them. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the decision to use controls that some won't excel at, but to claim they don't work or are laggy is dishonest. There's no feasible explanation to how I (or IGN, or Edge, or Eurogamer, etc) played for 40 hours and believe the controls work if that is truly not the case.

I think you fail to understand that the criteria for "working" will very case by case. Some people are just more demanding. For example, when something calls itself and claims to give you "control" I do not expect it to make me compromise on what was supposed to already be established. If a device is designed to let me control something, I expect it be effective at giving me the maximum amount of control possible. If however, it does not give me 100% control, it is defective and has failed in it's only purpose.

I suppose a lot of people are not as stringent as me in their demands of a controller, yet I suspect it is in part due to their familiarity to previous incarnations of faulty controlling devices
image
image
image

And I agree with what that other guy said. Cognitive dissonance, you have it.

CriticKitten:

BUT you didn't address the biggest problem with your review, dear Yahtzee, and that fact is not lost upon me. In your review (and others) you are quoted as saying that every console Zelda since OoT has been "the same exact game", and many MANY people were quick to point out that not only is that a measurably incorrect statement, in the case of SS it's *extremely* wrong because the differences between this and OoT are quite numerous indeed. Not only in mechanics and gameplay, but in story as well. SS's storyline takes a radically different approach to the world's pantheon and system of beliefs, not to mention the introduction of these "great dragons" and other elements which kind of muddle up a lot of the timeline of Zelda. Heck, the main bad guy isn't actually Ganondorf for once, or even Vaati!

The changes in this game were pretty hard not to spot, and yet you quickly and cleanly say "same game, the end". And you provide no defense for that statement here, which tells me one thing: you don't defend it because you know you can't.

I think I should let you know none of what you just said means anything to normal people. Zelda is a bloody videogame it is not a religion. The plot and the "timeline" in Zelda are not some profound and clever wonder of literary architecture. Everybody knows that Zelda's plots are simplistic in nature and that the timeline rubbish is just some ludicrous marketing gig Nintendo set up to make the games a bit more appealing and honestly even Nintendo are incapable of making a proper excuse that makes any sort of bloody sense.

As you obviously haven't even read Yahtzee's review before slagging it off (hipocrisy, much?) I'll remind you Yahtzee stated quite clearly that Windmaker was a good game, different, fresh, memorable and a step in the right direction. So no, Yahtzee us not of the opinion that ecery Zelda game ever is the same. He just doesn't like Skyward Sword for all the reasons stated in the review he wrote so people could read it. Don't mention it.

(Hint: This is the part where you ignore all the stuff I just said and keep on whining.)

Does Yahtzee normally complain about dual analog controls for FPSes? Because if anything, THOSE are decidedly poor controls compared to keyboard and mouse or (funny enough) motion controls.

sockpuppettherapy:
Does Yahtzee normally complain about dual analog controls for FPSes? Because if anything, THOSE are decidedly poor controls compared to keyboard and mouse or (funny enough) motion controls.

Actually I thought about that a lot recently. When Sony introduced the dual analog controls with the game Ape Escape it really was a step forward. It gave you more control, the game was much more fluid and more fun. Since then, analog controls are literally indispensable. The precision and speed you can attain with them most games (platformers, beat-em-ups, driving/sports games for example) is a joy for all. Of course, FPSs should probably bre played on PC (I don't like FPSs or mouse controls personally) but it is only natural that not every technology is suited for every need. However, analog controls are proof of how technology evolves and how what's useful (analog, triggers, N-controllers (in my prediction)) stays while what isn't goes.

Revolutionaryloser:

Nate-ndo:

Mahoshonen:

Wow. So people that have played shooters and platforms successfully on other systems now "lack the physical reflexes/hand-eye coordination" to play wii games. That is probably the most absurd explaination I've ever heard.

I have a different theory: You have cognitive disonance and are ready to excuse and ignore any flaw because it's easier than admitting your tribe is not the best that's out there.

I'm not just talking out of my ass. I bought into the excitement for Master of Orion 3, a game now universally considered so bad it killed the franchise. I bought the game on release and for 2-3 weeks I was convinced that it was the greatest game of all time. Eventually, the flaws were so obvious I just couldn't ignore them (or more accurately, I stopped playing for a while and realized I had absolutely no desire to start playing again).

Now, MoO3 is an undead fetus next to Skyward Sword, so that's not the comparison I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that the human brain will go to great lengths to justify, excuse, and ignore any fact that contradicts what it has beforehand established as a fundamental truth.

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," explores the phenomenon in greater detail, but it's the basis for why people hold onto opinions that in hindsight seem irrational. It's why a man as brilliant as Einstein could refuse to accept Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle because "God does not play dice."

You've missed the point by a wide margin. My point is that it's impossible for the controls to work (as claimed by about 90% of reviews) and to also not work as claimed by the others. There are only two two explanations 1) one of the groups is lying (tinfoil hat) or 2) that they do work but some subset of players will fail at using them. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the decision to use controls that some won't excel at, but to claim they don't work or are laggy is dishonest. There's no feasible explanation to how I (or IGN, or Edge, or Eurogamer, etc) played for 40 hours and believe the controls work if that is truly not the case.

I think you fail to understand that the criteria for "working" will very case by case. Some people are just more demanding. For example, when something calls itself and claims to give you "control" I do not expect it to make me compromise on what was supposed to already be established. If a device is designed to let me control something, I expect it be effective at giving me the maximum amount of control possible. If however, it does not give me 100% control, it is defective and has failed in it's only purpose.

I suppose a lot of people are not as stringent as me in their demands of a controller, yet I suspect it is in part due to their familiarity to previous incarnations of faulty controlling devices

And I agree with what that other guy said. Cognitive dissonance, you have it.

Just so we're clear, you're claiming that the vast majority of players and reviewers that said the controls worked adequately and as intended are confused and/or lying, correct? Cognitive dissonance is claiming that the controls didn't work, and none of us noticed but finished the game anyway even with broken controls. I suppose we willed the game into completion.

Also, your post suggests that you think it's more believable that the controls are broken and 9/10 players simply didn't notice than it is that the controls are fine but 1/10 players sucked but would rather fault the game than themselves.

Revolutionaryloser:
I think I should let you know none of what you just said means anything to normal people.

*headscratch*

Anyone who has ever liked a game or a franchise (not even exclusive to video games) would understand that just fine. Major changes to the canon of a franchise are generally a pretty darn big deal for any other game. So why does it not make sense in the very specific case of Zelda that, if the game's story and world are radically altered by the events of Skyward Sword, that this would probably hold some significance to people who play the game or enjoy the franchise?

Did the prequels in Star Wars not mean any major changes to the canon of the original trilogy? And if not, have you told the fans about it yet? 'cuz they're being awfully loud and whiny if, as you suggest, new additions to a franchise do not affect the overall franchise canon in any radical way that people would care about.

One line in, and I'm already wondering if you're purposefully being dense for the sake of amusement, but I'll play along.

Zelda is a bloody videogame it is not a religion. The plot and the "timeline" in Zelda are not some profound and clever wonder of literary architecture. Everybody knows that Zelda's plots are simplistic in nature and that the timeline rubbish is just some ludicrous marketing gig Nintendo set up to make the games a bit more appealing and honestly even Nintendo are incapable of making a proper excuse that makes any sort of bloody sense.

I'll agree with that.

No, seriously, I will.

I never made the claim that it's some sort of literary masterpiece, nor did I say that it's anything other than an ordinary game. You're the one who put those words in my mouth, presumably in an attempt to discredit me as a mere "fanboy". Unfortunately, I never claimed to be addicted to Zelda as a franchise. I've played mostly only the console ones. OoT, TP, recently SS. I've dabbled a bit in the handhelds but it's not my bag of chips. To use the Yahtzee defense, "I just like fun games", that's all.

As a matter of fact, I personally think the timeline they use is a bunch of hogwash that even the devs don't really reference. But for those who care about it, it's a pretty big deal, so I'm trying to accommodate those people.

But in any case, to deny that the changes to the story are not significant is pretty ignorant, and shows that you really don't know what you're talking about. The main villain is different, the world is pretty radically different, several major NPCs were adjusted or added wholesale. In most any other franchise, we call that a "new game", so why doesn't it count in Zelda's case? Is it because the two main protagonists are still in it? Guess what? Lots of major franchises keep their lead characters, it's actually pretty common to do so (except in modern FPS games where it wouldn't fit). Is it because the game plays kind of similarly? That's common in most franchises too.

So here's what I'd like from those of you who like to beat the drum of sameness: what exactly does a game require from one iteration to the next to be considered "its own game"? I'll accept it in list or paragraph form, but I think we need to iron out what exactly Zelda is doing "wrong" that all of these other big franchises are doing "right" to get a free pass. It's fairly safe to say that the differences between OoT and TP, or TP and SS, are probably more vast than the differences between two modern FPS titles in the same franchise, or even some other action-adventure titles. So what is it precisely that Zelda as a franchise needs to do to "prove itself" different with each new game?

As you obviously haven't even read Yahtzee's review before slagging it off (hipocrisy, much?)

It's spelled "hypocrisy", darling, and it doesn't mean what you apparently think it means, but do go on.

