• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Is Skyward Sword a Good Game or a Bad Game?

Is Skyward Sword a Good Game or a Bad Game

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It is not the best but neither the worst game in the series

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Skyward Sword in my opinion was nothing short of a disappointment. It had too many missed opportunities, too many failed experiments...too much wasted potential. I think Nintendo spent far too much time in making the impressionistic art style than they did making the game enjoyable. Just because the game looks pretty and plays well doesn't make the game good.

1:1 swordplay = good concept and good execution, but wasted on crappy enemies.
Art style = good, no complaints. I cannot complain about the jagged edges because that's more the Wii's fault than SS I think.
Characters = bad. Only truly relevant characters are Link, Zelda, Ghirahim, Final Boss (won't spoil the name) and Old Woman (won't spoilers the name). Every other character was there just to be there; Ninty didn't try to develop any of the characters except for Groose, but he isn't even relevant -- he's just comic relief.
Music = Bad; I do not like most of the music because it just doesn't fit. Twilight Princess had better music, and that's one of my least favored Zelda games!
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
Characters = bad. Only truly relevant characters are Link, Zelda, Ghirahim, Final Boss (won't spoil the name) and Old Woman (won't spoilers the name). Every other character was there just to be there; Ninty didn't try to develop any of the characters except for Groose, but he isn't even relevant -- he's just comic relief.


Since when does any Zelda game have a large cast of characters that sold the story very well? MM is the only one that comes close, but none of those characters have any development. At all. All the main characters (save the Old Woman and Fi) developed exceptionally well in SS, even Link himself. Not sure how you can't see that.

Notice: Extremely long post ahead.

I think SS is the title that future titles will look to for inspiration, especially the console titles. The motion controls and combat were both fantastic, with spot-on accuracy and enemies that were actually intelligent and aware of your actions. (They reacted to bombs and stomped on Link's hands, for God's sake.) In past titles, they just ran at you and offered no defense whatsoever. In SS, they actually reacted to your attacks and blocked them according to how you swung your sword. This opened up the ability to manipulate their defenses, something that's used in combat in real life. Some enemies even dodged your attacks, which was unheard of in past titles. Remember the Quadro Babas? Yeah, they could dodge. A variation of a simple plant enemy... could dodge. THAT'S not something ANYONE would have expected to see in a Zelda game. Each enemy required a different approach in order to be defeated, whereas it was all about going in and mindlessly spamming a button before. It's gotten to the point where playing even MM can get boring for me at times due to this due to how simplistic the combat is compared to SS's. It was like fighting the same thing over and over again in previous titles. All there was was pressing a button. Thing is, I didn't realize this until SS. I thought the enemies were very unique and diverse in past titles. Now, well, not so much. I'm not saying every last enemy was the same old thing, but most were. SS's enemies actually provided some diversity, which is something that's welcome to any game series.

The bosses were also some of the most impressive ones in series history. I'll admit, they were a bit on the easy side, but at least they broke away from that God-awful "hit weak point/stun, hack and slash, repeat" battle style that plagued TP and ruined some bosses in titles such as OoT and WW. The bosses returned that that classic style where we had to attack while on the run, so to speak. They returned to the style of bosses such as Helmasaur and Ganon from ALttP, which were good old-fashioned fights. Tentalus, sadly, didn't do this, which is why he wound up being the worst and most pathetic dungeon boss in the game. He was literally the only boss I actually hated in SS. But, whatever, all the other bosses in the game, save the overworld bosses -- another fine aspect of the game and something that should be expanded on in the future -- were fantastic and brought the boss battles back to their glory days. Of course, the overworld bosses should be this way in order for them to suit their roll of not being a dungeon boss, so I'm not complaining that they weren't the classic style.

