Skyward Sword

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

I Max95:
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)

Thank goodness someone else liked it! =)

CriticKitten:
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.

Paragraph by paragraph, since I'm not familiar enough with these forums to quote properly.

1) And how, per se, should he "prove" them correct? Should he post a video up to point out each and every sequence of "padding" to demonstrate that it's a chronic issue of the game? No, no one would watch it, and it'd be unreasonable to ask it. He can make a claim, like any reviewer, but I presume you don't hold every reviewer to the standard that they must "prove" their praise of the game. In any case, how does one disprove an opinion? If he makes claims, you can disprove them with anecdotal evidence, but you can't disporve an opinion because it's subjective. It seemed obvious to me, judging by his comments on bias in his article, that this was the point he was trying to make, by asking people to prove his opinion wrong. If that wasn't what he meant, the point still stands. And before you say that you didn't intend to challenge his opinion, citing Metacritic's opinion as opposing his is a clear case of this. If this isn't what you meant, I hope you can see why I might think that.

2) Tying in to point 1, it seemed less about him bitching about being heckled than the ignorance displayed by the hecklers. That seemed to be the subject of roughly half of it, at least, though you may be interpreting it differently, judging by your comments.

7/8) Structurally, how does the game differ from its predecessors? The same items (or their equivalents) are gained at roughly the same points in each game, (slingshot, then bombs, then boomerange [Beetle, fine, but it serves a very similar function], etc). Thematically, and in terms of plot structure, it is also extremely identical (helper character points the way, link as an every-man-ish person called by a deity-like figure to accept destiny, etc.). Puzzles solving has been shaken up with the inclusion of motion controls, but dungeons still have the same basis ( kill all enemies/find switch in a room to continue, find map and boss key to progress, etc). While the way you interact with the game has changed, the core gameplay mechanics haven't appreciably changed, and neither has the basic structure.

Storywise, you have a point, in that the plot differs, but the structure of the plot is very reminiscent of earlier Zelda games as well.

9) Where's the LIE? Because aside from your presumption of why he doesn't take time, in a 5 minute video, to address the point that has nothing to do with the game's stand-alone value with excessive specificity (presumably by removing more valid criticism and/or comedic segments to make room), that being that it's an opinion he only pretends to have, there's no "Lie". Your assertion is pure hyperbole. And again, given that you are saying that his "opinion" of the Zelda series is wrong, I refer back to Point 1, again.

xXxJessicaxXx:
I'd respond but you have said that anyone who does is a foaming mouthed fanboy. So I'm not going too. Well played Sir, well played.

I honestly don't know why I'm posting in this thread. I haven't played a Zelda game since 1994, I don't own a wii, and my emotional investment is nil. The only reason I've been posting is that the intensity of some of the reactions baffle me and I want to get a better understanding. Also, it's been slow at work with the holiday and all.

I have made harsh accusations to those arguing in support of SS's quality (wow, there's an abbreviation with all the wrong baggage). But to be honest, I'm not even trying to argue that the game is actually bad. I haven't played the game. I have no opinion either way.

So why am I even posting? I guess I have an amateur interest in how groups think and behave. I made the Penn State comparison a few times, and I think that's the root of it. Although in the Penn State example, its clear that those rushing to defend the honor of JoePa are delusional morons, while here I don't really have the facts ti make a judgment.

I guess this means I should stop posting, but my plans for the evening got torpedoed, so I'll go on.

You say that I've already said that anyone arguing with me is a frothing fanboy. Before I clarify what I said, I actually do admire the fact that you realized that this argument has no real point. No one is going to change anyone's opinions on this threads, and I'm happy that I'm not the only one to realize this.

So the "frothing fanboy" comment. I never made that comment, but I can definitely see how it looks like I implied it. So perhaps I should just start from the top.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone saying that Zelda: Skyward Sword is a good game. Or even a great game.

I do believe its reasonable to debate claims that Skyward Sword is a PERFECT game. "Perfect," carries a great deal of baggage and means different things to different people. It naturally invites debates, as the claim of perfection implies an absence of fault.

Of course, when a game is rewarded a perfect score, the unspoken message sent is that it's perfect. But that's another can of worms all together.

Here is what baffles me: the dehumanization of anyone whose overall opinion is negative. I mean I get it when some Packer fans refer to Bears fans as FIBs ("F#&king Illinois Bastards"). Because the Bears and Packers are ultimately competing for the top spot in the NFC North Division and ultimately the title of NFC champion and a trip to the Super Bowl. These are honors that are worth getting excited for by their respective fans. But I find it really baffling why Zelda fans are so completely obsessed with validating their object of admiration in the eyes of everyone. What do Zelda fans hope to get?

Allow me to use an example, because I haven't opened enough cans of worms in this post. I don't get what people see in the Twilight books. I also don't get what people see in My Little Pony: FiM to the exact same degree. Nevertheless, when putting their respective fan bases next to each other, I have more respect for the fans of Twilight than the fans of My Little Pony.

Why, because no matter how hard Twilight fans swoon over the garbage, I have never read comments from people that like Twilight that attack anyone making snide comments about the books, or trying to justify the books or movies to everyone and how they should all watch it because they are bound to love it, or immediately qualify their gushing by saying, "Not all Twilight fans are weirdos! Honestly!"

Now it could be that I'm just not reading the right forums. I don't go searching for people who will post at length about how great Twilight is. But the thing is, I don't go searching for people who will post at length about how great My Little Pony is either, and yet I've seen scores of posts where "Bronies" will try to shout down anyone who says their show is stupid.

That's what I see occurring this thread. My posts and arguments were an attempt to understand this attitude and point out the flaws in it. I'm guessing that this is going to be the last I have to say, being that its New Years weekend and I have more enjoyable options than arguing about a game I don't even own.

TL;DR: I don't get why people argue on the internet. And it's been a slow week at the office.

Mahoshonen:
snip

I was addressing Yahtzee but I later changed my post as I thought that sounded a bit childish :p

Oh well.

I thought that Skyward Sword is decent game but it's certainly not perfect, no game is.

The Mythmaker:
Paragraph by paragraph, since I'm not familiar enough with these forums to quote properly.

1) And how, per se, should he "prove" them correct? Should he post a video up to point out each and every sequence of "padding" to demonstrate that it's a chronic issue of the game? No, no one would watch it, and it'd be unreasonable to ask it. He can make a claim, like any reviewer, but I presume you don't hold every reviewer to the standard that they must "prove" their praise of the game. In any case, how does one disprove an opinion? If he makes claims, you can disprove them with anecdotal evidence, but you can't disporve an opinion because it's subjective. It seemed obvious to me, judging by his comments on bias in his article, that this was the point he was trying to make, by asking people to prove his opinion wrong. If that wasn't what he meant, the point still stands. And before you say that you didn't intend to challenge his opinion, citing Metacritic's opinion as opposing his is a clear case of this. If this isn't what you meant, I hope you can see why I might think that.

You clearly haven't read my recent posts at all. I encourage you to do so, as I've already addressed this point to death.

2) Tying in to point 1, it seemed less about him bitching about being heckled than the ignorance displayed by the hecklers. That seemed to be the subject of roughly half of it, at least, though you may be interpreting it differently, judging by your comments.

He's pulled the same routine before. He always picks the dumbest of the bunch to serve as his representative sample. He didn't address a single valid point from the VALID hecklers.

7/8) Structurally, how does the game differ from its predecessors? The same items (or their equivalents) are gained at roughly the same points in each game, (slingshot, then bombs, then boomerange [Beetle, fine, but it serves a very similar function], etc). Thematically, and in terms of plot structure, it is also extremely identical (helper character points the way, link as an every-man-ish person called by a deity-like figure to accept destiny, etc.). Puzzles solving has been shaken up with the inclusion of motion controls, but dungeons still have the same basis ( kill all enemies/find switch in a room to continue, find map and boss key to progress, etc). While the way you interact with the game has changed, the core gameplay mechanics haven't appreciably changed, and neither has the basic structure.

I have to assume you're joking or haven't played the game because this is, again, factually and provably false.

First, and perhaps least importantly, the items are not obtained "in the exact same order". The Beetle is obtained before bombs, actually, as it's used in the first dungeon. You also don't obtain the bow until a decent portion into the game (over the halfway mark, going by dungeons), whereas in OoT you obtain the bow almost instantly upon adulthood. And even if the order were identical, how is this a valid argument for why the games are "the same" exactly? They use a similar order for items, so all other changes to the game are meaningless?

Secondly, the Beetle is functionally a lot different than the Boomerang. The Beetle is primarily an exploration and item retriver. And it becomes even more strategically useful as an item retriever and bomb/beehive dispenser later in the game for some very useful and amusing applications.

Third, that has to be the most generic summary of any plot ever written. By the same token, every Diablo game is exactly the same plot-wise, because you play a hero who seeks to kill Diablo. Also, Star Wars movies are all the same, because they feature Jedi trying to defeat evildoers who are almost always Sith or connected to the Sith. And I can continue to sample similarly stupid examples until you get the point, if you'd like. But I hope you get the idea so I won't have to.

Fourth, I have to ask what exactly is "wrong" with the structure of dungeons that it merits a radical change of formula. Though I will say that you're wrong, multiple occasions have required being pretty creative to progress. I've quoted it before, but in one situation you have to steal a key from a monster's belt in order to unlock the door and progress in that dungeon. That's actually a pretty cool change-up, and a unique new use for a unique new weapon (the Whip). I'm not sure why people can't seem to recognize this.

Fifth, the core mechanics haven't changed? Exactly how deep are we talking when we refer to the "core mechanics", because you'd have to be ignoring a multitude of changes to claim such a thing. I've quoted it once before, but here it goes again. My friend's list of mechanical changes, with my additional comments in parentheses.

* The ability to aim attacks by swinging the Wii Remote in different directions and the necessity of doing this even against regular monsters to bypass their guard. (Motion controls were a feature introduced in Twilight Princess, but the implementation of actual strategic requirements to combat is brand new.)

* The capacity to upgrade equipment and potions by collecting various items and having them forged together. Purchaseable upgrades also exist, as well as quest-related upgrades. (This change has radically altered a lot of the game's functionality, including the function of a player's wallet, their inventory items, their potions, and so on. It should also be noted that besides the standard Bow and Slingshot, this game also features a number of items not featured in any other Zelda game.)