I'll remind you Yahtzee stated quite clearly that Windmaker was a good game, different, fresh, memorable and a step in the right direction. So no, Yahtzee us not of the opinion that ecery Zelda game ever is the same. He just doesn't like Skyward Sword for all the reasons stated in the review he wrote so people could read it. Don't mention it.

Yes he is. He is repeatedly quoted as saying (in his own reviews) that every Zelda game since OoT has been the same game repackaged. Do I need to pull specific quotes out of his reviews, or are you capable of finding them on your own? It was said both in his last Zero Punctuation (the SS review) and also in his TP review, just for starters.

I watched his review (not read, as Extra Punctuation is not an actual review but rather a recap of Yahtzee's thoughts and opinions, and it usually is directly tied with whatever he reviewed in Zero Punctuation the previous week). I also read his thoughts on this Extra Punctuation. He insisted that we "prove him wrong", but that's just it. He's the one who started the "flame war" by saying it's a bad game, and naturally people took offense and expected him to defend his accusations. And he couldn't. At the end of the day, he instead picked a handful of very weak points, threw them at us and said "prove me wrong". And I pointed out in my post that, indeed, I had no intention of disagreeing with those points. The problem I had with his review (and with his followup in Extra Punctuation) was that despite continuing to make the "same game" claim, he refuses to provide reasons to back it up. He just throws a bunch of unrelated points at people and tries to pin it back on them, like THEY are the ones who just don't get it. Well no, you made the statements to start with and it's YOUR job to provide a reason for those statements. Otherwise no one has to regard your opinion with any sort of weight, really, in which case they'll just listen to the opinions of other reviewers (ones who explain themselves) instead. The only reason his point of view bothers me is that it keeps pushing this notion that Zelda doesn't ever change from game to game, which is measurably false.

And even if it didn't change from game to game, who cares? People bitch that new FPS games are identical to their last iterations, yet they still sell a bazillion copies....why exactly should people listen to the minority of whiny detractors if people are perfectly happy buying the same game over and over? I don't like rebuying the same game, myself, but other people are fine with it....so why does it matter? Why is it that people have such a problem with that anyways?

(Hint: This is the part where you ignore all the stuff I just said and keep on whining.)

Don't need to. Everything you said is rather self-defeating and ridiculous all by itself, so I didn't even really have to bother replying to you at all. I could have just pulled a Jon Stewart: quote what you said and then cover my head with my hands in mock depression. But no, I decided that wasn't the appropriate or mature way to conduct a conversation, even though it seems obvious to me that you have no interest in being mature about this.

Revolutionaryloser:

sockpuppettherapy:
Does Yahtzee normally complain about dual analog controls for FPSes? Because if anything, THOSE are decidedly poor controls compared to keyboard and mouse or (funny enough) motion controls.

Actually I thought about that a lot recently. When Sony introduced the dual analog controls with the game Ape Escape it really was a step forward. It gave you more control, the game was much more fluid and more fun. Since then, analog controls are literally indispensable. The precision and speed you can attain with them most games (platformers, beat-em-ups, driving/sports games for example) is a joy for all. Of course, FPSs should probably bre played on PC (I don't like FPSs or mouse controls personally) but it is only natural that not every technology is suited for every need. However, analog controls are proof of how technology evolves and how what's useful (analog, triggers, N-controllers (in my prediction)) stays while what isn't goes.

I'm not exactly sure "useful" as much as just simply "adopted as the norm."

Dual analogs, particular for FPSes on consoles, are a terrible idea. Specifically the second analog. Evolution being dictated by quality alone would assume that someone would have come up with a better control scheme than that (such as using a trackball for the second analog).

The point here is that Yahtzee, for whatever complaints about motion controls, is less an issue of quality and more an issue of preference. If this was an issue of quality, I'm more inclined to see why he doesn't whine about every first person perspective game that uses dual analog sticks and make a sticking point about how that representation is utterly terrible. And in this case, there's a reason: people simply got used to the idea. But even if you get used to sleeping on a turd, it still means you're sleeping on a turd.

I don't waggle the controller like a maniac trying to get it to work for any Wii game. I didn't have to do that with Twilight Princess, and I sure didn't have to do it with Skyward Sword. I also didn't experience this "one second delay" that he's been complaining about. Then again, I was using a standard def TV, so maybe that had something to do with it.

And the reality of this is, how seriously do I take this guy, or is he just getting paid to be a whining wanker and found one pet peeve that he will never grow to accept?

I hate to say this, but Ben's credibility goes down a notch when his contemporary interests seem only casual GTA clones and mainstream FPS.

All's good and well with having a culture of graphic adventures, add in Sands of Time and Silent Hill 2 too, but that's his infancy where everything's always gold cast. From what he plays now, however, he wouldn't be a better connoisseur than most xbox live users afraid of anything but the main cashcow franchises.

Personally I believe that you've got to take a break from the onslaught of US gaming clones once in a while and take a dive in the japanese market. There's plenty of cloning in there too, on second thought :), but the batch's different at least. Shortcomings of recent Zeldas or JRPGs fall into context like that and broad generalizations lose meaning (so many jokes about JRPGs cliches, but no raised eyebrow for the western market being 90% about shooting people).

OuroborosChoked:

I refer you to a post I made on the original video. Namely:

"I swing my Wiimote and I get blocked. Link's arm ricochets. Mine doesn't. Mine keeps going. So I have to move my arm back to the starting position before I can re-position my arm for try #2. In doing so, I end up swinging the sword again from the wrong location.

Why would you do that instead of trying to slash from the opposite direction right away? Sure, you might get blocked, but it feels more natural.

The flying controls are painful. In the default hand position, it's very difficult to tilt down enough to dive. Wrists don't bend that way. The same goes for bomb rolling. If I want to roll a bomb, I have to move my hand position, point the Wiimote down, then flick and hope the system actually registers it as a flick, not an "I'm returning to neutral position", as it often does.

You move your whole arm down, not the wrist. Jeez, that's just plain painful to think about.

Then there's the harp. I swear I must've played the harp performance about THIRTY times. Every time I started, my hand's position was in a different place... and no matter how carefully I moved my Wiimote, Link's hand would always slide half-way back in the other direction. To clarify:

I swing right -> Link strums right
I hold my arm steady and still at the right -> Link starts strumming BACK TO THE LEFT.
My arm hasn't moved. AT ALL.

Wait, did you actually move your arm across the T.V.? Why didn't you try strumming back and forth like you really would with a harp? Or were you too busy harping about learning a new control set to notice?

How am I supposed to control a game accurately when the controls don't respond to my inputs? It's like playing DDR with a steering wheel!

That doesn't work. I've tried it. The wheel just doesn't register the same motions.

Oh yes, and the recalibration. EVERY TIME I use a B-button item (that blowing vase thing, the slingshot, flying scarab thing, etc.), when I press the B-button, the controls orient by where my Wiimote was pointing when I pressed the button... which often means Link's going to be spinning around in circles until I press Down on the D-Pad.

So you knew what the cause of it was, pointing away from the screen. . .and you never once, not once in the whole 40-60 hours of gameplay, thought to point your wiimote at the screen FIRST?

Would ANY of this happen on a traditional controller?

NO. And that's why motion controls SUCK. The End."

I think that's why you just don't even want to try. See, the problem with motion controls is that they take a little bit of this magical thing called "effort" and "care". You may not be familiar with these notions from the confines of your happy place where you've adamantly locked yourself up in. Come, venture forth into the outside world with us. It's fun. I promise.

Actually, that's not a fetch quest. That's grinding. A fetch quest IS:

"any quest where someone has told you what you need to find"

That. Go there, grab that, and bring it here. I'll give you some sort of compensation for doing so. A fetch quest: defined. How you've gotten it confused with grinding for loot drops is beyond me.

I like how you arbitrarily skipped over the one spot where I mentioned that calling these fetch quests was like calling Mario an RPG because technically you couldn't say I'm wrong under the same justification. That was my favorite part.

It's not even really padding

Yes it is. It's arbitrarily extending the length of a quest by adding busywork to it. Busywork, might I add, that adds no depth or comparable reward to the quest. Take the Hero's song bit where you have to swim around for the notes. Why? I've got the fully powered up Master Sword already. Why do I have to prove myself AGAIN? It's not like I had to find lost items. The Water Dragon specifically scatters the notes ON PURPOSE just to waste your time. PADDING. Because the game has nothing else to do but make you faff about, to borrow a phrase...

Oh no! A quest is arbitrarily extending the length of gameplay with actual WORK!? Why would I want this? Why can't the puzzle just be solved FOR me? Why do I have to PLAY the game? You know what else is bullshit in this game? DOORS. Why are all the damn doors locked. Why can't they just be UNLOCKED for me? I mean, it's just arbitrary and extending the length of gameplay superficially. Grrrr, Nintendo! How dare you make me solve things!

Nope. See above. Drastic change? Yes. New baddies? No. New areas? No. This game is an exercise in retreading.

Metroid is an example of retreading. And I love every second of it because I get to find the things I missed out on earlier and I get new enemies and I have fun. What's your excuse?