Speaking of the overworld, the provinces in the game were spectacular. The dungeon vibe that was given to them was highly entertaining and kept the action at a steady pace, rather than traveling a barren and uninteresting overworld for 15 minutes or so. The overworld was always so disconnected from the action in past titles (save LA, MC, and a little bit in ALttP). It just got so boring finding a hidden secret here and there with a whole lot of nothing in-between. SS? Nothing like that. Nothing like that at all. Hidden secrets were littered across the provinces and were still able to be discovered along the way, but the fact that there were puzzles and enemies that were actually worth not ignoring in-between these secrets allowed the oveworld to never become a drag. Things like the Goddess Cubes also gave reason to explore the sky a bit along the adventure, making it much more than just a means of traveling from place to place.

The mini-games in the sky (and the surface) were also quite entertaining, which was a huge step up from TP where the mini-games were virtually non-existent. Skyloft was also worth dropping in on constantly. For the first time, the Bazaar was actually worth shopping in. In every past Zelda game, rupees had very little to no use the entire game. I would always have a full wallet with nothing to buy (save MM, but that was due to time travel, not things to buy). Not so in SS. The potions, the different shields, the extra containers? All worth getting in this game. Upgrading the items also provided a nice money sink and was a nice reward for collecting the spoils. I'm not saying it was the greatest upgrade system ever -- it definitely needs to be expanded on in the future -- but it was really nice to actually be able to have Link's arsenal do some cool new things that aided us in the combat and puzzles.

The dungeons were also a high point for the game. Not one of the game's dungeons was bad. Yeah, the Ancient Cistern is pretty lacking compared to the others, but it's not terrible, and it at least has a kick-*** boss to end it off on a high note (which is ironic, seeing as Tentalus ended off what I believe to be the game's greatest dungeon, the Sandship). Every puzzle in SS was at the perfect difficulty level for Zelda. Not too hard, not too easy. They were just enough to make you think, but not so hard as to make you rack your brain. This is how Zelda should be. Despite the fact that it has what is most likely the most hardcore fanbase in gaming and that it's home to some of the best games of all time, it's a more casual series at heart. It's a series designed for everyone to play, from hardcore gamer, to casual gamer, to even people who just play video games every now-and-then. It's not supposed to have Valve-like puzzles or I Want to Be the Guy kind of difficulty. It's supposed to provide a challenge that isn't frustrating, and that's just what the dungeons (and everything else) in SS do. I wouldn't mind there being multiple difficulty levels for the combat in future titles, but the puzzles need to stay right where they are in this game. A little harder wouldn't hurt too much, but Zelda should never go back to puzzles in games like ALttP and (sometimes) OoT where they feel more like annoying obstacles than events designed to cause you to think a little. That would be a huge mistake on Nintendo's part.

Finally, and last but not least, was the story in SS. Holy schnitzel. The caliber that the story was raised to was not what I was expecting at all. It was without question the most in-depth and emotional story in Zelda yet. Every one of the main characters played a legitimate roll in the unfolding of the events and gave off an aura that was easy to fall in love with. With the exception of Fi, each of these characters went through an incredibly deep amount of character development for a Zelda game -- even Link himself. Throughout the story, their personalities grew and evolved, and, alongside of that, more pieces of the puzzle kept falling into place... only to reveal more missing pieces. For the first time ever in series history, the huge plot change didn't happen until about 85% into the game. It's always been halfway into the game, i.e. the point where Link switches goals in order to reach his ultimate one. Thing is, the main goal was different this time around, as well. Instead of instantly setting out to find some items in order to defeat a villain that's made his intentions pretty clear, we were trying to find Zelda and find out why she kept moving from place to place and who the mysterious figure with her was, as well as why Ghirahim needed her to revive his unknown master (who happened to be right under our noses, yet in our faces the entire time, making his revelation anything but sudden). This was also the first Zelda that actually had me tear up. Ever. In fact, no title in general has brought out the kind of emotion out of me that SS did. The game actually made me care whether I saved Zelda or not. Before, it was all about defeating the main villain so that we could save the day and blah blah blah blah blah. All that "knight in shining armor" sort of stuff (even though it wasn't exactly like that -- just an exaggeration). This time it was personal. Even ST didn't have me caring about Zelda as much, although she was definitely important to me by the end of the game. Thing is, that sense of caring took until the end of the game. It was almost at the very beginning of the game, seeing Link and Zelda's relationship flourish and feel intense in just less than a couple hours. All the events of just missing her only fueled that fire.