* A stamina meter which determines how long you can do strenuous activity. Stamina can be enhanced with potions. (This feature is not a meaningless addition either, as numerous activities in the game require careful management of your movement and stamina in order to succeed).

* The ability to charge up energy in your sword and fire it as a projectile. (Arguably similar to the projectile beams that your sword would fire in some Gameboy Zelda games, though it differs slightly in that the energy blasts must be charged manually rather than it being automatic, and can be fired in a variety of directions and angles based on how you swing your Wii Remote.)

* Dungeon maps now also display relative position and treasure chest locations and the Compass does not exist at all.

* Players possess a pouch with limited inventory spaces for various supplies such as potions and can switch these items in and out of storage. (This is a significant change, in that the adventurer pouch now contains backup items like the slingshot seeds and quiver. You cannot upgrade your normal carrying capacity for items as you did in prior games, instead you must upgrade adventurer pouch items that will allow you to carry as many more as you have inventory space for.)

* Shields now suffer damage and have a meter which, if depleted, will result in the shield breaking and having to be repaired. Potions can restore shield durability. (Previous Zelda games allowed you to essentially rely on the shield for indefinite amounts of defense. This game requires that you learn the proper timing behind enemy attacks, or else you risk breaking your shield, even against normal enemies. This adds a strategic element and forces players to pay attention when using their shields.)

* To properly defend against attacks, player must time a motion to counter the attack. Failing to time this properly can result in the shield taking damage or the attack hitting the player. (As stated above.)

* Special items can increase the odds of finding hearts and treasure, but take up pouch spaces.

* Supplies and equipment are drawn out of the inventory without interruption of gameplay, even while running.

* Player has the ability to attune their sword to certain targets and use it as a form of radar to locate them. (This feature is used abundantly throughout the game.)

* Player is able to go into first person perspective and then move about, albeit not attack.

* Player begins with six hearts and most attacks deplete a full heart. Hearts in the field are more rare.

* The ability to pluck bomb flowers and place them directly into your inventory without having them explode, replenishing your bomb supply. Bombs in the field are much more rare. (This change allows players to essentially avoid running out of bombs in the middle of combat, provided a bomb flower is nearby to restock. A very valuable and welcome change.)

Storywise, you have a point, in that the plot differs, but the structure of the plot is very reminiscent of earlier Zelda games as well.

What does that even MEAN? The plot is built the same as previous games, but it's also different from previous games? I think you knew what you meant to say, but it didn't come out right, because I can't make heads or tails of that. Please explain this.

9) Where's the LIE? Because aside from your presumption of why he doesn't take time, in a 5 minute video, to address the point that has nothing to do with the game's stand-alone value with excessive specificity (presumably by removing more valid criticism and/or comedic segments to make room), that being that it's an opinion he only pretends to have, there's no "Lie". Your assertion is pure hyperbole. And again, given that you are saying that his "opinion" of the Zelda series is wrong, I refer back to Point 1, again.

The "lie" is that SS is the same as OoT. This is not an opinion, this is a statement whose validity can be proven false....and has been on a multitude of occasions. Again, there is a difference between saying your opinion, and saying something that can be proven false. If I said "the sky is always orange", is that an opinion? No, it's a statement whose validity can be measured and tested. "This game is the same as a previous game", too, is not an opinion, it's validity can be tested....and has been proven false by every measure of the word. The only people who still believe that all Zelda games are exactly the same are the people who have no valid anti-Zelda argument to cling to.

It's amazingly sad that I feel like I have to defend a franchise that I'm only even partially interested in. I won't touch Wind Waker or the handheld stuff, yet I'm being forced to defend the franchise like I was a full-on fanboi just to get the crazies who insist on calling these games "bad" to back off. It makes me want to take a shower. >_>

ilovemyLunchbox:
Here's an eye-opener... Without googling it, what was the name of the final boss?

Go ahead and lie and say you remember after having googled it, but you know and I both know you don't remember a damn thing.

A Zelda game where you can't remember who the last boss was... Awful.

Who the hell forgot? It's Demise. No I didn't google it. You may just have poor memory.

The game wasn't very memorable, I'll give you that, but to say that you forgot the name of the final boss (and so did everyone else) is steep.

@CriticKitten

Just going to directly quote, since this layering would get confusing otherwise.

"You clearly haven't read my recent posts at all. I encourage you to do so, as I've already addressed this point to death."

No, I haven't. I didn't feel the need to read over 200 posts for background to respond to one of yours.

"He's pulled the same routine before. He always picks the dumbest of the bunch to serve as his representative sample. He didn't address a single valid point from the VALID hecklers."

Of course he did. You expected a representitive sample? He's not hosting a debate, he's making a point. I don't hear him arguing about polite and well-reasoned hecklers, do you?

"First, and perhaps least importantly, the items are not obtained "in the exact same order".

Please restrain yourself to quoting things I actually said. It's hard for me to take your rebuttal seriously when you're responding to something I didn't say. What I did say was "roughly the same points", not "in the exact same order".

"And even if the order were identical, how is this a valid argument for why the games are "the same" exactly? They use a similar order for items, so all other changes to the game are meaningless?"

Strangely, I never made that case either. You've not only made my argument a strawman, but you've used only a fraction of my argument and are saying it should be the basis for the whole thing. Shall I tell you that your argument is invalid because the inclusion of the beetle is not enough to make the game different from Twilight Princess? No, because that's not the only point you made, and it would be grossly unfair. I'd appreciate you doing me the same courtesy.

"Secondly, the Beetle is functionally a lot different than the Boomerang. The Beetle is primarily an exploration and item retriver. And it becomes even more strategically useful as an item retriever and bomb/beehive dispenser later in the game for some very useful and amusing applications."

So let's see...it's used in order to collect items from far away, and to reach spaces and attack enemies other items can't. The boomerang, on the other hand, is used to collect items from far away, and to reach spaces and attack enemies that other items can't. I'm not saying that it's the same, since you brought up other ways the beetle is used, merely that it fulfills the same role; boomerang 2.0, as it were. To put it another way, what can the boomerang do that the beetle can't?

"Third, that has to be the most generic summary of any plot ever written. By the same token, every Diablo game is exactly the same plot-wise, because you play a hero who seeks to kill Diablo. Also, Star Wars movies are all the same, because they feature Jedi trying to defeat evildoers who are almost always Sith or connected to the Sith. And I can continue to sample similarly stupid examples until you get the point, if you'd like. But I hope you get the idea so I won't have to."

You only gave two examples (your condescenion is appreciated, by the way) of how generic such a comparison was, ostensibly because you didn't think it was necessary for me to get the idea. For the same reason, I didn't see the need to give a half-dozen examples to support every claim I made, because I assumed you'd get the GIST of my argument. In any case:

Non-human assistant giving directions
Link becomes a hero because it's his destiny
Zelda lost/kidnapped/trapped
Link must visit a series of temples as part of a quest
Link meets main villain early, but survives the encounter
Link must begin his quest in or around his home
Native species require Link's help to counteract presence of villain
Link has a strong emotional tie to his mount
etc.

I'm not saying they're the same, but I'm making the point that certain plot elements generally occur in each Zelda game.

"Fourth, I have to ask what exactly is "wrong" with the structure of dungeons that it merits a radical change of formula."

Nothing. I personally enjoy it. But I'm not making the case that it's a problem, merely that it is, in fact, similar in each game.

"Though I will say that you're wrong, multiple occasions have required being pretty creative to progress."

If I'd said I disagreed with that, I would be wrong. But I didn't, since I said something the effect of them having the "same basis", in that most rooms require you to hit a switch/switches or kill each enemy in the room to continue. Pervious Zelda games were not true to formula in every room either, even in games which came to extablish that formula, but the same elements were present in each game.

"Fifth, the core mechanics haven't changed? Exactly how deep are we talking when we refer to the "core mechanics", because you'd have to be ignoring a multitude of changes to claim such a thing. I've quoted it once before, but here it goes again. My friend's list of mechanical changes, with my additional comments in parentheses."

Looking over it, there are some things I agree with as being appreciable changes(stamina and upgrades) and some I don't (map [now a mix of compass and dungeon map] and hearts changes [more hearts, more damage, little difference]), but I'm not going case-by-case to address them all. Partially because they're mostly someone else's points, and also because I don't think we want to be trading back and forth a dozen extra points.

"What does that even MEAN? The plot is built the same as previous games, but it's also different from previous games? I think you knew what you meant to say, but it didn't come out right, because I can't make heads or tails of that. Please explain this."

The plot itself is different, but structurally, it is very similar. Ganon may not be the villain, but the new villain plays essentially the same role in the story, albeit somewhat more visibly. The temple-to-temple structure around which the plot is based is roughly the same. The way you gain access to each temple is also similar to previous iteration I'm not saying every piece of the plot is the same as in other games, with different characters and locations, but many serve a similar function.

"The "lie" is that SS is the same as OoT. This is not an opinion, this is a statement whose validity can be proven false....and has been on a multitude of occasions. Again, there is a difference between saying your opinion, and saying something that can be proven false. If I said "the sky is always orange", is that an opinion? No, it's a statement whose validity can be measured and tested. "This game is the same as a previous game", too, is not an opinion, it's validity can be tested....and has been proven false by every measure of the word. The only people who still believe that all Zelda games are exactly the same are the people who have no valid anti-Zelda argument to cling to."

I don't believe there's anyone seriously saying that they're the same game. People might cite similarities, even strong similarities, but no one but a moron would seriously claim that all Zelda games are exactly the same

"It's amazingly sad that I feel like I have to defend a franchise that I'm only even partially interested in. I won't touch Wind Waker or the handheld stuff, yet I'm being forced to defend the franchise like I was a full-on fanboi just to get the crazies who insist on calling these games "bad" to back off. It makes me want to take a shower. >_>"

*looks around* Hope you're not talking about me. I in no way inferred it was a bad game, or even offered a single scrap of criticism of my own.

lozfoe444:
Is it possible to completely agree with this and still like the game?