Utterly useless that it is...

Now WAIT just a sec-

...Oh, I'm not saying it's not functional. It is.

. . .Then why are you even still talking about it?

Having to hike all the way back to another area for one minor item that I won't ever use again IS padding. It adds no fun to the game. Most egregiously, if I come across an item I know I'm going to need later, I often CAN'T pick it up until the game tells me I have to go ALL THE WAY BACK to pick it up[. . .skiiiiiiiiiiiiip. . .]hoose my landing area, Fi, Thank you, sit through the falling animation, walk to the area I left five minutes ago, and complete the quest. No reward beyond being allowed to continue going forward.

five minutes

five

You DO understand the point of padding is generally to add in meaningful game time, like five HOURS right? Anyone remember the upside down portion of Castlevania Symphony of the Night? Or even Castlevania 2 where you had to grind hearts to purchase equipment? Anyone?

Zelda is abound as the game masterfully places you at the start of the maze you need to be at

I just love this quote. It's ridiculous and nonsensical. Zelda is abound... with what? As? That doesn't follow "abound". And the game is masterful at putting you at the beginning of mazes? Woo-hoo! What a triumph! They can put you at "START". How clever of them!

I love how you misquoted me purposefully and then made a fuss about it. This is what I said.

where it is AND IN THIS ASPECT ZELDA IS ABOUND as the game masterfully places you at the start of the maze you need to be at with subtle clues

I will however give to you the fact that it is indeed missing a comma due to a style I implemented explained a point further down.

Oh, wait, there was something else in there, wasn't there? Right right.

Yes, Zelda IS deceptively creative at placing you at the beginning of long winding labyrinths without most people noticing. I've noticed often that people praise A Link to the Past for being so exploration based, but if you start up a game, you'll notice that it's actually just a really long linear path that has many branching elements in it that gives the illusion of freedom where there is none. Take for example the middle of the game, the start of the Dark World section. You start on top of the Pyramid of Power and must explore from there. If you go north, you'll find your path is blocked by a giant rock, and a hookshot puzzle. If you go to the south, your path is blocked by the mallet pegs that prevent you from traveling to the next area. So your ONLY option is to go up to the East Palace counterpart and solve the dungeon. When you get out, the area to the South is open up to you, but Kakariko is blocked off, and so is the desert, so you only have the option of exploring the area around your house, the lake, and of course, going to the next dungeon, cause dungeon 5 in the lake is off limits, and most people on their first try probably haven't found the flippers yet. Then when you beat THAT dungeon and get the hookshot, your choices no include solving the hookshot puzzle, you can not jettison yourself across the formerly inaccessible hookshot puzzle and continue on to. . .the Lost woods and Kakariko village. And at that point, you have the ability to do a minor sequence break by skipping the Lost Woods and going straight for dungeon 4, but then what's the point? All you've done is skipped ONE dungeon. And you might be able to grab the flute and skip over dungeon five, but all you've done is a minor sequence break because once you get to Kakariko village, every area save death mountain is explored. Twice.

Really, it's not so much different from Skyward Sword, because you're exploring areas to find dungeons and items, but the difference is, they separated the areas cleanly so now you can't spend 10 hours. . .oh, wait, I already MADE this metaphor. Wow, looks like everything kinda makes sense doesn't it?

Quote: You, in the future. You said:

No! It DOESN'T MAKE SENSE HUEHUEHUEHUEHUE

In the words of Geese, "PREDICTABRE"

Are you still defending Zelda? So it's masterfully linear... which is a negative holdover... from another unrelated genre? Whaaa?

Sorry, I ACTUALLY meant that the word "Linear" is a hold over from gaming critic's arsenal of made up marketing buzz words on loan from the FPS industry, not that ZELDA is bad for being linear. Because honestly, it isn't. Some of the best games are completely one direction, no branching at all. Some gameplay design is actually created around the idea of a player pushing through from one direction and one direction only. It's actually pretty masterful when witnessed in action. Example: Castlevania III, Mega Man X, Contra 3, etc.

I don't know anyone who's made this complaint. Really. Who are you arguing against here? Yourself, apparently...

Metaphor isn't your strong suit, is it?

Ok, I've been nice about this so far, but GRAMMAR. Are you six years old? Do you know what a run-on sentence is? Jesus...

Okay, I apologize deeply for this. See, when I wrote this, I decided to do it in Zero punctuation style and try to make as many sentences run on as long as I possibly could without anybody noticing or being none-the-wise. But sadly, I cannot compete with Yahtzee as I'm sure his punctuation-deleting skills are so far advanced he doesn't even capitalize or use apostrophes, and that has nothing to do with run on sentences!

I'll leave the clever grammar and snarky wit to the professional from now on, I promise! And I might be willing to cut Yahtzee a little bit of slack too.

Anyway: So it's a rare moment when she interrupts... except when it happens entering a new area? So either you're admitting that it happens a lot or that there aren't that many new areas. Either way, your statement is backfiring again.

Fi is a horrible, unnecessary character. She adds nothing to the game. In fact, the game would be VASTLY improved if she were removed. Instead of her doing the exposition when you get a new powerup (that I always ignore anyway), just have some mystical voice of the sacred flame or whatever do the explaining. Let the rest of the game do the explaining naturally through character dialogue... WHICH IT DOES ANYWAY. Fi just REPEATS everything you just heard. She provides NO new information.

Oh, she does talk often, but what I meant with the entering room comment is that she often only pops up when you're otherwise not engaged with the game, like when you enter a room and there's that cutscene where it pans over the entire room? Or at the end of conversations with other characters. And yeah, she repeats other people's conversations. . .in summery. And then she adds new info on top of that. It rarely even takes more than one text box, maybe even two, to summarize everything.

Master, we have to do what this guy said and FIND THE KEY.

I hope you don't mind, but I believe the keys will be easier to find with this ability I've just now given you to make your quest easier. If you want it that is. And also, you should search the area over there, because that's where they most likely are.

Oh no, 2, 3 more text boxes, one a summery and two are new info about abilities I've just gained, on top of a dialogue heavy game in the middle of a cutscene with a character whom I've been talking with? What. Ever. Shall. I. Do.

Five unnecessary, game-interrupting seconds. EVERY TIME.

game-interrupting seconds.

game-interrupting

You literally don't even stop moving. Not only is that statement a lie, it also shows that you're stretching for things.

Because you can just hit A and *poof* there goes the text with Navi. It doesn't gradually scroll across the screen at glacial speed like it does with Fi.

I actually meant that Fi is a gentle sounding tone that can be quite easily ignored especially if you turn off the visual for the wiimote symbol on the gamescreen. Navi makes loud annoying sounds that force your attention to her, has a BIG flashing button, and literally kidnaps your C^ button, which you use to look around the room with and is actually a big fucking deal considering, and essentially forces you, at some point in time, to listen to her.

I can ignore Fi if I want to because I don't have to press her button except when absolutely necessary.

Except he hit the nail on the head with this one. You can't write off his points because you can overlook them or because you don't want to acknowledge them. He's not raging at Zelda without warrant. He's giving it the thrashing it DESERVES. This game is just not very good. Get over it. If you can and you still enjoy it, more power to you.

No, he didn't. All he did was take some MINOR and NONEXISTENT grievances with the game, then exaggerated them for a very poor comedic effect. I mean, look, there's problems with the game that CAN'T be overlooked. Real legitimate problems in design choice on the creators part and should be improved upon in sequels and even other games. For example:

--The Bird never gets a name, and in fact, and entire early portion of the story is devoted to the game telling you how special this bird is. The central mechanic for which this game is named after all stems from the bird and the theme of the sky and flying, but it plays such a minor part once you get to the land that it's completely forgotten about and ignored in favor for the story of genesis in the land of Hyrule. The only reason the bird was special and marked as such was to shoehorn in the design of the Hylian Shield as a sort of beginning tale.
--Half of the items are never utilized properly in a setting I've come to expect from a Zelda game and it's a huge issue. The whip is never used outside of the dungeon it's found except in one or two minor puzzles designed to make you remember it was "there", and doesn't even stun enemies, let alone do any damage to them. It could have been combined with the Clawshots and made one GOOD item instead of one mediocre item and one "I WISH THIS WAS SO MUCH BETTER" item. The same problem was had all over as the only useful items were the bombs and arrows. There was no need for the slingshot except as a tool for situations revolving around "I don't wanna give the players the bow and arrows yet cause it's too powerful. . .but I really want a ranged-attack weapon puzzle here. So let's give them this." Everything was designed around the Sword play which made for a fun time, yeah, but the items could have all just been upgrades in power and nobody would have noticed.
--Time traveling plots confuse and confound many players and upset an already delicate timeline issue within the series, and doesn't established set rules, as for some reason, this game wasn't using the 4th and 5th dimensions like the timeline of Ocarina of Time was using.
--Two of the hearts were only obtainable by holding onto items, which creates a very poorly executed illusion of "Power for trading something useful" (in this case, pouch slots).
--The end game felt like it was going to continue on more, but by the time I got there, all the sidequests were done, and I felt like there was so much more that could have been done with that. They left a lot of potential space unused in the endgame, and so many more things could have been created and resolved by the time I started the last temple to the Point of No Return before the last boss.