The villain duo of the game was also fantastic. It was clearly taken from Zant and Ganondorf, but it was actually legitimate storytelling. Instead of Demise using Ghirahim the entire time to get ahead, Ghirahim had to make a conscious and tremendous effort in order to revive Demise. Without Ghirahim, Demise had no chance of returning. At all. Demise wouldn't have gotten another chance to obtain the Triforce without his servant. His first defeat as The Imprisoned from the very power he sought would have also been his last. Plain and simple. While Demise was the final boss, Ghirahim served the roll as the main villain in the game because of this, and he was a mighty damn good one with his dynamic personality. (Flamboyant one moment, ruthless the next.) And, while Demise's true form only showed up for about 5 minutes, he had a presence the entire game as The Imprisoned, and was constantly mentioned by Ghirahim. Unlike in TP where Ganondorf kinda came out and said, "Surprise!", the name Demise wasn't even revealed until that 85% point in the game, which made his mystery that much more intense and his full revelation extremely climactic. Where TP failed in the villain category, SS succeeded in every way possible, which is a might fine redemption status for Nintendo, if I may say so myself.

Bottom line, SS is the new best Zelda and a new cornerstone for the series. OoT will remain a foundation without a doubt, but it won't be the only one to look to anymore. Everything that SS has done has brought new life into the Zelda series. Most of them need to be more fleshed out in the future, but that's not exactly something we haven't seen before in past revolutionary titles (ALttP and OoT). Any kind of elements that bring on a new era for a series are going to need to be expanded on in order to make them even better than the already are, in turn, giving future games a chance to outdo their predecessors (which I somewhat expect Zelda Wii U to do). SS's new-ish formula isn't perfect, as a little bit of open exploration should return to the series in order to allow the story to capitalize even more on the gameplay, but it's pretty close to what the ideal Zelda formula is. After so many years of coming close but not cutting it, Nintendo has finally delivered the new best Zelda game. Long may that trend continue.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
I personally enjoyed Skyward Sword more than Ocarina of Time, which I never thought I would say when I obtained it.
I believe the story was a great setup to make it the first in the timeline, though it still leave some things open for another game to come before.

All in all, I give it a 4.75/5, -.25 for the Ancient Cistern. I didn't want another water temple. Oh well!
 

Garo

Boy Wonder
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
Behind you
Since when does any Zelda game have a large cast of characters that sold the story very well? MM is the only one that comes close, but none of those characters have any development. At all. All the main characters (save the Old Woman and Fi) developed exceptionally well in SS, even Link himself. Not sure how you can't see that.

I personally didn't think they were particularly well developed. I know a lot of people will point to Groose, but I didn't find his sudden transformation at all realistic. It seemed rather sudden and inorganic, mostly there to spice up the Imprisoned battles - which is a point I'll get to later.

Notice: Extremely long post ahead.

This applies to this post as well. ;)

I think SS is the title that future titles will look to for inspiration, especially the console titles. The motion controls and combat were both fantastic, with spot-on accuracy and enemies that were actually intelligent and aware of your actions. (They reacted to bombs and stomped on Link's hands, for God's sake.) In past titles, they just ran at you and offered no defense whatsoever. In SS, they actually reacted to your attacks and blocked them according to how you swung your sword. This opened up the ability to manipulate their defenses, something that's used in combat in real life. Some enemies even dodged your attacks, which was unheard of in past titles. Remember the Quadro Babas? Yeah, they could dodge. A variation of a simple plant enemy... could dodge. THAT'S not something ANYONE would have expected to see in a Zelda game. Each enemy required a different approach in order to be defeated, whereas it was all about going in and mindlessly spamming a button before. It's gotten to the point where playing even MM can get boring for me at times due to this due to how simplistic the combat is compared to SS's. It was like fighting the same thing over and over again in previous titles. All there was was pressing a button. Thing is, I didn't realize this until SS. I thought the enemies were very unique and diverse in past titles. Now, well, not so much. I'm not saying every last enemy was the same old thing, but most were. SS's enemies actually provided some diversity, which is something that's welcome to any game series.