I think so. This game has flaws but I can't help myself from having fun when I'm playing it.

I am a hardcore Zelda fan and I agree with Yahtzee completely. It struck me so weird that it was the smallest Legend of Zelda game I had ever played. The worlds in the handheld Zelda games felt much larger for Christ's sake. Now that's saying something, Nintendo definitely got lazy on this one, especially gameplay wise. At least they got the story out of the way finally, but even that seems like it could have been written so much better.

Also, it felt sickening to me how the whole game felt like a tutorial. That is not good. Fi had so much potential too, and they just made her as dull and uninteresting as a sheet of metal.

What really brought me the BIGGEST disappointment, was the Harp. It was downright INSULTING at that point. Wave to play it? Really? They dumbed down the game way too much. We need another Ocarina of Time soon or I am gonna lose it.

I am a diehard fan who loves Legend of Zelda games more than any other series of games, so you can easily tell how much I want to slap Nintendo for stealing my money, I trusted them to make good games, and they gave me that crap? The first 3 dungeons of Ocarina of Time were better than the entirety of Skyward Sword.

I don't know how far into the game I am but I'll play it to the end in my own slow pace.
So far:
the assistant is a bit dull yes, TP and OoT had good assistants!
For me the motion controlls work nicely and I have yet only had one small nervous brakedown with them during the flight with the BombBugThing.
The "boss fights" are a bit easy but that might be because apparently Zelda games are also meant for a bit of a younger audience.
I like the bad guy with his teleporting away his clothes and weapons, and his attitude xD
So far I won't say too much but I thikn the game is OK, I've played better but I am enjoying myself.

bjj hero:

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.

And my point completely and utterly went over your head. It's not the control is "bad", it's that you aren't familiar with it and you are having a hard time adapting to it since you are already entrenched in normal pad is better because it's what you have known for years and you have no intention whatsoever to learn something new. It's the reason why people who never played videgames get confused as fuck with a normal controller but get the wii mote a lot quicker. Hell, I started using mouse and keyboard very late in my life and I felt it was shit for me till I actually got the hang of it. It's not about "BETTAR" it's about learning to play again.

You know, reading this Extra Punctuation, I almost thought that Yahtzee had taken a few pointers from my own review of the game, except where I went on for two thousand words, he summed up most of my feelings in less than eleven hundred. But for those who are curious, feel free to check out my own self-styled rant.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/wii/960633-the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/reviews/review-148993

Perhaps the biggest and most glaring problem I find with this game is not so much with the game itself, but with people's reaction to the game. This...abomination currently has a metacritic score of 93, over 38 'official' mediums giving it at least the equivalent of a 9 of 10, and a legion of brainwashed fans who are ready to rant endlessly on the internet in defense of their favorite franchise.

Even if you can still say that you like this game due to some desperate hope that Nintendo actually cares about the loyalty of their fans, how anyone can say that this game is perfect truly baffles me. The lengths people go to defend this shlock also baffles me. Why Yhatzee even needed to dedicate an entire article to defend his five minute video is almost beyond me, since frankly he's probably done this same chant and dance with other Nintendo games. And even after painstakingly explaining himself in an article that probably shouldn't have needed to be written, people are still using the same arguments against him.

Quite frankly, and there's no nice way to say this, it's Bullshit.

It's almost akin to a circle of repetitiveness that I think Yhatzee nailed quite well in his review. Nintendo releases the same game, critics level the same criticisms, and fanboys level the same defenses. It's an almost never ending cycle of suck that is started, persisted, and advocated through Nintendo. Complain how you will about Bethesda, at least they give us different things to complain about with each installment.

And here's the part I like to call 'Quoting other arguments in a desperate bid for attention.' I mean really, who's going to look at page fifteen of the comments if I don't call them out first?

1) Yhatzee complains too much about motion controls.

Mr. Omega:
On the motion controls thing: just him complaining.

Anoni Mus:
Without exaggerating I can name about 20 or 30 flaws in Skyward Sword including some and even more of what Yahtzee mentioned. (Except the motion controls critics, those are just retarded).

I don't think there is a single person in this entire forum who has played the wii for any decent amount of time that can tell me that the motion controls to their games have always worked 100% of the time. Not one. Even the creators know that they're prone to faults, that's why they have the mechanic where you press up on the D-pad to recenter it. When I press a button on my PS3 remote, there isn't a 1/10 a 1/20 or even a 1/50 chance that it won't work. It always works. It always does what I expect it to when I press it. Motion controls fail sometimes, and in a game that is all about using the motion controller, it is prone to failure.

People say often that critics who complain about motion controls are 'retarded' in some fashion don't seem to accept the fact that in a game where motion controls dictate EVERYTHING, they are susceptible to criticism because they are part of the games core mechanics. Last time I checked, critics have a right to complain about something when it doesn't work. Deal with it.

2) Yhatzee complaining about how the Zelda games are repetitive is old news and shouldn't be relevant.

Big_Willie_Styles:
The formulaic argument fails simply because the plot device of "Destined to take the mantle of hero" is not formulaic. Yes, a sword. Yes, a princess. Yes, a green tunic. Yes, some demon or otherwise evil foe. That does not make it formulaic. If it always had the same enemies or the exact same items, it would be formulaic.

Trishbot:
You criticize the "sameyness" of Zelda, and I attest that Skyward Sword is more fresh than Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Saints Row the Third, Uncharted 3, Gears of War 3, and so many others, even Skyrim. You say it doesn't change, yet I see a game with a totally new control scheme with motion-control that no other game, not just Zelda games, remotely has that's similar. I see a new world, with new characters, a new story, with new puzzles, dungeons, enemies, items, music, overworld layout, mini-games, bosses, RPG mechanics, a stamina meter, more robust item upgrading, a flying mount, a new save system, and even a totally fresh new final boss. Even the ART STYLE (whether you like it or not) is totally new to the series and extremely unique amongst games in general.

I fail to see how you can claim the game is still so similar when it's by far more fresh, original, and different compared to nearly every other game franchise and their sequels on the market.

Formulaic (Dictionary): A method, pattern, or rule for doing or producing something, often one proved to be successful.

Um...yeah. I shouldn't need to explain this one any further. If you honestly can't look at the Zelda series and spot any reoccurring themes or patterns based upon their previous formulas of success, then you need to (inappropriate comment removed). Even the most die-hard fans can admit that much.

Trishbot does raise a valid point though. Zelda does seem to 'innovate' a lot more than the year of sequels, but just how much of this is the 'right' sort of innovation? Can one really qualify a new art style to a tried and true formula as innovation? Is a new control scheme all you need to be 'new'? You see, there are many games that do all that you're saying with pre-existing titles. They're called expansion packs.

But you know what? The simple argument that the game is more innovative than others doesn't excuse the fact that it isn't nearly as original and 'fresh' as people would like it to be. You want innovation? How about a Zelda game where Ganondorf isn't the ultimate bad guy, but rather an anti-hero? How about a game where Link doesn't use a sword? How about a game where your companion can fight with you instead of just providing advice? How about a plot that isn't just simply good versus evil? Innovation is a broad term. Technically, anything new introduced into a game is considered 'innovation' but are you really going to settle with the meager offerings of new items and a coat of paint?

If you have any true love for the series, you should demand more than that. The fact that this 'sameyness' argument has been made before doesn't excuse the fact that it's still right.

3) Yhatzee is a meany head who doesn't like the games I like.

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

Nate-ndo:
Before I watched his review, I told my girlfriend that Yahtzee was going to hate Skyward Sword, and his chief complaints would be motion controls, the graphics, the game structure, and the fact that it has the same ur-narrative (save Zelda). I said he then usually goes, "Look how mad Nintendo fanboys are! I must be correct!"

Lordofthesuplex:
This is elitism plain and simple. You can't accept the fact that people are not as pretentious and have absurdly high standards as you and therefore have to generalize everyone who doesn't agree with the actual fanboys. Seriously, I'm done with Yahtzee as far as Nintendo games go. I'm only watching the stuff from the other companies he reviews from now on because if he's not biased against Nintendo then he clearly is obsessed with enhancing his standards on how he critiques games whenever that company is under the chopping block. And I hate it when anyone does that to any company.

Flamers. Got to love them. Notice in particular that the third quote directly proves the counterpoint of the first quote and the second quote proves Yhatzee's over-reaching point. Frankly it's rather humorous just how contradictory these flames are sometimes. One calls him elitist, the other calls him a Middle Schooler. Frankly, considering that he said 'fuck you' to all the fanboys, he probably expected this, but by responding to him has outed you as a fanboy. See the catch-22? Congrats, you three have just had your true natures revealed.

But I digress. If you fanboys, and I'm talking about all fanboys, not just the Skyward Sword crowd, have yet to realize Yhatzee's general opinion towards mainstream gaming after OVER A HUNDRED EPISODES, you're never going to learn. Just like you're probably never going to learn that it's better to argue using logic and counterpoints rather than simple minded insults and blind loyalty.

And to end on a lighter note, I decided to respond to a few of my favorite posts in this thread.

lozfoe444:
Is it possible to completely agree with this and still like the game?

Nope.

itsmeyouidiot:

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

Name them.

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

Well, since you asked, here they are in no particular order.