Really, I mean, this is all off the top of my head, and I'd easily give this game an A grade.

But this review?

--"Oh, I hate the controls, so therefore they suck."
--"Man, I hate having to read in this game."
--"What? Why do I have to PLAY this game? This sucks."
--"Aw, c'mon, man, I NEED those precious five minutes back! ARGH!"

I don't mind critizism to my new favorite game, but at least come up with something that actually have value other then telling the creators of the game "I don't want to have to apply myself to anything".

First of all, "childish antiques"? Ha.

Obviously, I refer to the the classic masterpieces of youth, such as "Scribble-on-the-fridge" -Age 3, and other such works as "Other scribble marking a slight increase in the hand-eye-coordination skill" -Age 3 again.

Second, he didn't turn it into a debate: the fanboys (and girls, as the case may be) did. He gave Skyward Sword no special treatment and treated it the same as every other game he reviews. And that'll always set off the fanboys...

If by same treatment, you mean how he didn't even try playing the game and just nitpicked at anything that caught his immediate eye, then yes, probably. If you mean that he applied himself and tried his best to match what the game was expecting out of him, then I have some bad news for you.

That's just not true. You know how I know? I felt the same way about Skyward Sword five hours in. And I paid full price for the game. I have nothing to gain from "hating on" the game. I expected a joyous romp through Hyrule... instead, I got this bland, samey mess. Go ahead and disagree with Yahtzee if you feel you must... but don't call him a liar. You've not disproved a single one of his points. You attempted to spin them in a more positive light, yes... but you've not proven he fabricated their existence. Your entire post, like Skyward Sword, has been a massive waste of time for everyone who has had to slog their way through it. And also like Skyward Sword, it could've been done better and shorter, too...

Well excuuuuuuuse me, princess.

I really don't get the craze over Zelda either. I grew up when Ocarina of Time came out and I watched my cousin play it and I tried and got decently far and honestly I wasn't enjoying any of it. To this very day I hear fans say how amazing it is, I just don't see it.

You're a hero questing to save the world, okay great, but take one look at the residents of Hyrule and tell me they're worth saving in the game. They're all goofy, mindless or just plain dumb besides Malon (farm girl), and a few select others. The world isn't WORTH saving, I wanted to see the lands cleansed, take the farm girl join Gannon and rule. Even at the time I felt no connection with the game.

Twilight Princess was a WHOLE different story, the characters had feelings, had character and you felt connected and real progress in Link becoming stronger and Midna just being a good support character.

Other Zelda games besides TP I just never got behind, I hear lots of praise, I played them when they came out and just, nothing. Though Windwaker did have a really pretty style to it.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Skyward Sword

Prove me wrong, fans.

Read Full Article

I shall!

*Big Inhale

I can't because it's your opinion which you're completely entitled to as anyone else is and I absolutely loved the game and it has become my new favorite game of all time which isn't really that surprising since the Zelda series is my favorite game series of all time not saying that others aren't good god forbid as I have enjoyed many hours on other games but I really felt that this one blew me away with almost everything especially the art style and the motion controls which I really don't see why some have been saying they're unresponsive as they have worked perfectly for me and the art style just really clicked with me and while I almost completely disagree with you except for the concept of Fi being annoying I still greatly enjoy you and your show and look forward to future episodes as well as enjoying past ones.

Whoo, hold on, gotta catch my breath...............so did you get all that?

Crono1973:

DarthFennec:

Crono1973:
So the controls worked properly MOST of the time. If you had been using a standard controller, they would have worked ALL of the time.

I was never comparing it to a standard controller. All I said was that they worked great 90% of the time, which is pretty much unheard of for a Wii game. Even though they didn't work as well as they might have if we were using something other than a Wiimote, Skyward Sword is still some of the best and most fluid use of the Wiimote I've ever seen. And I think that's a positive.

Ok, well people who are complaining about the controls probably are comparing it to standard controllers and let's face it, the Wii Mote is inferior to standard controllers. Ever try playing with the sun shining in?

I'm not necessarily saying it isn't inferior. I'm just saying Nintendo did a hell of a good job given the restrictions they had previously put on themselves.

CriticKitten:
-snip-

Well, well done. I told you to ignore everything I just said and frankly you exceeded my expectations. I'm not going to argue with you if you are going to use an imaginary review that you made up rather than actually go and watch (and read) what Yahtzee said. What did Skyward Sword have to do to be better? From what I understand:
1) Use what Wind Waker got right instead of throwing it all in the bin.
2) Come up with original game mechanics that put a spin on the gameplay making the game feel new and not just a remake of another game. (Just to clarify a spin implies that it makes playing the whole game a different experience, not just add on one or two items that have a few uses in the game but otherwise don't create real gameplay possibilities.)Now is when you say "but what about motion controls?" and to that I say "I should have clarified that the mechanics were supposed to make the game different in a fun way. My bad. But then again I assumed I was talking to a functioning human being not a brain damaged dolphin." If you want an example of what I meant to say, take Majora's Mask. It introduced an insane amount of useful items and 3 new forms that Link had to use. For the majority of the game you could find more than one solution to any problem thanks to a wide arsenal. Even travelling was totally different now that you could use goron form if you wanted which was a kickass form to boot.
3) Actually follow the "Zelda formula". Being original and going contrary to common sense are different concepts. Skyward Sword seems to forget how a Zelda dungeon should work and how the game should progress. This is not because change is bad but because reorganizing some things does not make any sense, especially if you are going to substitute them with things that don't work or are just repetitive boring grinds and fetchquests that don't give anything to the player.
4) Not be a Zelda game. I imagine this idea will have a hard time getting through but I'll say it anyway. There really isn't any reason for Nintendo to continue the Zelda series. It has gone on long enough and may be impossible to squeeze anything of worth out of the franchise. If Nintendo had the balls to spend money on completely new franchises they would have my appreciation. I'm not saying they never create new franchises but in the last decade their innovation drive has grinded to a near halt and any new franchises they have churned out are only low budget decorations and not memorable games. Pokemon was the last example of innovation and whatever your stanceis on that game it did innovate.

sockpuppettherapy:

Revolutionaryloser:

sockpuppettherapy:
Does Yahtzee normally complain about dual analog controls for FPSes? Because if anything, THOSE are decidedly poor controls compared to keyboard and mouse or (funny enough) motion controls.

Actually I thought about that a lot recently. When Sony introduced the dual analog controls with the game Ape Escape it really was a step forward. It gave you more control, the game was much more fluid and more fun. Since then, analog controls are literally indispensable. The precision and speed you can attain with them most games (platformers, beat-em-ups, driving/sports games for example) is a joy for all. Of course, FPSs should probably bre played on PC (I don't like FPSs or mouse controls personally) but it is only natural that not every technology is suited for every need. However, analog controls are proof of how technology evolves and how what's useful (analog, triggers, N-controllers (in my prediction)) stays while what isn't goes.

I'm not exactly sure "useful" as much as just simply "adopted as the norm."

Dual analogs, particular for FPSes on consoles, are a terrible idea. Specifically the second analog. Evolution being dictated by quality alone would assume that someone would have come up with a better control scheme than that (such as using a trackball for the second analog).

The point here is that Yahtzee, for whatever complaints about motion controls, is less an issue of quality and more an issue of preference. If this was an issue of quality, I'm more inclined to see why he doesn't whine about every first person perspective game that uses dual analog sticks and make a sticking point about how that representation is utterly terrible. And in this case, there's a reason: people simply got used to the idea. But even if you get used to sleeping on a turd, it still means you're sleeping on a turd.

I don't waggle the controller like a maniac trying to get it to work for any Wii game. I didn't have to do that with Twilight Princess, and I sure didn't have to do it with Skyward Sword. I also didn't experience this "one second delay" that he's been complaining about. Then again, I was using a standard def TV, so maybe that had something to do with it.

And the reality of this is, how seriously do I take this guy, or is he just getting paid to be a whining wanker and found one pet peeve that he will never grow to accept?

I would like to see how that technology is implemented into a controller although my guess is it would be very difficult indeed. Of course, me not being and FPSs fan have to ask. Is there really any problem as long as everybody is using the same controller? The slower panning in consoles can be seen as a handicap, but then again your soldier turning 180 instantaneously is not extremely realistic so having a limit to the maximum speed with which you can turn is not that terrible.

I would like to see a better alternative than analog sticks in the future but for the life of me I can't envision something more efficient. I wouldn't say that they are a bad addition to our resources. I mean, ever since Nintendo popularized the analog stick they've been used in all their games while the d-pad lay forgotten.

Nate-ndo:

Revolutionaryloser:

Nate-ndo:

You've missed the point by a wide margin. My point is that it's impossible for the controls to work (as claimed by about 90% of reviews) and to also not work as claimed by the others. There are only two two explanations 1) one of the groups is lying (tinfoil hat) or 2) that they do work but some subset of players will fail at using them. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the decision to use controls that some won't excel at, but to claim they don't work or are laggy is dishonest. There's no feasible explanation to how I (or IGN, or Edge, or Eurogamer, etc) played for 40 hours and believe the controls work if that is truly not the case.