In your praise of the enemy design, you make a few good points, but also ignore some others that weaken the argument. Yes, enemies in Skyward Sword were considerably smarter, and that is a very good thing. But, Skyward Sword's enemies were fairly uniform. Like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess before it, it was cursed with Bokoblins by the dozen. Most of my memory of combat in Skyward Sword was fighting Bokoblins. Sometimes with wooden sticks, sometimes with electrified sticks. But usually Bokoblins. This isn't to say that Skyward Sword is alone in this limited enemy design, however, as it's sorta the way Zelda games pan out that most of the enemies are pretty uniform throughout. It wasn't any different in this regard.

You mention, however, that they were more diverse in the way you kill them, and likened old methods of killing to pressing a button. That's overly simplistic, and a rather flagrant example of reducio ad absurdum. You neglected to consider enemies like the Stalfos, and the Wolfos - enemies dependent on timing and placement of strikes. Or enemies like the Clam Shells, or the Darknuts, or the Wind Waker-era Stalfos, or Redead, or Gibdos - all enemies that require different approaches to vanquish. And your button-press argument cuts both ways, as well - every enemy in Skyward Sword amounted to waiting and swinging your sword in a particular direction when an opening was presented. It's not that the combat is the same thing over and over again in previous titles (but if it was, Skyward Sword is guilty of the same sin) - it's that you're used to the button-based combat, and motion-based combat is a new thing and you have to relearn how to fight the same enemies. After you've replayed Skyward Sword as much I highly doubt you have to put any further thought into killing enemies - it's probably about as much thought and effort as you put into killing enemies in old titles.

The bosses were also some of the most impressive ones in series history. I'll admit, they were a bit on the easy side, but at least they broke away from that God-awful "hit weak point/stun, hack and slash, repeat" battle style that plagued TP and ruined some bosses in titles such as OoT and WW. The bosses returned that that classic style where we had to attack while on the run, so to speak. They returned to the style of bosses such as Helmasaur and Ganon from ALttP, which were good old-fashioned fights. Tentalus, sadly, didn't do this, which is why he wound up being the worst and most pathetic dungeon boss in the game. He was literally the only boss I actually hated in SS. But, whatever, all the other bosses in the game, save the overworld bosses -- another fine aspect of the game and something that should be expanded on in the future -- were fantastic and brought the boss battles back to their glory days. Of course, the overworld bosses should be this way in order for them to suit their roll of not being a dungeon boss, so I'm not complaining that they weren't the classic style.

I think you're ignoring that the basic pattern was very much in place in Skyward Sword. With the exception of Ghirahim, who is admittedly a fantastic boss and one that I loved fighting - most, if not every, Skyward Sword boss can be reduced to the same "hit weak point/stun, hack and slash, repeat" method that you decry here. Take Koloktos, for instance, one of the most lauded bosses in the game. Phase 1, dodge his attack and then use the whip to rip his arms off. Phase 2, repeat and take his sword, hitting his chest - stunning him - and then whack him with either his sword or your own sword at his now exposed center. The formula is right there: stun him - dodge his attack, hit him with his own sword in the chest - and then strike - use the whip, slash the core. Scaldera was the same way. Stun him with a bomb, slice, and then run back up. Moldarach, Tentalus, the Bilocyte - all of these things followed the same boss formula as ever.

And while we're talking about bosses, let's talk about The Imprisoned, that monstrously annoying creature that you had to fight constantly over the course of the game, and was almost always the same fight with very little evolution. It was not an inventive nor an engaging fight, relying even more flagrantly on the traditional boss mechanics than any of the others, and was also hardly a threat to the player. A game that has a repeated boss of such low quality cannot be praised as highly for its boss content as you praise it.