1) Dowsing with a sword is quite possible the stupidest thing I've ever seen in a Zelda game.
2) Much of the game is filled with fetch quests that do little to advance the story.
3) The only character given a decent arc is Groose.
4) There are only three designated questing areas.
5) Motion controls don't always work. In a game almost entirely motion controlled, that is inexcusable.
6) The beetle can't corner well and moves too slow.
7) The whip is useless in combat.
8) The hook shot can't grab items.
9) Enemies focus more on blocking patterns than actually fighting you.
10) Flying is a time waster.
11) There are very few places in the 'world' that are actually worth exploring outside of treasure hunting.
12) You have to fight Girahim three times. Two of those times, you have to do it in place of Dungeon bosses.
13) You have to fight Demise three times.
14) The harp playing is busywork and is absolutely no challenge whatsoever.
15) Trying to use bomb flowers before you get the bomb bag and wrestle with the wii-motion is frustrating.
16) Fi breaks the fourth wall by telling you your batteries are low in your wii-mote.
17) There is a pointless mini-puzzle where you fit the boss key into the lock.
18) Time travel plot holes.
19) Girahim could have easily just stopped you from stopping Demise early on, and would have won.
20) Using the stab motion with your sword is prone to misinterpretation by the wii.
21) Girahim's dart attack in which you must swing your sword a certain way in order to break the darts before they hit you is silly, considering he could just outright throw the darts at you.
22) Everyone tells you to find your own bird instead of helping you look for it. Not even the guards help.
23) Zelda is a reckless daredevil who should have just waited for Link to help her instead of running headlong into danger with no way to defend herself.
24) Impa is a condescending ***** who blames you for Zelda's recklessness.
25) That annoying beeping sound from low health is still annoying.
26) Electric stun-sword enemies could easily be countered with rubber gloves.
27) The only way they could make the final boss challenging was to give them the 'electric' gimmick.
28) Shield durability is needlessly annoying.
29) Considering there is a single island where everyone lives, there doesn't seem to be much at stake.
30) Fi is annoying, intrusive, repetitive, and has no character. Frankly she should take up five points on this list.

And believe me. I have more.

kuolonen:
Best part about Yahtzee reviewing Wii games is the state of comment section afterwards. I never get tired of it.

You and me both.

ClanCrusher:
You know, reading this Extra Punctuation, I almost thought that Yahtzee had taken a few pointers from my own review of the game, except where I went on for two thousand words, he summed up most of my feelings in less than eleven hundred. But for those who are curious, feel free to check out my own self-styled rant.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/wii/960633-the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/reviews/review-148993

I read the title of the article and immediately backed out. I'm really tired of even knowing about pre-biased reviews, let alone reading them. It's all exactly the same thing. "Oh, well I didn't really like Wii controls to begin with, but when I played this game, I found out that I didn't really like Wii controls at all! What the hell!" It's like playing a Zelda game and giving it a bad score and then afterwards admitting "Well I've never actually liked the LoZ series at all". Why are you even playing this then?

Perhaps the biggest and most glaring problem I find with this game is not so much with the game itself, but with people's reaction to the game. This...abomination currently has a metacritic score of 93, over 38 'official' mediums giving it at least the equivalent of a 9 of 10, and a legion of brainwashed fans who are ready to rant endlessly on the internet in defense of their favorite franchise.

Even if you can still say that you like this game due to some desperate hope that Nintendo actually cares about the loyalty of their fans, how anyone can say that this game is perfect truly baffles me. The lengths people go to defend this shlock also baffles me. Why Yhatzee even needed to dedicate an entire article to defend his five minute video is almost beyond me, since frankly he's probably done this same chant and dance with other Nintendo games. And even after painstakingly explaining himself in an article that probably shouldn't have needed to be written, people are still using the same arguments against him.

Quite frankly, and there's no nice way to say this, it's Bullshit.

Yahtzee having to do this AGAIN and having the same arguments used against him AGAIN are because he keeps having the same problems AGAIN. It's a persistent problem, obviously, when he writes a gaming review that he likes to consider "professional" and then exaggerated almost every point he made in the video and often times about points that aren't even really there and just shows a serious lack of trying on his part to enjoy the game.

It's almost akin to a circle of repetitiveness that I think Yhatzee nailed quite well in his review. Nintendo releases the same game, critics level the same criticisms, and fanboys level the same defenses. It's an almost never ending cycle of suck that is started, persisted, and advocated through Nintendo. Complain how you will about Bethesda, at least they give us different things to complain about with each installment.

I'm really tired of this "same game" nonsense, especially when you go on and further state that:

Complain how you will about Bethesda, at least they give us different things to complain about with each installment.

Are you serious? Skyrim is just oblivion with a Norse Mod and Dragons. It's fun, sure, but it's not even different gameplay save shouting and two handedness which really just makes an aspect of oblivion PLAYABLE, rather than adding anything really NEW to the gameplay. It's still the same old song and dance of go on this quest, explore the land, etc, etc. Just in a new environment, but it's not even a bad thing about the game, either. That's the point of a sequel.

But to suggest Nintendo releases the same game every time even though each experience is VASTLY different from the last is rather shocking at how little you pay attention to gameplay elements and theme.

1) Yhatzee complains too much about motion controls.

I don't think there is a single person in this entire forum who has played the wii for any decent amount of time that can tell me that the motion controls to their games have always worked 100% of the time. Not one. Even the creators know that they're prone to faults, that's why they have the mechanic where you press up on the D-pad to recenter it. When I press a button on my PS3 remote, there isn't a 1/10 a 1/20 or even a 1/50 chance that it won't work. It always works. It always does what I expect it to when I press it. Motion controls fail sometimes, and in a game that is all about using the motion controller, it is prone to failure.

People say often that critics who complain about motion controls are 'retarded' in some fashion don't seem to accept the fact that in a game where motion controls dictate EVERYTHING, they are susceptible to criticism because they are part of the games core mechanics. Last time I checked, critics have a right to complain about something when it doesn't work. Deal with it.

I'll admit that they don't work %100 of the time, but I can safely say the work 95% of the time for me, and my friends, and everyone else I've spoken with about this game. And in that rare percentage that they don't work, Nintendo not only acknowledge the fault ahead of time, but were so kind enough to place 2 second fixes to any issue of de-synching which doesn't even take anything away from the experience to be honest with you. And usually when it de-syncs with my movements, it's usually cause I was doing something really strange with my arm. I've never actually had the controller de-sync in a situation that caused me any grievance or unfair blows against Link. I can say, with 100% confidence, that ANY damage I took in this game over 100 hours of gameplay (counting hero mode) was completely MY fault. Not the game's or the controllers.

What really gets my goat is when people come out in public areas and try to convince other people it was the fault of a control system that they openly admit to hating every example of, simply because they've never really tried to figure out how to use it properly. It was like back when Majora's Mask came out, people openly hated the game, but when I got to talk with these people and find out what they really didn't like about it, it turned out that they saw Link in the Deku mask in the first part of the game, said "I don't want to play as this gay little deku scrub the whole time", then turned if off and never even tried. Because it wasn't cool. They didn't even get past the first cycle of the game, a cycle that takes less than a full hour, and they complained about the whole game. A little effort will go a long way.

2) Yhatzee complaining about how the Zelda games are repetitive is old news and shouldn't be relevant.

Formulaic (Dictionary): A method, pattern, or rule for doing or producing something, often one proved to be successful.

Um...yeah. I shouldn't need to explain this one any further. If you honestly can't look at the Zelda series and spot any reoccurring themes or patterns based upon their previous formulas of success, then you need to (inappropriate comment removed). Even the most die-hard fans can admit that much.

Trishbot does raise a valid point though. Zelda does seem to 'innovate' a lot more than the year of sequels, but just how much of this is the 'right' sort of innovation? Can one really qualify a new art style to a tried and true formula as innovation? Is a new control scheme all you need to be 'new'? You see, there are many games that do all that you're saying with pre-existing titles. They're called expansion packs.

But you know what? The simple argument that the game is more innovative than others doesn't excuse the fact that it isn't nearly as original and 'fresh' as people would like it to be. You want innovation? How about a Zelda game where Ganondorf isn't the ultimate bad guy, but rather an anti-hero? How about a game where Link doesn't use a sword? How about a game where your companion can fight with you instead of just providing advice? How about a plot that isn't just simply good versus evil? Innovation is a broad term. Technically, anything new introduced into a game is considered 'innovation' but are you really going to settle with the meager offerings of new items and a coat of paint?

If you have any true love for the series, you should demand more than that. The fact that this 'sameyness' argument has been made before doesn't excuse the fact that it's still right.

You DO understand the point of a sequel in the game world, right? I mean, you already implied you played Bethseda games, so you must have looked at Morrowind and Oblivion and said "I want more of THIS" in order to convince yourself you wanted Skyrim, right?

In fact, as I read this over again, it becomes apparent to me that you're not actually asking for anything new from a gameplay perspective, but rather a narrative one. And yes, it's all the same narration. Collect several trinkets from numbered dungeons so you can fight the big bad guy, save the girl, and save the world. Pretty much every time.

But I don't come here for the story.

I come to play the games. If I wanted a story with a different narrative, I would read a book. I come here because I want dungeon crawling, side-quest, swordplay, item collecting, and grass-cutting action. And each time it's almost a vastly different experience, but retains all of the core traits that make me say "Yes, this is a Zelda game".

Have Ganondorf be an anti-hero? What does that have to do with dungeons?
Link doesn't use a sword? If I wanted a Zelda game without a sword, I would play Batman.
Companion fight for me? Why would I even want that?

Everything you call innovation is simply just changes in narration. I want the GAMEPLAY to be innovative. And guess what? It is.

3) Yhatzee is a meany head who doesn't like the games I like.

Flamers. Got to love them. Notice in particular that the third quote directly proves the counterpoint of the first quote and the second quote proves Yhatzee's over-reaching point. Frankly it's rather humorous just how contradictory these flames are sometimes. One calls him elitist, the other calls him a Middle Schooler. Frankly, considering that he said 'fuck you' to all the fanboys, he probably expected this, but by responding to him has outed you as a fanboy. See the catch-22? Congrats, you three have just had your true natures revealed.

But I digress. If you fanboys, and I'm talking about all fanboys, not just the Skyward Sword crowd, have yet to realize Yhatzee's general opinion towards mainstream gaming after OVER A HUNDRED EPISODES, you're never going to learn. Just like you're probably never going to learn that it's better to argue using logic and counterpoints rather than simple minded insults and blind loyalty.

blind loyalty

Heh.

Well, since you asked, here they are in no particular order.