I think you fail to understand that the criteria for "working" will very case by case. Some people are just more demanding. For example, when something calls itself and claims to give you "control" I do not expect it to make me compromise on what was supposed to already be established. If a device is designed to let me control something, I expect it be effective at giving me the maximum amount of control possible. If however, it does not give me 100% control, it is defective and has failed in it's only purpose.

I suppose a lot of people are not as stringent as me in their demands of a controller, yet I suspect it is in part due to their familiarity to previous incarnations of faulty controlling devices

And I agree with what that other guy said. Cognitive dissonance, you have it.

Just so we're clear, you're claiming that the vast majority of players and reviewers that said the controls worked adequately and as intended are confused and/or lying, correct? Cognitive dissonance is claiming that the controls didn't work, and none of us noticed but finished the game anyway even with broken controls. I suppose we willed the game into completion.

Also, your post suggests that you think it's more believable that the controls are broken and 9/10 players simply didn't notice than it is that the controls are fine but 1/10 players sucked but would rather fault the game than themselves.

I would like to know where you heard those claims. I have never said any such thing. I my post however, I state my opinion quite clearly. Also, I think you need to take suplementary English classes as you have problems relating sentences to other sentences. I clearly related my cognitive dissonance comment to the poster above me who was referring to how Nintendo fanboys were confronted with 2 fundamental truths. One of them being that everything Nintendo does is perfect and the other that a lot of Nintendo's games are subpar. What that had to do with the controllers debacle escapes me. I hope we can keep on corresponding when you are armed with greater comprehension of the English language.

You're pretty much spot on with Skyward Sword Yahtzee, but I still insist that it's one of the best Zelda games, and the exploration is no where near as bad as you make it out to be... granted I would have liked a more immersive world though. Plus I actually enjoyed the motion controls, made me feel more a part of the game and it's not as irresponsive as you say (at least, not for me).

Fi is annoying, yes, I can't defend that, I did want to stab her in the face every 5 minutes for telling me how to dowse for items for the 50th time, telling me I'm low on hearts, that the obvious is occuring etc.

But hang on... one thing about this article does make me wonder!

I too loved Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, but to say you like them and then slam into Skyward Sword for pointless repition? Did your versions miss out the Tingle Quest in WW, where you had to have more rupees than you could physically carry to buy mandatory maps, causing you to hunt for 200 rupess after each map? Or the Wolf Sections in TP, where you had to collect tears just to continue the game? If not, isn't slamming Skyward Sword for pointless repitition just a little hypocritical?

And if your versions did miss them out... can I borrow them? :P

What this thread has and always would become;

image

Zelda is a DEEPLY flawed franchise by this point and you can either look past its flaws and usual Nintendo baggage or you can't. Personally i think its a great game, but at the same time i hate it for some of the shit it pulls. I've had a love-hate relationship with Nintendo for years now and to be honest i do enjoy their games but at the same time their whole design culture makes me want to vomit with rage sometimes. Its a mixture of capturing that old spark of utter genius and sometimes just costing without changing a thing/ sliding backwards/ needlessly shoddy design. It paradoxically sometimes happens at the same time.

Zelda is not perfect, many fans hold it as a kind of 'sacred cow' game. Nintendo can still make quality products but the need to move on and the need to actually do something new is pretty crushing by this point. Yes i know the whole motion controls thing but all we got from that was a load of broken games and some surface waggle. The games themselves stayed pretty much clones of their previous incarnations.

Revolutionaryloser:

Nate-ndo:

Mahoshonen:

Wow. So people that have played shooters and platforms successfully on other systems now "lack the physical reflexes/hand-eye coordination" to play wii games. That is probably the most absurd explaination I've ever heard.

I have a different theory: You have cognitive disonance and are ready to excuse and ignore any flaw because it's easier than admitting your tribe is not the best that's out there.

I'm not just talking out of my ass. I bought into the excitement for Master of Orion 3, a game now universally considered so bad it killed the franchise. I bought the game on release and for 2-3 weeks I was convinced that it was the greatest game of all time. Eventually, the flaws were so obvious I just couldn't ignore them (or more accurately, I stopped playing for a while and realized I had absolutely no desire to start playing again).

Now, MoO3 is an undead fetus next to Skyward Sword, so that's not the comparison I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that the human brain will go to great lengths to justify, excuse, and ignore any fact that contradicts what it has beforehand established as a fundamental truth.

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," explores the phenomenon in greater detail, but it's the basis for why people hold onto opinions that in hindsight seem irrational. It's why a man as brilliant as Einstein could refuse to accept Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle because "God does not play dice."

You've missed the point by a wide margin. My point is that it's impossible for the controls to work (as claimed by about 90% of reviews) and to also not work as claimed by the others. There are only two two explanations 1) one of the groups is lying (tinfoil hat) or 2) that they do work but some subset of players will fail at using them. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the decision to use controls that some won't excel at, but to claim they don't work or are laggy is dishonest. There's no feasible explanation to how I (or IGN, or Edge, or Eurogamer, etc) played for 40 hours and believe the controls work if that is truly not the case.

I think you fail to understand that the criteria for "working" will very case by case. Some people are just more demanding. For example, when something calls itself and claims to give you "control" I do not expect it to make me compromise on what was supposed to already be established. If a device is designed to let me control something, I expect it be effective at giving me the maximum amount of control possible. If however, it does not give me 100% control, it is defective and has failed in it's only purpose.

I suppose a lot of people are not as stringent as me in their demands of a controller, yet I suspect it is in part due to their familiarity to previous incarnations of faulty controlling devices
image
image
image

And I agree with what that other guy said. Cognitive dissonance, you have it.

Gamecube controller faulty ?
No man,it's been my best controller ever, and believe me I have grabbed many on my hands.
Nintendo64's controller was good when I was a kid,but now that I'm a grown up my hands doesn't fit in the narrow spaces between the 3 elongated parts of it.

itsmeyouidiot:

Hal10k:

itsmeyouidiot:

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.

If you didn't notice them, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. It just means you didn't notice them, or didn't consider them to be flaws. Because you're a different person. Who has different opinions. That are different from Yahtzee's. Which are also different. Because you're different people.

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?

Um, he's a critic and a comedian, it's kind of his job. Also, is he not allowed to dislike certain things in games just because you don't dislike them?

Isn't the fact that you can point out all these differences to explain why Wind Waker is a better game then Skyward Sword proof that the formula is changing from you game to the next?

I'm not even sure I should reply, seeing as how it's rather obvious that not only do you refuse to discuss the game's merits in a mature fashion, but you're actually purposefully trying to provoke me (and it's not working, I deal with high schoolers on a daily basis so you're not going to get my goat, bro).

However, for the sake of clarifying my points, I'll do so.

Revolutionaryloser:
Well, well done. I told you to ignore everything I just said and frankly you exceeded my expectations. I'm not going to argue with you if you are going to use an imaginary review that you made up rather than actually go and watch (and read) what Yahtzee said.

As already established, I did read (and watch) exactly what Yahtzee said. And I addressed his individual points. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the game's merits....this is a failed attempt at a strawman, claiming that I "obviously" haven't watched his review, even though I make reference to a multitude of points that came directly from the Extra Punctuation page, indicating that I did indeed read it. You may as well give this one up, it's a lost cause. Not only have I read it, but I apparently read it better than you did. Not only did I watch his review, I seem to recall it better than you did. He states in both his TP and SS reviews that the games are "the same", and no amount of denial on your part changes this. The fact that he didn't address this point in Extra Punctuation tells me that he knows he CAN'T defend that argument (because he always ignores points that he can't respond to). So as far as I'm concerned, that war is already won, and you're just trying to start up the Battle of New Orleans, if I may be so bold as to use a historical analogy.

What did Skyward Sword have to do to be better? From what I understand:

I didn't ask that, either. For someone who is happy to claim that other people aren't interpreting the English language very well, you certainly don't interpret English very well yourself.

I asked what does any given Zelda game have to do to be considered a "different game". Not what Skyward Sword did wrong. Not to mention that all four of your points can be very easily boiled down to purely personal preference and not a one is an objective measurement of what the franchise has done wrong, but rather what YOU and Yahtzee personally do not like about it. Which are two different things entirely. But let's look at them in depth.

1) Use what Wind Waker got right instead of throwing it all in the bin.

Yes, because "just make the game more like Wind Waker" is a very clear, detailed, and objective point of view.

Or perhaps it's just Yahtzee's personal preference. It's so hard to tell the two apart, isn't it?

Personally, what little I saw of Wind Waker(having watched a friend play) was not to my liking. And indeed, anyone who disliked Wind Waker would probably dislike it if future iterations followed that format. That doesn't make them "wrong", it just means their opinion differs from yours.

It's also worth noting that, again, I asked what a Zelda game should do differently to be considered "different" with each iteration, and here you are telling Nintendo to make a game that just follows the footsteps of Wind Waker instead of OoT. That's not differentiation between titles, that's "I don't like the direction you took with Zelda, go back to this iteration and proceed along this path instead". That's a difference in opinion, nothing more.