Speaking of the overworld, the provinces in the game were spectacular. The dungeon vibe that was given to them was highly entertaining and kept the action at a steady pace, rather than traveling a barren and uninteresting overworld for 15 minutes or so. The overworld was always so disconnected from the action in past titles (save LA, MC, and a little bit in ALttP). It just got so boring finding a hidden secret here and there with a whole lot of nothing in-between. SS? Nothing like that. Nothing like that at all. Hidden secrets were littered across the provinces and were still able to be discovered along the way, but the fact that there were puzzles and enemies that were actually worth not ignoring in-between these secrets allowed the oveworld to never become a drag. Things like the Goddess Cubes also gave reason to explore the sky a bit along the adventure, making it much more than just a means of traveling from place to place.

This is a highly opinionated matter and will vary from person to person. I personally was not pleased with the Overworld of Skyward Sword because it didn't feel like a world. It felt like an endless barrage of linear puzzles with the sole motivation of advancement. There was no drive to explore the world, just to get to the next dungeon. There were virtually no "secrets" in Skyward Sword's overworld - just things you could see in plain sight but had to figure out a puzzle to reach, whereas in past games there would be a path in plain sight in the distance, and following it might lead to nowhere, it might lead to a hidden hole with a puzzle or some enemies, or it might lead to another area of the game entirely - the incentive to explore was great. It felt like a world. Skyward Sword feels very segmented, and I hated that.

The mini-games in the sky (and the surface) were also quite entertaining, which was a huge step up from TP where the mini-games were virtually non-existent. Skyloft was also worth dropping in on constantly. For the first time, the Bazaar was actually worth shopping in. In every past Zelda game, rupees had very little to no use the entire game. I would always have a full wallet with nothing to buy (save MM, but that was due to time travel, not things to buy). Not so in SS. The potions, the different shields, the extra containers? All worth getting in this game. Upgrading the items also provided a nice money sink and was a nice reward for collecting the spoils. I'm not saying it was the greatest upgrade system ever -- it definitely needs to be expanded on in the future -- but it was really nice to actually be able to have Link's arsenal do some cool new things that aided us in the combat and puzzles.

There are really two points here - the mini-games may be better than Twilight Princess' mini-games, but they pale in comparison to say, Ocarina of Time's minigames, or Majora's Mask's minigames, or even Wind Waker's minigames.

Your other point about the upgrade system is one you acknowledge needs work, but I'd argue it needs more work than you say it needs. Yes, you had choices to make. Yes, you had worthwhile things to spend rupees on. But these things weren't meaningful. There was only a single upgrade path per item rather than branching ones that forced you to prioritize. There wasn't really much that you could put in the Adventure Pouch that was absolutely critical to success, and thus any decisions you made didn't really impact your gameplay that much. They weren't interesting, and - most annoyingly - they filled my bags with borderline useless treasures that displayed a message every time I picked one up after reloading my game. Oh lord the annoyance.

The dungeons were also a high point for the game. Not one of the game's dungeons was bad. Yeah, the Ancient Cistern is pretty lacking compared to the others, but it's not terrible, and it at least has a kick-*** boss to end it off on a high note (which is ironic, seeing as Tentalus ended off what I believe to be the game's greatest dungeon, the Sandship). Every puzzle in SS was at the perfect difficulty level for Zelda. Not too hard, not too easy. They were just enough to make you think, but not so hard as to make you rack your brain. This is how Zelda should be. Despite the fact that it has what is most likely the most hardcore fanbase in gaming and that it's home to some of the best games of all time, it's a more casual series at heart. It's a series designed for everyone to play, from hardcore gamer, to casual gamer, to even people who just play video games every now-and-then. It's not supposed to have Valve-like puzzles or I Want to Be the Guy kind of difficulty. It's supposed to provide a challenge that isn't frustrating, and that's just what the dungeons (and everything else) in SS do. I wouldn't mind there being multiple difficulty levels for the combat in future titles, but the puzzles need to stay right where they are in this game. A little harder wouldn't hurt too much, but Zelda should never go back to puzzles in games like ALttP and (sometimes) OoT where they feel more like annoying obstacles than events designed to cause you to think a little. That would be a huge mistake on Nintendo's part.