1) Dowsing with a sword is quite possible the stupidest thing I've ever seen in a Zelda game.
2) Much of the game is filled with fetch quests that do little to advance the story.
3) The only character given a decent arc is Groose.
4) There are only three designated questing areas.
5) Motion controls don't always work. In a game almost entirely motion controlled, that is inexcusable.
6) The beetle can't corner well and moves too slow.
7) The whip is useless in combat.
8) The hook shot can't grab items.
9) Enemies focus more on blocking patterns than actually fighting you.
10) Flying is a time waster.
11) There are very few places in the 'world' that are actually worth exploring outside of treasure hunting.
12) You have to fight Girahim three times. Two of those times, you have to do it in place of Dungeon bosses.
13) You have to fight Demise three times.
14) The harp playing is busywork and is absolutely no challenge whatsoever.
15) Trying to use bomb flowers before you get the bomb bag and wrestle with the wii-motion is frustrating.
16) Fi breaks the fourth wall by telling you your batteries are low in your wii-mote.
17) There is a pointless mini-puzzle where you fit the boss key into the lock.
18) Time travel plot holes.
19) Girahim could have easily just stopped you from stopping Demise early on, and would have won.
20) Using the stab motion with your sword is prone to misinterpretation by the wii.
21) Girahim's dart attack in which you must swing your sword a certain way in order to break the darts before they hit you is silly, considering he could just outright throw the darts at you.
22) Everyone tells you to find your own bird instead of helping you look for it. Not even the guards help.
23) Zelda is a reckless daredevil who should have just waited for Link to help her instead of running headlong into danger with no way to defend herself.
24) Impa is a condescending ***** who blames you for Zelda's recklessness.
25) That annoying beeping sound from low health is still annoying.
26) Electric stun-sword enemies could easily be countered with rubber gloves.
27) The only way they could make the final boss challenging was to give them the 'electric' gimmick.
28) Shield durability is needlessly annoying.
29) Considering there is a single island where everyone lives, there doesn't seem to be much at stake.
30) Fi is annoying, intrusive, repetitive, and has no character. Frankly she should take up five points on this list.

And believe me. I have more.

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

ClanCrusher:

Mr. Omega:
On the motion controls thing: just him complaining.

Anoni Mus:
Without exaggerating I can name about 20 or 30 flaws in Skyward Sword including some and even more of what Yahtzee mentioned. (Except the motion controls critics, those are just retarded).

I don't think there is a single person in this entire forum who has played the wii for any decent amount of time that can tell me that the motion controls to their games have always worked 100% of the time. Not one. Even the creators know that they're prone to faults, that's why they have the mechanic where you press up on the D-pad to recenter it. When I press a button on my PS3 remote, there isn't a 1/10 a 1/20 or even a 1/50 chance that it won't work. It always works. It always does what I expect it to when I press it. Motion controls fail sometimes, and in a game that is all about using the motion controller, it is prone to failure.

People say often that critics who complain about motion controls are 'retarded' in some fashion don't seem to accept the fact that in a game where motion controls dictate EVERYTHING, they are susceptible to criticism because they are part of the games core mechanics. Last time I checked, critics have a right to complain about something when it doesn't work. Deal with it.

It works if you know how to use, yes even 100%, at least when it's concerned about the pointing system, just keep the Wii mote in a neutral position everytime you press something that needs to point. And overall as the guy above me said, it works almost always (95%), but those 95% are better than the 100% in a classic controller.
This might not be my favourite Zelda, but it definitly is the Zelda with better combat system. Playing WW after this was really sad, even with the combos Windwaker combat system was much worse.

Also Beetle as an upgrade that makes it faster...

The rest is more of the same, I won't waste as much time as you did.

ClanCrusher:

Trishbot does raise a valid point though. Zelda does seem to 'innovate' a lot more than the year of sequels, but just how much of this is the 'right' sort of innovation? Can one really qualify a new art style to a tried and true formula as innovation? Is a new control scheme all you need to be 'new'? You see, there are many games that do all that you're saying with pre-existing titles. They're called expansion packs.

I do think a new art style can be very innovative, especially if it supports and augments the experience. Wind Waker was innovative in a way no other game at the time was with an art style that allowed for more expressive characters than nearly any other game on the market could possibly compete with, all due to its art style. The same could be said for the art style for games such as Okami, Killer 7, Viewtiful Joe, Jet Set Radio, El Shaddai, and many other games that not only employ unique art styles but also THRIVE on them.

Just in the same way, a totally new way to experience the game I would call innovative. I would definitely call the shift from third-person to first-person for Metroid Prime to be an innovative move that changed the way we experience and interact with the game, just as I believe a new controller with new features can lead to innovative ways to use them and their features (be they wireless connectivity, analogue control, motion control, gyroscopic sensors, rumble feedback, or in some cases, even solar-powered energy.)

ClanCrusher:
But you know what? The simple argument that the game is more innovative than others doesn't excuse the fact that it isn't nearly as original and 'fresh' as people would like it to be.

A sound argument, though most people (unlike yourself) just say they want change, get it, and then say that wasn't the change they wanted. Though I'll address your points below.

ClanCrusher:
You want innovation? How about a Zelda game where Ganondorf isn't the ultimate bad guy, but rather an anti-hero?

Many Zelda games (nearly half) lack Ganondorf as the ultimate bad guy in the game. The man is a villain through and through, however, but even then he is not without some sympathetic qualities. Wind Waker in particular showed us a Ganondorf that was almost pitiable, relatable, and understandable. It took great strides in showing us a glimmer of his past, how and why he wound up a broken and cynical man, and how he was dealing with his unkind fate in juxtaposition against the bright and happy future Link and Zelda were to experience. It was a nuanced portrayal of the "main villain" that did far more to humanize him than most games ever do for their monstrous adversaries. While he may not have been an anti-hero, I could see how his ambitions would be seen as heroic, noble, and praise-worthy by the people he led, the very people he grew up watching die off.

ClanCrusher:
How about a game where Link doesn't use a sword?

Link's Crossbow Training. Lol. But, actually, you can beat the entire Zelda 1 and even Ocarina of Time without ever using your sword. In fact, many people like to do the "no sword" challenge in Ocarina of Time (instead using Deku Sticks, the Megaton Hammer, and their other weapons... you can even deflect Ganondorf's energy blasts using ordinary bottles).

ClanCrusher:
How about a game where your companion can fight with you instead of just providing advice?

Spirit Tracks. Zelda is with you every step of the way, and certain enemies can actually only be killed by her or paths opened up by her. She doesn't give you advice at all (because she's just as in the dark), but she proves to be a valuable ally from the beginning all the way to the end where she herself helps you deliver the final blow.

ClanCrusher:
How about a plot that isn't just simply good versus evil?

Link's Awakening. There is not world-threatening evil. The entire plot of the game is simply Link struggling to find a way to escape the island he has been marooned upon. Actually, even, the lines of good and evil are blurred when you realize that awakening the Wind Fish, and escaping the dream he's trapped you in, means everything and everyone you've come to love in the game will disappear, including the beautiful girl who saved your life at the beginning. It's not so clear cut on good versus evil, and there is no persistent ultimate evil badguy threatening the world. It is just you, Link, trying to find his way back home.

ClanCrusher:
Innovation is a broad term. Technically, anything new introduced into a game is considered 'innovation' but are you really going to settle with the meager offerings of new items and a coat of paint?

Innovation (noun) - Something new or different introduced.
I could name over 100 things that are innovative about Skyward Sword compared to every other Zelda game, from the way the game plays to how it sounds to how it looks. I believe Skyward Sword is irrefutably innovative... but rather, innovation is NOT the problem.

Different for different's sake most certainly is. Other M is innovative in a way no other Metroid game was before it... and yet most ardent fans of the series have a very negative opinion of the game, yet they are much happier with the equally innovative Metroid Prime. The difference is the changes Prime made to the series worked very well while the changes Other M brought were very regressive and harmful to the experience. Innovation does NOT mean quality, and I think that's the problem many people, including Yahtzee, fail to understand on a core level.

I once heard it described that a great video game is like a good bar of soap. Why would anyone ever change the formula for a bar of soap? It serves a specific purpose and nobody is out there demanding we re-invent soap. Sure, we can get different colored bars of soap with different fragrances, maybe even different shapes, but soap is soap. Much in the same way, a good video game formula can endure, and the best video game series have tapped into those formulas and reiterated, not reimagined them, for years. Mario is fundamentally the same type of character now in the same type of games as he was over 25 years ago. Same with the Zelda series, Metroid, Pokemon, Street Fighter II, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and others.

I think it would be a big mistake to take the soul and roots of a series and toss them out entirely, yet for many people that would be the only way a game could be "innovative" enough for them... if it became a completely different game, even genre, altogether. I found it interesting when they were making Resident Evil 4, and an early draft was just so action-driven they realized it wouldn't work... but they changed the name of the game, gave the hero white hair, looked at it from a different perspective, and created Devil May Cry from that foundation. They could have kept it a Resident Evil game, but its roots, its soul, was too far removed to be a true sequel in the franchise.

I think Zelda games are some of the most daring games to come out; they take bold risks with everything, from the way they look (Wind Waker), to how they play (Phantom Hourglass, Skyward Sword), to who the main villain is (Spirit Tracks, Minish Cap), to the age of Link as either a child (Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Spirit Tracks) or adult (Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword), to whether Zelda is even in the game at all (Majora's Mask, Link's Awakening) or if she's even a princess (Wind Waker, Skyward Sword), to how Link travels the world (on foot, by horse, by boat, by bird, by bear, by dinosaur, by kangaroo), to how games connect (Oracle game connectivity, Four Swords GBA connectivity), to whether Link is even human when you play the game (Majora's Mask, A Link to the Past, Twilight Princess), to whether they're single or multiplayer (Four Swords, Tetra's Trackers), to whether they're top down (Link to the Past), side scrolling (The Adventures of Link), 3D (Ocarina of Time), linear (Twilight Princess), free-roaming (Zelda 1), randomized (Four Swords), to even when and where they take place in time, either as direct sequels (Link's Awakening, Majora's Mask, Spirit Tracks) or prequels (Skyward Sword, Minish Cap, Ocarina of Time). I can't name any series, not Call of Duty, or Final Fantasy, or Metal Gear, or even Mario, that has gambled with so many essential parts of their formula yet always manages to keep the spirit of the series alive from iteration to iteration, from controller to stylus to motion controls, from 2D to 3D, from realistic to cartoony to painterly, from 8-bit Midi music to orchestral mp3s, etc.

ClanCrusher:
If you have any true love for the series, you should demand more than that. The fact that this 'sameyness' argument has been made before doesn't excuse the fact that it's still right.