2) Come up with original game mechanics that put a spin on the gameplay making the game feel new and not just a remake of another game. (Just to clarify a spin implies that it makes playing the whole game a different experience, not just add on one or two items that have a few uses in the game but otherwise don't create real gameplay possibilities.)Now is when you say "but what about motion controls?" and to that I say "I should have clarified that the mechanics were supposed to make the game different in a fun way. My bad. But then again I assumed I was talking to a functioning human being not a brain damaged dolphin." If you want an example of what I meant to say, take Majora's Mask. It introduced an insane amount of useful items and 3 new forms that Link had to use. For the majority of the game you could find more than one solution to any problem thanks to a wide arsenal. Even travelling was totally different now that you could use goron form if you wanted which was a kickass form to boot.

And Skyward Sword did not have this?

You note that changing "one or two items" is not sufficient. How about changing half of the inventory? Skyward Sword retains a few major weapons from OoT and TP. Clawshots/Hookshots, the Slingshot, the Bow, and Bombs (though in SS it's technically Bomb Flowers you're carrying and not bombs themselves, as the two have been compressed into one item in this game). The rest of the inventory consists of a magical device that blows wind, utilized for various functions, including the activation of some types of special switches and fans, and is required to defeat certain enemy types. Another new item is the Whip, which functions as a way to grab hold of various things, ranging from switches on the wall to posts that you can swing from to the Monster Horns that enemy monsters carry on their person. Then there's the Beetle, which allows for a handy airborne method of exploration and locating hidden switches, not to mention that when upgraded, it can pick up items and drop them on your unsuspecting foes, allowing you to avoid combat with careful strategic use. And that's ignoring the addition of potions that perform a variety of useful functions for you, as well.

And all of these items are used repeatedly outside of the dungeon you get them from, which was not the case in Twilight Princess. TP featured a literal ton of inventory items and then struggled to keep them all useful by the end of the game. Skyward Sword went in reverse: it chopped down the inventory drastically and made each item unique, then required their use more often. I definitely prefer this approach as it allows me to think of creative ways to use the few tools I have to solve the different problems in the game.

I recall one occasion in which I was stuck and couldn't figure out how to get through a locked door, and there was a monster behind it shooting arrows at me. It wasn't until my brother pointed out that the monster appeared to have a key on his belt that I got the idea to use my Whip to snag the key and continue onwards. That's a very interesting and unique application of a new tool, and it really engaged me in what was going on. In another place, there was a Bomb Flower sitting on a ledge, and I was supposed to only use it to clear out certain unreachable foes in the lava....instead, I carefully maneuvered it in such a way as to clear the entire room of enemies. These are all good practical applications of each item, sometimes even going beyond the developer's intentions. That's a patently good thing.

And that doesn't even begin to mention the implementation of an upgrade system to improve the quality of your items. Or the addition of a "durability" meter for your shield that forces you to learn the proper timing associated with the shield or risk breaking it (instead of previous games in which you could hide behind your shield indefinitely without pressing another button). Or the implementation of a stamina system that significantly limits your physical activities and adds additional difficulty to otherwise very "samey" areas, such as using stamina to run up steep hills, instead of climbing over and over and over to reach the top of a volcano (as you did in OoT). Or some of the other mechanical changes to the game. There is no shortage of differences between this and TP, or this and OoT. While I could certainly understand overlooking one or two of these changes or considering them to be "minor", you have to be in denial to ignore every single one.

Also, I would again point out that motion controls are, in fact, a subjective (not an objective) point. I actually liked the way most of the motion controls were implemented, because they created very unique and interesting ways to defeat monsters and solve problems. Introducing bosses and monsters whose defeat hinges on swinging the Wiimote a certain way is actually a pretty clever implementation of motion controls that adds significant depth to them. Unlike in TP, they don't feel as though they were tacked on....they actually fit the game and contribute to it in a positive manner. At least they do for me. As I established, this entire point hinges entirely on your opinion, and I happen to disagree with it.

3) Actually follow the "Zelda formula". Being original and going contrary to common sense are different concepts. Skyward Sword seems to forget how a Zelda dungeon should work and how the game should progress. This is not because change is bad but because reorganizing some things does not make any sense, especially if you are going to substitute them with things that don't work or are just repetitive boring grinds and fetchquests that don't give anything to the player.

My problem with this is that it's essentially saying that this Zelda game would have been "better" if it just did everything the same as previous games. I thought we were discussing how to make Zelda games different from each other.

I'll grant that some of the fetch quests are downright obnoxious and seem to have no particular point to them. I like that the game insists on having me revisit a lot of areas to find new dungeons, that's very much in the Zelda tradition. Being an errand boy to progress most certainly is not (unless you want Biggoron's Sword in OoT, of course). Prior games did have fetch quests but not to this degree, and that's one thing about SS that I'm not as keen about.

You'll have to tell me what you mean by grinding, though, because I can't recall an occasion in which I've had to grind for anything. At least, not in the traditional MMO sense of the word.

4) Not be a Zelda game. I imagine this idea will have a hard time getting through but I'll say it anyway. There really isn't any reason for Nintendo to continue the Zelda series. It has gone on long enough and may be impossible to squeeze anything of worth out of the franchise. If Nintendo had the balls to spend money on completely new franchises they would have my appreciation. I'm not saying they never create new franchises but in the last decade their innovation drive has grinded to a near halt and any new franchises they have churned out are only low budget decorations and not memorable games. Pokemon was the last example of innovation and whatever your stanceis on that game it did innovate.

I seem to recall people saying exactly the same thing prior to the release of Super Mario Galaxy. Or prior to the release of Twilight Princess. Isn't it odd how the franchises that are so very "dead" are still somehow completely alive and still selling more copies than ever before? Why is that, you may be wondering?

Simple: people still like it, and new generations of people who are just growing up in the gaming world still want to play these kinds of games.

You have to remember that these franchises have gotten old and their crowd has grown up. Many of us who grew up on Mario and Zelda and Sonic and Star Wars and Star Trek (and so on) are still interested in seeing more of them. And will continue to buy them regardless of the popular opinion. There's nothing actually wrong with that. People seem much too concerned about what other people enjoy, as if it's a cardinal sin to like something they don't. I, for one, think that modern FPS games have long since become stale and I have no interest in playing the newest Call of Battlefield-esque game. That doesn't mean the games are necessarily bad so much as they're not to my particular taste, and to get rid of them because I don't like them would be a disservice to those who do like them.

In addition, there are newer generations who did not grow up on these franchises, and they want to try them out. Is it wrong to keep creating these games so that newer generations can enjoy them as well? Must they deal with ancient graphics and old game systems just to experience the same fun we did? I don't believe so. Let them have access to newer games and keep those franchises going so that they can enjoy them, too.

Mind, I have nothing against the berating of bad games. If a game is truly so bad as to merit disapproval (looking at you, DNF), I've no problem with saying "this is tripe and it makes the industry look bad". But repeatedly saying it about every Zelda title, or Mario, or Sonic, or Halo, whatever your choice of franchise is....is just being dishonest with yourself. There's nothing wrong with these games, you just don't like them as they are. That's perfectly okay, it's fine to have a different opinion. Just don't make up ridiculous lies to back up your opinions. Be man enough to say "hey, I admit the game may be good but I just didn't like what this Zelda game did, I think it should go back to Wind Waker's style". That's perfectly fine and no one is going to bash you for it (or if they did, folks like me would happily defend your point of view). But if you're going to just lie and make excuses for your dislike, claiming that it's the game's fault you don't like it rather than it being your own personal tastes disagreeing with the game, then that's another matter entirely. I've met people who thought Portal was a bad game because it did things that they didn't like, and I happily discussed with them about the merits and pitfalls of the game, and we usually agree to disagree, but there's nothing wrong with differing opinions. It's when you blame the game for going against your personal tastes that you're just being silly.

CriticKitten:
-snip-

Look you don't seem to understand what the point of opinions and criticisms is so I don't really see a reason to continue this charade. Nothing is perfect and flawless and Skyward Sword certainly isn't. If you can't accept it then don't but don't expect everyone to share that mindset.

Mind, I have nothing against the berating of bad games. If a game is truly so bad as to merit disapproval (looking at you, DNF), I've no problem with saying "this is tripe and it makes the industry look bad". But repeatedly saying it about every Zelda title, or Mario, or Sonic, or Halo, whatever your choice of franchise is....is just being dishonest with yourself.

You just aren't prepared to face the subjective reality we find ourselves in. If you can only critisize something once it has been ascertained that it is objectively bad, then how do you ascertain that? Last I checked it was by critisizing it. There's a logical fallacy there, I think. So games are born good or bad? This was decided by some higher power? Games should be judged by criticism and even then not just by pointing out flaws does a game become bad because a) all games have flaws, face it and b)"bad" is not a factual statement, it's an opinion. If at any point you thought Yahtzee spoke fundamental truths you don't understand anything about Yahtzee or critics.