I disagree about the difficulty - nothing but Sky Keep and the Sandship seemed particularly challenging at all, certainly not up to the standard of previous Zelda titles. But I will GLADLY concede that the dungeon design was absolutely beautiful. Dungeons need to stop being straight lines of puzzles, which most of Skyward Sword's dungeons were - with the exception of the two aforementioned dungeons, which were very very good dungeons and easily among my favorites.

Finally, and last but not least, was the story in SS. Holy schnitzel. The caliber that the story was raised to was not what I was expecting at all. It was without question the most in-depth and emotional story in Zelda yet. Every one of the main characters played a legitimate roll in the unfolding of the events and gave off an aura that was easy to fall in love with. With the exception of Fi, each of these characters went through an incredibly deep amount of character development for a Zelda game -- even Link himself. Throughout the story, their personalities grew and evolved, and, alongside of that, more pieces of the puzzle kept falling into place... only to reveal more missing pieces. For the first time ever in series history, the huge plot change didn't happen until about 85% into the game. It's always been halfway into the game, i.e. the point where Link switches goals in order to reach his ultimate one. Thing is, the main goal was different this time around, as well. Instead of instantly setting out to find some items in order to defeat a villain that's made his intentions pretty clear, we were trying to find Zelda and find out why she kept moving from place to place and who the mysterious figure with her was, as well as why Ghirahim needed her to revive his unknown master (who happened to be right under our noses, yet in our faces the entire time, making his revelation anything but sudden). This was also the first Zelda that actually had me tear up. Ever. In fact, no title in general has brought out the kind of emotion out of me that SS did. The game actually made me care whether I saved Zelda or not. Before, it was all about defeating the main villain so that we could save the day and blah blah blah blah blah. All that "knight in shining armor" sort of stuff (even though it wasn't exactly like that -- just an exaggeration). This time it was personal. Even ST didn't have me caring about Zelda as much, although she was definitely important to me by the end of the game. Thing is, that sense of caring took until the end of the game. It was almost at the very beginning of the game, seeing Link and Zelda's relationship flourish and feel intense in just less than a couple hours. All the events of just missing her only fueled that fire.

I disagree with almost this entire paragraph. I don't think the reason we cared about Zelda had anything to do with the storytelling itself, but simply with the new emphasis on the romantic attachment between Link and Zelda. At least, that was certainly why I felt more strongly in this case. But beyond that, the story actually felt considerably weaker to me than in past titles. Chasing Zelda aimlessly for the first third of the game was irksome, not inventive. The game seemed to lack drive at that point - we were just going through the motions. I kept hoping that something interesting would happen. Thankfully, it finally did, but only briefly, and only to send us on another fetch quest to... yep, pursue Zelda once again. It just felt aimless for a large portion of the game. The romantic attachment between the two kept me going, but there just wasn't enough there to really satisfy me in the end. I'm not going to criticize the story for being linear, however, because it is clear that Nintendo wanted to push the story of this game far more than other games - hence the incredibly limited and segmented overworld rather than a persistent one. That's another reason that the game probably seemed to have a better story - because there was more emphasis on the story.

The villain duo of the game was also fantastic. It was clearly taken from Zant and Ganondorf, but it was actually legitimate storytelling. Instead of Demise using Ghirahim the entire time to get ahead, Ghirahim had to make a conscious and tremendous effort in order to revive Demise. Without Ghirahim, Demise had no chance of returning. At all. Demise wouldn't have gotten another chance to obtain the Triforce without his servant. His first defeat as The Imprisoned from the very power he sought would have also been his last. Plain and simple. While Demise was the final boss, Ghirahim served the roll as the main villain in the game because of this, and he was a mighty damn good one with his dynamic personality. (Flamboyant one moment, ruthless the next.) And, while Demise's true form only showed up for about 5 minutes, he had a presence the entire game as The Imprisoned, and was constantly mentioned by Ghirahim. Unlike in TP where Ganondorf kinda came out and said, "Surprise!", the name Demise wasn't even revealed until that 85% point in the game, which made his mystery that much more intense and his full revelation extremely climactic. Where TP failed in the villain category, SS succeeded in every way possible, which is a might fine redemption status for Nintendo, if I may say so myself.