And here's where I attest that the claim that the series is too similar is "right" is entirely objective. Beyond the fact I don't believe that to be true (and mentioned only a few examples out of many as to why that is the case), compared to any other series on the planet, I see almost no series dare to innovate as often or frequently as the Zelda series does. Most series play it far too safe and make only miniscule improvements (usually just graphics, not gameplay). I already mentioned several games, but even the biggest games this year, like Uncharted 3, Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, Dead Space 2, Assassin's Creed: Revelation, Resistance 3, Call of Duty: MW3, Batman: Arkham City, and even Skyrim, all follow the templates of their predecessors while doing nothing more than offering meager cosmetic upgrades (better looking, bigger environments, different locations), a few new items or weapons to use, but at heart they're the exact same games played in the exact same way as their very first iterations, examples of evolution instead of revolution...

... And that is NOT a bad thing, mind you. They do what they do very well. But I find it strange how Zelda in particular, despite not looking, playing, sounding, or even feeling much like any of its predecessors, is still called out as derivative of these same predecessors while other big-name games hardly get as much focus, attention, or criticism.

I think, and this is my personal opinion, the only reason for this is because standards and expectations for every new Zelda game are so inhumanly high that no matter what it does, no matter who different or well-executed its ideas may be, the slightest ounce of familiarity is latched upon and attacked as if that similarity dismisses all the other novel ideas it brings to the table. Yes, you will probably have a sword, go to dungeons, solve puzzles, get keys, find items, and kill bosses (usually getting a heart piece), and you might even save the girl (though you certainly did not in Link's Awakening... even Twilight Princess doesn't exactly have its titular heroine rescued). But that is also the stuff we love doing, much in the way a core Mario game will always have Mario in overalls wearing red, jumping on enemies, and will often fight Bowser to save Princess Peach. They are what they are, just as people don't tell Bugs Bunny to act like Mickey Mouse or why people don't want Batman to get superpowers and become just like Superman.

You can still innovate, but don't lose sight of what made your series great. I, personally, think Zelda pushes the envelope many times with just how much change they can get away with yet still be true to the franchise's respected roots. That's my take on it, anyway.

I like the game, but after playing through it twice in a row, I feel I need a trial seperation from it. Visiting the same areas over and over can be pretty taxing when you're trying to enjoy a game. I mean, it's a nice idea to go back once in a while and giving us a reason to do so isn't bad either, but when you force the player to revisit the same areas over and over in this sandbox-esque world, you really make the player wonder if they have something better they could be doing with their time. I've seen worse writing, honestly, but the thing is that some of Miyamoto's choices in that regard made me wonder, "Is this the same guy who wrote the story for Metroid: Other M?" And when you look at the graphics close up in Link's perspective, you can really see the Wii's limitations from here. The fact that I was using an HD-TV didn't really help matters either. The controls, you can take them or leave them. I'm the kind of guy who does his best with what he has, so I didn't really mind it, but I could see where everyone was coming from. Piece of advise: the system will have an easier time recognizing your swings if you grip from the back of the Wiimote.

Overall, it's earned an average score in my book and I certainly hope its done better next time.

P.S.:The "official" timeline Nintendo offered is convoluted that I find that the series may need a reboot. Seriously, three split timelines?

@ClanCrusher
First of all: An abomination? Skyward Sword? If this game is what you call an abomination than I'd hate to see what you're like when you play an actual bad game.

Second, most of your list of complaints seem to be mainly nitpicks. Rubber gloves? The clawshot not being able to grab items? If you didn't like the game that's fine. But you must have tried really hard to think of stuff to complain about this game my friend.

Kaitengiri:

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

You are awesome. XD

ClanCrusher:

3) Yhatzee is a meany head who doesn't like the games I like.

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

Nate-ndo:
Before I watched his review, I told my girlfriend that Yahtzee was going to hate Skyward Sword, and his chief complaints would be motion controls, the graphics, the game structure, and the fact that it has the same ur-narrative (save Zelda). I said he then usually goes, "Look how mad Nintendo fanboys are! I must be correct!"

Lordofthesuplex:
This is elitism plain and simple. You can't accept the fact that people are not as pretentious and have absurdly high standards as you and therefore have to generalize everyone who doesn't agree with the actual fanboys. Seriously, I'm done with Yahtzee as far as Nintendo games go. I'm only watching the stuff from the other companies he reviews from now on because if he's not biased against Nintendo then he clearly is obsessed with enhancing his standards on how he critiques games whenever that company is under the chopping block. And I hate it when anyone does that to any company.

Flamers. Got to love them. Notice in particular that the third quote directly proves the counterpoint of the first quote and the second quote proves Yhatzee's over-reaching point. Frankly it's rather humorous just how contradictory these flames are sometimes. One calls him elitist, the other calls him a Middle Schooler. Frankly, considering that he said 'fuck you' to all the fanboys, he probably expected this, but by responding to him has outed you as a fanboy. See the catch-22? Congrats, you three have just had your true natures revealed.

But I digress. If you fanboys, and I'm talking about all fanboys, not just the Skyward Sword crowd, have yet to realize Yhatzee's general opinion towards mainstream gaming after OVER A HUNDRED EPISODES, you're never going to learn. Just like you're probably never going to learn that it's better to argue using logic and counterpoints rather than simple minded insults and blind loyalty.

What one person says doesn't disprove my point. It's not hard to imagine people not liking Yahtzees reviews for the reason I already said in my first post (You can probably find some in this thread). For one claiming that I should use logic and counterpoints, you instead resort to simple-minded insults yourself. hypocrite.
I'm criticizing the way Yahtzee deals with people not liking his review, not the review itself; if you used any reading comprehension you would've known my comment had nothing to do with him liking/disliking skyward sword. If you used logic, my comment itself isn't an "outing" of me as a fanboy because it had nothing to do with me liking skyward sword. That would be like me saying you're a blind Yahtzee fanboy for responding to my comment in the first place (although that makes more sense since you could neither read my comment and resorted to simple insults by calling me a flamer/fanboy). And you're basically telling me that over a hundred episodes, I should still expect Yahtzee to make childish reactions/arguments because people dismiss his review and for him to not grow up. Man, I wonder who's true nature has actually been revealed.

Opinions are like butt holes on the internet, everyone has one, but who gives a shit.

Hiya Yahtzee, Zelda/Nintendo fanboy here.
Not the "foaming at the mouth because you said OoT is a bad game" kind of fanboy, I just really enjoy Zelda games, so that ranks me as a fanboy I suppose. Same goes for Nintendo games, even though I refuse to defend everything that gets put on the Wii.

I agree with your dislike of Fi, your dislike of motion controls (generally speaking), and how you found it silly that the world is bright and un-cloudy despite being covered with clouds when seen from above.
But I disagree with your overall hate of the game, how the motion controls suck in this game, and how this is just "another" Zelda game.
I love Skyward Sword because of all the new things it does well, and if you disagree, so be it.
I've watched enough of your reviews and read enough of your posts to know that you are not insane or like bad games. Hell, I bought and played Psychonauts simply because you said it is fan-fucking-tastic, and you know what? It really is.

You're entitled to your dislike of Skyward Sword as much as I am entitled to my love of Skyward Sword.
I'm not going to stop watching your reviews and spam every comment you make with "ZOMG WHAT ABOUT SKYWARD SWORD?!?!?!" rage :P

Happy New Years sir.

I respect people's opinions including Yahtzees but I'll still have my own opinion on anything. Still, Yahtzee did make very valid complaints against it. Skyward Sword pissed me off so many times.

Fi states the obvious too many times she makes Navi tolerable.
Electric Bokoholins and Lizards with metal gauntlets, all really irritating.
Backtracking, then again Wind Waker took a long time to get from point A to point B so I was immune to backtracking.

Yeah I'm defending the game slightly, I can't help it, for all it did bad it did alot more right for me. OK one last thing, motion controls, I thought they work well, am I alone? I didn't care for drowsing however. Yahtzee, why did you not mention that? Why? It was a perfect target for bad motion controls.

But yeah, theres going to be someone who hates what you love. For example, I hate Doctor Who, fuck that show. You hate Zelda? Thats cool. I have no ending quote, hey its 2012.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

jackpackage200:
I think yahtzee and i are the only people who hated this game. The game was boring and not fun at all.

EDIT: What sucks is that my friends have been giving me shit for not liking it

You're not alone. The game is bad and most importantly FUCKING BORING.

Especially because it's so easy. I have the feeling that Nintendo is making their games only for retarded people.

ClanCrusher:
snip...

Yahtzee is in the business of criticism. He started the flame war himself. Skyward Sword is genuinely loved by an insane amount of people for reasons that can be easily articulated (and Yahtzee had to have known such since he released his review almost a month after it was released.) The fans are not drooling monkeys. For Yahtzee not to expect some heat for calling Skyward Sword the worst Zelda game he's ever played (having seemingly played like five of 'em) and not expect it would make him a foolish man. Since I know him not to be a foolish man, he most likely did it purposely to stir up the flame war. He trolled this one. I did not expect him to dump on it like he did, but I did expect him not to like it too much.

His criticisms for this game generally fall flat. I only got frustrated a few times with the game because I did not know what to do at a few points, but I generally loved it. It was fun and harder than the previous couple of 3-D console installments. I will enjoy replaying it several times. And that's all I care about.

I am a big fan of Yahtzee, having purchased much merchandise and his book (which was insanely good.) I will continue enjoying his videos.

Flamers. Got to love them. Notice in particular that the third quote directly proves the counterpoint of the first quote and the second quote proves Yhatzee's over-reaching point. Frankly it's rather humorous just how contradictory these flames are sometimes. One calls him elitist, the other calls him a Middle Schooler. Frankly, considering that he said 'fuck you' to all the fanboys, he probably expected this, but by responding to him has outed you as a fanboy. See the catch-22? Congrats, you three have just had your true natures revealed.

My response to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PetqKh7lr8g&feature=related

So I'm a fanboy for exposing the fact that Yahtzee can't work a wiimote for jack crap and is flat out lying about control issues to deny his ineptitude towards said fact? I'm a fanboy because Yahtzee's whole attitude towards his naysayers is to give an "I'm always right" high and mighty, self-righteous response which is what an elitist does?