If we can't find what is wrong with a game, how can we improve upon it? That is the foundation of critics. There are a lot of things wrong with Skyward Sword. A lot of things. Things that at this point shouldn't be wrong with a Zelda game seeing as it has the benefit of a structure which has proven to work, a horde of gaming history it can use to improve itself upon and a lot of bloody money behind it. To play this game you have to spend anything between 80 to 120 dollars. That is a lot of money. Do you think that what Skyward Sword gives you in return is worth that? I don't think it is. I don't think you could rationally justify that decision. I can tell you I have played games which cost me absolutely nothing to play and were developed on a budget of about 10k and they surpass Skyward Sword by a longshot.

Some people seem scared to point out that a game that has had hundreds of millions dollars spent on it's development has flaws. Why? I really don't know. Because with that amount of money I would expect something far, far better. Far, far, far better. My expectations are just on a scale of magnitude even I can't quite grasp.

I am not scared of pointing out what is wrong in a so called "good" game and neither am I scared of pointing out what's good in a "bad" game. Some "critics" are very scared of doing this, partly because their salary and public image depend on them nodding in approval at the guys holding the money. Yahtzee finds himself in the priviledged position of being free to say what he really thinks of games and I am all ears and grateful that freedom of speech is still alive and struggling.

I agreed with the review.
I love Zelda and I count Twilight Princess as my favourite (And I played it well after OoT which I believe was my first Zelda game. My fave 2D Zelda game is Link's Awakening because there hasn't been a Zelda game with an ending so bittersweet since.)

I could stand the "Here we go again" style gameplay quite easilly because Nintendo always managed to find ways to make it interesting - usually involving an engaging story with a plot that carried some weight to it. It felt like you were chipping away at the evil plans of a villain just to find the villain hadn't even noticed you. Oh but now he has and he's gonna fuck yo shit up, dawg.
Skyward Sword didn't seem to have that, it was just you running after Zelda blindly not really knowing what was going on and just waiting for the game to bloody well explain it. It felt like I should have been playing as Zelda most of the way through.

And my god Fi is pointless. I knew right from the beginning that regardless of who you got as an assistant, it wouldn't top Midna. She had a brilliant character arc that helped you really connect with her and you enjoyed having her with you by the end. And saying goodbye felt very much like a loss. Nintendo wasn't going to beat that so I didn't go in expecting them to manage it. What I didn't anticipate was that they weren't even going to bloody try. People say Navi's annoying, but she at least had a personality. She was plucky and was always there to help you (vocally). Fi is just a robot. A completely boring, pointless and redundant buzzing in your ear and it was so disappointing. I expected nothing and I got less. I thought "Ah, they'll do the typical character arc where she slowly wakes up to emotions then becomes a formidible companion, yeah?" but after 3 dungeons she was still spouting the same pathetic bland dialogue so I just gave up on her.

On a far more personal note, I didn't enjoy Wind Waker at first. I sort of bought into the "Where are the green fields?" argument until it clicked. I got it. You got a sense of freedom they you hadn't had before. You go and sail places, you go exploring. Hey there's an island over there! Let's see what's on it! The only thing I thought they could do to improve on that was set it in my favourite place - the sky. I thought that's what we were going to get. Wind Waker in the sky. But...what the hell, Nintendo? You give us a huge sky full of, well, fuck all! I spent 20 minutes flying around (on a bird who is given all the hype of an important character but is simply a little go kart to ride on - at least Link's boat had a chat with you.) visiting this island and that island only to find rocks and grass and gave up on the whole idea of exploration.

On relfection though, Skyward Sword managed to do something that no other Zelda game has done to date.
It disappointed me.

Nate-ndo:

Mahoshonen:

Nate-ndo:
While it is impossible for the controls to be as bad as Yahtzee/GameSpot/etc claim and still have the majority of players/reviewers say they work near flawlessly, it's entirely possible for the controls to work near flawlessly but have a handful of players that merely suck at using them and blame the controls and not the operator. I don't think it's impossible to believe that there are a number of gamers who lack the physical reflexes/hand-eye coordination to be successful with motion controls.

Yes, that's right, I'm going there. It's the only explanation that reconciles the differences other than claiming that the majority is simply lying about their experiences.

Wow. So people that have played shooters and platforms successfully on other systems now "lack the physical reflexes/hand-eye coordination" to play wii games. That is probably the most absurd explaination I've ever heard.

I have a different theory: You have cognitive disonance and are ready to excuse and ignore any flaw because it's easier than admitting your tribe is not the best that's out there.

I'm not just talking out of my ass. I bought into the excitement for Master of Orion 3, a game now universally considered so bad it killed the franchise. I bought the game on release and for 2-3 weeks I was convinced that it was the greatest game of all time. Eventually, the flaws were so obvious I just couldn't ignore them (or more accurately, I stopped playing for a while and realized I had absolutely no desire to start playing again).

Now, MoO3 is an undead fetus next to Skyward Sword, so that's not the comparison I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that the human brain will go to great lengths to justify, excuse, and ignore any fact that contradicts what it has beforehand established as a fundamental truth.

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution," explores the phenomenon in greater detail, but it's the basis for why people hold onto opinions that in hindsight seem irrational. It's why a man as brilliant as Einstein could refuse to accept Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle because "God does not play dice."

You've missed the point by a wide margin. My point is that it's impossible for the controls to work (as claimed by about 90% of reviews) and to also not work as claimed by the others. There are only two two explanations 1) one of the groups is lying (tinfoil hat) or 2) that they do work but some subset of players will fail at using them. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the decision to use controls that some won't excel at, but to claim they don't work or are laggy is dishonest. There's no feasible explanation to how I (or IGN, or Edge, or Eurogamer, etc) played for 40 hours and believe the controls work if that is truly not the case.

You actually believe that most magazine or e-site reviewers are anything besides shills for large publishers and will almost never give their games a less-than-great review unless the game is truely awful?

If you answer yes, I would like to remind you that there is a Game Of The Year edition of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

As for why "9/10" players think the controls work fine, you do realize that number was pulled out of your ass. The internet is a wonderful thing, but it has a tendency to isolate people into like-minded groups. But let's assume that your "9/10" is correct. That doesn't correlate to the controls being good, because the sample population are people who bought this game and played it. Given that it has been 5 years since the wii was release, that means a lot of people aren't playing the game because they've already decided that the wii isn't a good system or have no interest in playing a Zelda game (I know that must rock your world view).

But even setting all that aside, saying "Most people believe X is true, ergo X is true" is a terrible arguement. See: Nazi Germany.

/godwin.

FAKE EDIT: If that example so offends you, then the notion that Jerry Sandusky is a saint. Up until this November, almost everyone who knew about Sandusky believed that (or convinced themselves enough to ignore evidence to the contrary).

I liked it, I thought their use of motion control was rather over zealous which may have resulted in Yahtzee's intense hatred of it. I'm not keen on motion controllers myself I think they take away from the experience rather than add to it. However, The game was good enough for me to soldier on and become more adept at the controls.

I have a feeling that he may have been more forgiving if he had been able to play it with a normal controller but I guess we will never know ;)

Fi is clearly there to give help and not be a character in her own right but they could have given an option to tone her helpfulness down for more experienced players.

I'm not sure where this idea of Zelda being a free roaming game came from. It has never been a free roaming game, even in Wind Waker you were limited by item use. Ironically I found Twilight Princess to be overly linear (beyond even the overworld/dungeon scheme) and actually very claustrophobic in it's design so much so that it's my least favourite besides Phantom Hourglass.

Arguably you could say that Skyward Sword has more of an open environment due to it having 3 planes of exploration. There are the dungeons, the sky and the 3 lower world areas.

Revolutionaryloser:
Look you don't seem to understand what the point of opinions and criticisms is so I don't really see a reason to continue this charade. Nothing is perfect and flawless and Skyward Sword certainly isn't. If you can't accept it then don't but don't expect everyone to share that mindset.

I'm just fine with people not liking Skyward Sword. One of my friends doesn't like it, and we're still friends. It's just a game and I'm fine with people not liking it. If you read my post at all, you should be aware that I don't think it's a perfect game. In fact, given time, I could riddle off my major complaints about the game (and I do, below), and I think the story is of an inferior quality to TP. But you keep pretending that I'm just a mindless fanboy because that makes it easier to defend your substantially weak points. Sorry, but anyone who has read what I said and comprehends it knows better.

I'm not okay with people lying about the game in a pathetic attempt to derail it as a poor quality game. "I don't like how the motion controls work" is an opinion. "The motion controls are broken and don't work" is a lie. "I feel like this game didn't change enough for me to consider it unique" is an opinion (though, as I've noted, perhaps a misinformed one). "It's the same as OoT" is a lie. These are provably FALSE statements, NOT opinions. It's not my fault that you simply can't tell the difference.

You just aren't prepared to face the subjective reality we find ourselves in. If you can only critisize something once it has been ascertained that it is objectively bad, then how do you ascertain that? Last I checked it was by critisizing it. There's a logical fallacy there, I think. So games are born good or bad? This was decided by some higher power? Games should be judged by criticism and even then not just by pointing out flaws does a game become bad because a) all games have flaws, face it and b)"bad" is not a factual statement, it's an opinion. If at any point you thought Yahtzee spoke fundamental truths you don't understand anything about Yahtzee or critics.

A product's quality can be measured objectively. If you think that everything is opinion then you're sadly mistaken and you've been living in a world of critics much too long.

The quality of your video games can be assessed just as easily as your car, your house, or anything else. The only subjective nature of a game is that of "fun" and "enjoyment", which varies by person. But other aspects can be measured. How well the controls work is a measurable thing, and they work just fine. If you don't like how they work, that's something else: an opinion. What changes the game made to the traditional experience are things which can be listed off and measured through play. Whether or not you consider them to be substantial is, again, opinion rather than measured fact.

If we can't find what is wrong with a game, how can we improve upon it?

But you haven't established why any of these things are "wrong". All you've said is that you don't like them, and Yahtzee doesn't like them. That doesn't make them "wrong" in any meaning of the word, that just means you don't like them. To be "wrong" would imply that they deviate from the standard in a significantly negative way that causes significant damage to those who experience it. Yet it's clear from talking to some fans of the game that they don't seem to think some of the things Yahtzee has expressed are too damning, myself included.

That is the foundation of critics. There are a lot of things wrong with Skyward Sword. A lot of things. Things that at this point shouldn't be wrong with a Zelda game seeing as it has the benefit of a structure which has proven to work, a horde of gaming history it can use to improve itself upon and a lot of bloody money behind it.

Again, you have not established why these things are wrong. You just keep asserting that they are wrong because you say so.

Also, didn't we JUST get done discussing that Zelda games are supposed to differentiate themselves, and here you are again saying how the game should be better because it's got this foundation of previous material. But then you're also one of the guys pushing it off of that foundation with a pitchfork, demanding that it change its ways. Which is it? Do you want Zelda to stay the same or to change with each new game? And if the latter, is your disagreement primarily because you don't like the direction it's taking, rather than the notion that all change is bad/good? You really need to explain your point of view, because you keep contradicting yourself. You say you want a different game but then insist that it does things more like certain previous games that you did like....except you can't have both. It can't be "very similar to the way WW did it" and also "significantly different from every previous title".

To play this game you have to spend anything between 80 to 120 dollars.

That's factually inaccurate and borderline dishonest.

If you've bought a Wii in recent memory, you got a Wiimotion Plus instead of the old Wiimote, so you'd only have to pay the $50 for the game itself. At worst, you didn't own one, in which case you pay about $40 retail for one (you can keep the nunchuk that comes with the system), but considering that you can reuse the Wiimotion Plus for any other Wii game just like a normal controller, it's not really a cost that can be slapped haphazardly onto the price of SS.

That's akin to saying that, in order to play Halo multiplayer, you need more than one controller or an internet connection, so those costs should be added to the price tag of the game. It's just downright deceitful, and this is what I'm talking about. I don't care if you disagree with me, but don't outright LIE to help support your increasingly weakening point of view.

Do you think that what Skyward Sword gives you in return is worth that?

Yes, I do. Despite its clear flaws and some of my own personal grievances against it, it's a good game and I'm perfectly happy with my purchase. The better question is: why are YOU so offended that I'm happy with what I got for my money?

I don't think it is.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I don't think you could rationally justify that decision.

I already have given rational explanations for why I think the game is a good game, you're just choosing to ignore them.

I can tell you I have played games which cost me absolutely nothing to play and were developed on a budget of about 10k and they surpass Skyward Sword by a longshot.

Again I should add that this is in your opinion. And that's nice that you've found other games that you like better. It's okay to have different opinions.

Some people seem scared to point out that a game that has had hundreds of millions dollars spent on it's development has flaws. Why? I really don't know.

Who is "afraid" exactly? I'm not. I still enjoy the game whether you do or not, and I couldn't care less how other people feel about it. Though, judging from your posts, you seem awfully shaken up that someone dares to enjoy something that you do not, and that someone would dare defy the almighty Yahtzee's omnipotent point of view about all things Zelda.

Because with that amount of money I would expect something far, far better. Far, far, far better. My expectations are just on a scale of magnitude even I can't quite grasp.

That's an odd thing to say. I couldn't really spell out precisely what I want in a game when I'm looking to buy one (at least not specifically)....but I certainly can tell when I like a game and when I do not, and I could tell you precisely what I like or dislike about it once I've played it. So it seems odd to claim that you can't measure your expectations because, assuming you played the game of course, you should have no problem explaining why you didn't like it.

I am not scared of pointing out what is wrong in a so called "good" game and neither am I scared of pointing out what's good in a "bad" game. Some "critics" are very scared of doing this, partly because their salary and public image depend on them nodding in approval at the guys holding the money.

Any critic who is afraid of expressing their point of view on a game is a coward. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion and even one that differs from the norm. It's when you can't seem to explain it in any rational sort of way that you should start getting a few disapproving glances tossed your way.

Yahtzee finds himself in the priviledged position of being free to say what he really thinks of games and I am all ears and grateful that freedom of speech is still alive and struggling.

Oh no, you're not about to turn this into a rant about truth, justice, and the American Way, are you?

Let's cut the nonsense. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The simple fact is that Yahtzee presented an opinion which differed from the norm. And while I'm sure there were fanboys who rushed to decry him as a fool (and they deserve all the flak they receive), there were also people like myself who simply asked "okay, what exactly didn't you like and how is this game identical to OoT?" And he really didn't deliver. He dislikes Fi and the world doesn't feel as open as WW, and the game has some padding to it? Is that really all? I mean, just off the top of my head, I can name some things I don't like about the game that are more substantial than that. For example:

* Midna is a far superior support character in every way to Fi. I felt legitimate emotion for Midna and she had an actual story arc of sorts. Fi is the functional equal to Navi, an fourth-wall-breaking help desk of sorts, and while her information is sometimes useful, it's also sometimes equally as dumb as Navi's was. She's also arguably at least as obnoxious as Navi was.

* I'm not convinced the story is superior to that of TP. It gains points for giving a good explanation of events that could make some sense of the world prior to games like OoT, but at the same time it fumbles this advantage horrendously. How is it that the world of OoT and TP utterly forgets about The Goddess and is well aware of the three golden goddesses (Din, Farore, and Nayru), but the world of SS is the complete opposite? The people of SS all worship Hylia (who is not named until much later on), and references to the golden goddesses who created the extremely powerful Triforce (which, mind, you actually have to track down at one point late in the game) are tangential at best. That makes no sense! How does no one know about this? And why is it that the great dragons are completely forgotten about? It seems awfully odd that no one notices the complete disappearance of major entities like that.

* Hyrule's geography continues to change drastically with each new game and this inherently bothers me for one reason: you can't claim the games are all connected if Hyrule itself is inconsistent with itself!

* The fetch quests themselves are too frequent and not even really good at padding the game's length to begin with (the longest they seemed to take me was perhaps 15 minutes a piece), so they seem rather pointless. Like mindless detours better suited to a side quest.

* While I rarely have any problems with the motion control, the IR camera's inferior functionality causes some problems with aiming. This is not a game-breaking thing since re-centering takes approximately two seconds, but it's certainly something they should improve for future iterations.

And I could probably produce more complaints if I wanted to. I'm hardly saying it's a flawless game. But Yahtzee's complaints are so weak and feeble that it makes me think he honestly wasn't trying to enjoy himself to begin with, he was just looking to find faults. That's not the job of a critic, the critic's job is to provide a unique perspective (their own) into the pros and cons of a game, not to desperately pick at the tiniest insecurities of the game like a monkey looking for bugs to eat on the back of its mate. And when he keeps swinging around the ridiculous notion that Zelda games are identical (except for several major changes presented in SS that actually make it pretty different from predecessors), he's bound to get called out for letting an error as bone-headed as that slip into the initial review of the game. That's HIS fault, not theirs, and he earns no sympathy from me. Don't start mud-slinging if you don't want to get dirty.

I appreciate you taking the time to provide me with your point of view, and if indeed as your last post suggests that this is the last time you'll respond to me, then I thank you for the enjoyable discussion. I just think that you're taking the wrong approach to things and that if you'd open up and explain precisely what it is that bothers you about the game, and why it bothers you that other people are enjoying this game, perhaps we could make some significant progress in this discussion.

Razhem:

Seems to me you are overanalizing mate, it's exactly the same ordeal anybody getting into gaming through a normal pad has to go through, you actually have to relearn the interface now instead of just basing it on all your knowledge of gaming. That is the reason why a lot of people are initially all inclined to just say "if only I had a normal controller", it's what they know and by golly, it's the best thing ever.

If thats the case then why would you swap from a far more accurate pad or mouse and keyboard? There is no advantage to it. I'll keep my precise, much faster, lag free controls.

You know, I'd be interested to know how many people (if the number is even noteworthy) came to the Zelda series after their early-mid teens, and actually gave two shits about it.

I played Twilight Princess - which was rated much the same as SS - and I couldn't name a single redeemable thing about it. I guess everything works (controls not withstanding), which was nice of them. You could just feel that it was made purely for the people they'd managed to indoctrinate as kids and who they've managed to keep hanging onto the teat.

Maybe I'm juat easily amused - I actually like most of the games I play. Its kinda nice that its rare Im disappointed with a game. I haven't finished it yet but Im 10 hours into it... I started it yesterday. Im having fun with it, did no-one else?

 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