Okay by that logic, I could say you're a Yahtzee fanboy for playing white knight to him.

BTW, 90% of your so called flaws either being your petty and trivial opinions or outright lies.

You failed to mention Fi's blandness.
She makes a good calculator ,but sidekick? Hell no!
Nintendo didn't seem to try. I liked Midna because she had spunk. Because we depended on each other. She rescued me from a jail cell and then I carried her heavy ass in the rain.

I could make it without Fi.

Penis:Oh look that Mogma might share his Bomb Bag with m-

Fi:MASTER THERE IS A 86% CHANCE YOU NEED A SHEILD!!!

No shit Sherlock.

only thing really getting on my nerves is the slow text talk and the use of motion for the shield. the motion control of the sword is cool although i flail and my arm got sore after a few hours.

ClanCrusher:

I don't think there is a single person in this entire forum who has played the wii for any decent amount of time that can tell me that the motion controls to their games have always worked 100% of the time. Not one.

I can reasonably say they work 95% of the time.

If you can't get the controls to work properly, you are simply bad at the game.

I'll repeat this again, and this time you better acknowledge it:

If you think Skyward Sword's controls are bad, then you are simply bad AT the controls, which is another thing entirely.

And seriously, 4 out of 10? Even with all those flaws, it's still a game that's fun and worth playing. Any score less than a 7.5 is bullshit, even if it is your opinion. 4 out of 10 is a score that's given to shovelware, and I know for a FACT that Skyward Sword is better than THOSE games.

You should have told me you responded. I wasn't looking for the reply. xD

The Mythmaker:
No, I haven't. I didn't feel the need to read over 200 posts for background to respond to one of yours.

You really should. A lot of the stuff you've brought up has already been said to death.

To summarize though: SS certainly has its flaws and I know quite a few of them just off the top of my head. But it's not a bad game, and it's certainly not "the same as OoT".

Of course he did. You expected a representitive sample? He's not hosting a debate, he's making a point. I don't hear him arguing about polite and well-reasoned hecklers, do you?

It's not a very good point if he's not going to address the valid criticisms of his review and is only going to focus on the froth-mouthed fanbois.

Please restrain yourself to quoting things I actually said. It's hard for me to take your rebuttal seriously when you're responding to something I didn't say. What I did say was "roughly the same points", not "in the exact same order".

Fair enough. The gist is still somewhat incorrect, though.

Strangely, I never made that case either. You've not only made my argument a strawman, but you've used only a fraction of my argument and are saying it should be the basis for the whole thing. Shall I tell you that your argument is invalid because the inclusion of the beetle is not enough to make the game different from Twilight Princess? No, because that's not the only point you made, and it would be grossly unfair. I'd appreciate you doing me the same courtesy.

My problem with your point wasn't the notion that the items are in similar locations, but that this is somehow important. Why does it matter what order the items appear in?

So let's see...it's used in order to collect items from far away, and to reach spaces and attack enemies other items can't. The boomerang, on the other hand, is used to collect items from far away, and to reach spaces and attack enemies that other items can't. I'm not saying that it's the same, since you brought up other ways the beetle is used, merely that it fulfills the same role; boomerang 2.0, as it were. To put it another way, what can the boomerang do that the beetle can't?

The Boomerang (at least in OoT) was a device used to stun enemies and reach items that were far away. The Beetle is a fly-by-wire tool used for exploration and reaching far away items, and later can be upgraded to retrieve bombs and other items from unreachable locations and drop them on targets. It has no such "stun" feature and is functionally useless in combat, whereas the Boomerang can buy you time in combat to retrieve a weapon that can actually deal a killing blow. It's similar to comparing an airplane to a helicopter and asking "what's the difference" on the grounds that both of them can fly. There are an abundance of functional differences, and the practical applications of each are very different.

You only gave two examples (your condescenion is appreciated, by the way) of how generic such a comparison was, ostensibly because you didn't think it was necessary for me to get the idea. For the same reason, I didn't see the need to give a half-dozen examples to support every claim I made, because I assumed you'd get the GIST of my argument. In any case:

Non-human assistant giving directions
Link becomes a hero because it's his destiny
Zelda lost/kidnapped/trapped
Link must visit a series of temples as part of a quest
Link meets main villain early, but survives the encounter
Link must begin his quest in or around his home
Native species require Link's help to counteract presence of villain
Link has a strong emotional tie to his mount
etc.

I'm not saying they're the same, but I'm making the point that certain plot elements generally occur in each Zelda game.

All fair points, but none are what I'd call "critical elements" of the game, and any individual one could easily be tossed aside. *shrug* So I guess I'm not sure I understand how this is all that important either.

Not to mention that some of these are pretty honestly weak or wrong. I seem to recall that there was at least one Zelda game (one of the handhelds, never played it) in which Zelda actually wasn't a captive for once, or in some cases did not even appear in the game. Most of the handheld Zelda games don't introduce a mount at all. And a couple of the rest can be chalked up to typical heroic tropes: there are always damsels and people to save from an evil villain who introduces himself much too early and defeats but doesn't kill the hero. That's pretty typical of any hero story honestly, not just Zelda. And while I can certainly agree that it might be nice to see some of these things not appear or appear less, I'm certainly not going to begrudge the game for using them.

Also, you'd keep using some of these same arguments even if they weren't there at all. If the game abolished the word "temple", folks such as yourself would just replace it with "dungeon" and keep arguing the same thing....even though the entire "subgenre" that Zelda games fall into is that of a dungeon-exploration sort of game. If his assistant was human, you'd still balk that he has an assistant at all, and how "samey" it is.

As many points as you've presented here, you have to admit that they're all really rather shallow. They're certainly not worth picking at.

Nothing. I personally enjoy it. But I'm not making the case that it's a problem, merely that it is, in fact, similar in each game.

Then why bring it up? Zelda games are, by tradition, a lot of dungeon-and-exploration action-adventure. This sort of strikes me as similar to saying that "ya know, Battlefield 3 feels an awful lot like Battlefield 2 because of all of these guns and shooting sequences." Well, yes, they probably should be similar....they're an integral part of the game's niche.

If I'd said I disagreed with that, I would be wrong. But I didn't, since I said something the effect of them having the "same basis", in that most rooms require you to hit a switch/switches or kill each enemy in the room to continue. Pervious Zelda games were not true to formula in every room either, even in games which came to extablish that formula, but the same elements were present in each game.

But again, that's being much too generic and seems to be faulting the game's genre for its similarities to previous titles. A lot of things do, and should, carry over from game to game because otherwise you're not in the same genre/subgenre any more. *shrug*

Looking over it, there are some things I agree with as being appreciable changes(stamina and upgrades) and some I don't (map [now a mix of compass and dungeon map] and hearts changes [more hearts, more damage, little difference]), but I'm not going case-by-case to address them all. Partially because they're mostly someone else's points, and also because I don't think we want to be trading back and forth a dozen extra points.

I'll agree that some are certainly more valuable than others. I only stated them to point out that the game does have clearly appreciable differences that set it apart from the other games. If it was truly as similar as Yahtzee seems to want people to believe, there wouldn't be fans of OoT/TP/etc who say they hate everything about this game. It really does take some pretty big steps in another direction and that's going to polarize people.

What perhaps bothers me most about Yahtzee's stance is that it seems to say "SS is the same as OoT, but I know how to make Zelda games different! Just make them more like WW instead!". He basically seems to be suggesting that he just doesn't like the path Zelda games have taken and that he'd rather see each game follow a different strand instead. Which is an acceptable opinion....but it's not what he is saying he wants. He's contradicting himself. He's saying "I want different Zelda games but I want them to be more like this one game I liked". These two things overlap to some degree but are NOT the same thing. If he just wants more Zeldas like Okami or WW, then he should just say so. He shouldn't instead decide to keep claiming that each new Zelda is identical to OoT and that they are progressively worse and worse....that's not attacking the right point and it just makes him look dishonest.

The plot itself is different, but structurally, it is very similar. Ganon may not be the villain, but the new villain plays essentially the same role in the story, albeit somewhat more visibly. The temple-to-temple structure around which the plot is based is roughly the same. The way you gain access to each temple is also similar to previous iteration I'm not saying every piece of the plot is the same as in other games, with different characters and locations, but many serve a similar function.

That makes more sense and it's a fair point, but once again it seems to be blaming the genre for being too samey. While I certainly don't mind acknowledging that yes, a lot of what Zelda games do is similar, I hesitate to suggest that they are "the same" (as Yahtzee indicates) and a lot of it ties back into the game being of a particular niche, and trying not to go too extremely far from that niche.

Plus we've seen what happens when games try to reach too far out of their niche....Metroid Other M much? I'd much rather Zelda be accused of being "too samey" and happily point out all of the flaws in that argument....than to have a title which is actually significantly different in such a way as to make it almost repulsive and no longer representative of itself. That's just my take.

I don't believe there's anyone seriously saying that they're the same game. People might cite similarities, even strong similarities, but no one but a moron would seriously claim that all Zelda games are exactly the same.

For someone who doesn't believe it, Yahtzee sure seems to say it an awful lot. And while I might believe that it's just trying to piss off fanbois the first or second time, it's when you keep repeating it that I start to think that maybe you really believe it.

*looks around* Hope you're not talking about me. I in no way inferred it was a bad game, or even offered a single scrap of criticism of my own.

Nope, not looking at you specifically. Just getting frustrated with the constant arguing over this game. People just can't seem to accept that it isn't actually a "bad" game. A flawed game, certainly. But not a bad game by any stretch of the word. And I wouldn't mind it at all (since I enjoy the game myself and no one is going to ruin it for me)....except that the common argument against a Zelda game being "good" is that it's "the same as OoT". This is not only wrong, it's tired and stale. It's akin to the people who berate Skyrim as a bad game because "it's a Bethesda title" or other such ridiculous nonsense. It makes me feel as if no one actually grasps what makes a game "good" or "bad" anymore, and we're all just broken into little loyalty camps around specific development teams and don't dare venture beyond ze designated borders between each camp.

After reading more posts that looked like entire threads by themselves I feel I have a bit more to say. Starting with, again, I simply liked this game for everything it was, had no issues with controls motion or otherwise, and if I had gotten annoyed with 'electric gimmick' as its been dubbed, hey guys! bombs, arrows, even the minor stun from slingshot nulled all of this, sorry if you can't run straight at stuff with just a sword and win, that's not how we roll anymore.

Getting onto my point, why beyond why do we have these pages long summaries, analyizing the entire game as if we were made to take notes and test after every subsection by subsection? Has the gaming community become so scrutinizing that we ALL have this fever-dream of being game reviewers? Each arguement here begun as pass/fail, either the game is the best thing ever or it fails harder than Obscure: The Aftermath.

What I am trying to say is that putting nearly anything under a microscope you can find it looks pixilated and dingey, which is what we love Yahtzee for. However, none of us are using humor or trying to get a rise out of anyone except to 'win' an arguement which no one will read or care about.

This is not and never was ment to be an arguement, but more a realization that I had based on reading posts from both sides.

"It's not a very good point if he's not going to address the valid criticisms of his review and is only going to focus on the froth-mouthed fanbois."

His post seemed less a general response to his critics than a condemnation of those self-same froth-mouthed fanbois. Unless he feels his opinion was invalidated by points other people made, he's likely to defend it. And while some people might have brought up valid, thoughtful points, I doubt that those were the comments that drove him to make his post in the first place. None of the arguments that you yourself have made are ones that he mentioned in his follow-up (those being that his argument is invalid because it's stale, not because it's wrong; that his opinion is invalidated because he is biased against motion controls; and that he is biased against the Zelda series as a whole).

"My problem with your point wasn't the notion that the items are in similar locations, but that this is somehow important. Why does it matter what order the items appear in?"

In your original post, you said "the differences between this and OoT are quite numerous indeed. Not only in mechanics and gameplay, but in story as well." My point was that one could make the case that the similarities between SS and OoT are quite numerous as well. Not to the point that they're the same game, obviously, but to the point someone could look at the two games and say "these are quite similar."

"The Boomerang (at least in OoT) was a device used to stun enemies and reach items that were far away. The Beetle is a fly-by-wire tool used for exploration and reaching far away items, and later can be upgraded to retrieve bombs and other items from unreachable locations and drop them on targets. It has no such "stun" feature and is functionally useless in combat, whereas the Boomerang can buy you time in combat to retrieve a weapon that can actually deal a killing blow. It's similar to comparing an airplane to a helicopter and asking "what's the difference" on the grounds that both of them can fly. There are an abundance of functional differences, and the practical applications of each are very different.

The difference between seemed more to be a case of these games having a different approach to non-sword combat. Most of OoT's weapons were ones which had a strong combat-focus. The slingshot, for instance, I found to be very unsuited, and generally an inferior choice, for general combat in SS, while in OoT, it was the preferred method for deeling with certain enemies (Keese and skultulas, for example). The same can be said for items like the hookshot. Mostly, the use of tools in OoT was not just as a tool, but as a weapon as well. SS focuses on a more strategic use for them. Slingshots to hit certain targets (vines, switches, etc), hookshot for platforming, and bombs for opening paths. Rarely do you encounter an enemy where the sword is not the easiest way to defeat them (they do show up, but rarely).

The boomerang wouldn't fit into this dynamic, as it was both a combat and practical tool. The beetle is designed similar to the boomerang, used to enter unreachable places and hit enemies in awkward places, to act as a slower projectile with unlimited ammo, and to retreive items. The beetle fills a similar role, except that, like other items, it has had its active combat role removed, and replaced with the ability to drop items.

"It's similar to comparing an airplane to a helicopter and asking "what's the difference" on the grounds that both of them can fly."

A more appropriate comparison would be a traditional bomber and a drone bomber. Clearly different, but interchangeable in some situations.

"That's pretty typical of any hero story honestly, not just Zelda. And while I can certainly agree that it might be nice to see some of these things not appear or appear less, I'm certainly not going to begrudge the game for using them."

Same here. My favorite parts of SS are the parts closer to the "core" Zelda experience (if you'll forgive the term). But just as I don't begrudge the game using them, I won't begrudge someone else for saying that the repetition bothered them.

"As many points as you've presented here, you have to admit that they're all really rather shallow. They're certainly not worth picking at."

Of course they're shallow. Frankly, most of them don't bother me a bit (most of my problems with this game arise from what has changed, not what has stayed the same). But I know it bothers some people, and they aren't "wrong" for thinking that way. They just have different priorities.

"Then why bring it up?"

To point out that there is a case someone can make, however little I think it matters, that these games are similar. Logical, clear-minded people have made the case to me that these games are too similar for them to personally want to play more than one. Their loss, IMO, but that's their opinion. *shrugs*

"But again, that's being much too generic and seems to be faulting the game's genre for its similarities to previous titles. A lot of things do, and should, carry over from game to game because otherwise you're not in the same genre/subgenre any more. *shrug*"

No quarrel from me. For the record, I don't agree with the opinion that these games are too similar.

But I don't see it as an invalid opinion which is "provably false" either. You might hold the opinion that there were enough changes for this game to stand alone as its own creation (as I do), but there's nothing wrong with someone's head if they believe that there weren't. Their standards might be unreasonably high, but that doesnt mean they're lying, which is the case you make.

"If he just wants more Zeldas like Okami or WW, then he should just say so. He shouldn't instead decide to keep claiming that each new Zelda is identical to OoT and that they are progressively worse and worse....that's not attacking the right point and it just makes him look dishonest."

As he said of Windwaker "the fighting engine worked well, there was an epic free-roaming world to explore and the cartoony visuals will ensure that it never ages poorly." These are things he pointed to as being good, and that he believes SS has been moving away from. He's free to say that the older elements of the game (including those carried over from OoT) are not aging well, and that he thought the direction of WW was a fresh one that the series should have emphasized more. Maybe I'm not making the case he would here, but it's an example of how the two philosphies don't contradict one another. There is nothing necessarily dishonest about it.

"That makes more sense and it's a fair point, but once again it seems to be blaming the genre for being too samey. While I certainly don't mind acknowledging that yes, a lot of what Zelda games do is similar, I hesitate to suggest that they are "the same" (as Yahtzee indicates) and a lot of it ties back into the game being of a particular niche, and trying not to go too extremely far from that niche."

There's nothing wrong with preferring the game stay in that niche, any more than wanting the game to move out of it. Some people liked the direction that Other M took, and if many did not, it was a valid direction to take, and there was an auience for it.

"For someone who doesn't believe it, Yahtzee sure seems to say it an awful lot. And while I might believe that it's just trying to piss off fanbois the first or second time, it's when you keep repeating it that I start to think that maybe you really believe it."

Hyperbole, perhaps? Even a moron would be hard pressed to defend complaining about what changed, as well as claiming that they are the "same game," and everybody realizes that "same game" is an exaggeration of an opinion he actually holds to. I seriously doubt that Yahtzee would seriously floss himself to death if he paid 70 dollars for an expansion pack, or eat his own ass if Silent Hill 5 was any good.

"It makes me feel as if no one actually grasps what makes a game "good" or "bad" anymore, and we're all just broken into little loyalty camps around specific development teams and don't dare venture beyond ze designated borders between each camp."

Honestly, there really can't be a consensus about what makes a game good. People who like Kirby's Epic Yarn and people who like Dark Souls probably have different ideas of what makes a game entertaining (likely "fun" and "challenge", respectively). And a game doesn't have to be "good" to be either. The game I've played most on my Xbox 360 has a Metascore of 46, and even I admit it's a piece of crap. But I actually have more fun playing it than other, better games. :P

You know Yahtzee is starting to piss me off, not how he hates 90% everything I've accepted that Hell I didn't even buy this game, it's how he goes out of his way to piss people off. "Fuck you Skyward Sword and you too fanboys"...classy. I know that he's entitled to his opinion and it's his job to tear down these games but why does he need to so blatantly insult those who disagree with him? If anyone else in popular media said "fuck you" to a group that criticized them they would be crucified, why the fuck does this guy get a free pass?

Honestly, if you don't like a game just stop playing and move on. Nobody has forced you to play Skyward Sword against your will. Yahtzee's a professional game reviewer so he has a valid reason to go on long rants about a game he doesn't like, it's part of his job. People who aren't proffessional game reviewers probably have better things they can do with their time than try to show the rest of the world why some game they didn't enjoys is bad.

To those in support of Skward Sword, don't fuel the fire with this longwinded banter. You enjoyed it, you have nothing to prove.

The Mythmaker:
-snip-

I had a bunch of nice replies but the forum ate my post and I ain't typing for another half hour to rewrite it, so screw it. XD

Suffice it to say I agree with you on some points, disagree on others, and I still strongly believe that Yahtzee has no business making claims he doesn't at least intend to address or defend. *shrug* In any case, I liked the game and Yahtzee's disapproval means little to me. SS is a good step in mechanics, but it needs to incorporate a more TP-esque story and world.

Alright, I feel like this needs saying.

Twilight Princess had a lot of potential. It's clear that they were aiming for a more mature Zelda and in some respects, they succeeded. However, a couple major things really held it back.

For one, and this is a big one for me. For a zelda game trying to be mature, it wasn't mature enough. That's right. For lack of a better word, it just kind of felt half-assed. Like they wanted to have a mature zelda game but were still holding on to some of the childish elements.

And lastly, compared to OoT, the world just kind of felt... empty. It seemed like there's was nothing really left to do after you finished the main storyline besides that optional cave in the desert. And everything was just so easy. You were just really tough all the time.

Having said that, I thought it was a good game.

Now, I will admit right now that I've never played Windwaker. However, I can't stand two things.

One. You're child link again and are such for the rest of the game. Massive points off for that. Now I might not have said that if I hadn't played OoT but once I saw adult link, I was like. "I'm not going to play another Zelda game where I have to be child link all the time again."

Two, the cartoony cell-shaded look. More massive points off for that. Yes, I can't get past it. It looks stupid, especially combined with child link. BAAAHH!!!

So call me an idiot if you want but from those two things, I just can't play Windwaker without hating it.

Hey, WTF Escapist! Ignore this double post, guys.

 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