Ghirahim was an effective villain, but so was Zant. Zant was effective all the way up until the final fight with him, which was inexplicable. Ghirahim is not an exception, but rather the rule - Zelda games, or at least the console Zelda games, have always had very compelling villains.

Bottom line, SS is the new best Zelda and a new cornerstone for the series. OoT will remain a foundation without a doubt, but it won't be the only one to look to anymore. Everything that SS has done has brought new life into the Zelda series. Most of them need to be more fleshed out in the future, but that's not exactly something we haven't seen before in past revolutionary titles (ALttP and OoT). Any kind of elements that bring on a new era for a series are going to need to be expanded on in order to make them even better than the already are, in turn, giving future games a chance to outdo their predecessors (which I somewhat expect Zelda Wii U to do). SS's new-ish formula isn't perfect, as a little bit of open exploration should return to the series in order to allow the story to capitalize even more on the gameplay, but it's pretty close to what the ideal Zelda formula is. After so many years of coming close but not cutting it, Nintendo has finally delivered the new best Zelda game. Long may that trend continue.

I don't think I even need to say it, but I disagree entirely. SS is far from the best Zelda game. It's not the worst, mind you, and I still very much enjoyed it, but you're placing it on a pillar on which I just don't think it belongs.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
I personally didn't think they were particularly well developed. I know a lot of people will point to Groose, but I didn't find his sudden transformation at all realistic. It seemed rather sudden and inorganic, mostly there to spice up the Imprisoned battles - which is a point I'll get to later.

Groose wasn't a main character, for one. Trying to constantly develop him throughout the game would have felt forced. Second, it wasn't exactly sudden. His development was happening away from Link's eyes, which is a very good storytelling element -- something that Zelda pretty much flat-out refused to use in its stories in the past. It's not like he was mean one minute and then nice the very next. It took time for his character to grow. We just didn't witness it, which is fine, as it wasn't all that important to the story.

In your praise of the enemy design, you make a few good points, but also ignore some others that weaken the argument. Yes, enemies in Skyward Sword were considerably smarter, and that is a very good thing. But, Skyward Sword's enemies were fairly uniform. Like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess before it, it was cursed with Bokoblins by the dozen. Most of my memory of combat in Skyward Sword was fighting Bokoblins. Sometimes with wooden sticks, sometimes with electrified sticks. But usually Bokoblins. This isn't to say that Skyward Sword is alone in this limited enemy design, however, as it's sorta the way Zelda games pan out that most of the enemies are pretty uniform throughout. It wasn't any different in this regard.

In terms of gaming in general, yes, SS's enemies are pretty generic. But I'm not talking about gaming in general. I'm talking about within the Zelda series. Enemies in Zelda have never been known to be impressive. Ever. SS is no real exception. But the enemies were enhanced quite impressively from the past games nonetheless, and that's what matters. These kind of enhancements need to keep happening in the future in order for Zelda to not fall into the same rut it got itself into over the recent years, but that's a concern of the future. This is the here and now, and that's what we're talking about.

You mention, however, that they were more diverse in the way you kill them, and likened old methods of killing to pressing a button. That's overly simplistic, and a rather flagrant example of reducio ad absurdum. You neglected to consider enemies like the Stalfos, and the Wolfos - enemies dependent on timing and placement of strikes. Or enemies like the Clam Shells, or the Darknuts, or the Wind Waker-era Stalfos, or Redead, or Gibdos - all enemies that require different approaches to vanquish. And your button-press argument cuts both ways, as well - every enemy in Skyward Sword amounted to waiting and swinging your sword in a particular direction when an opening was presented.

Yeah, some enemies required timing in the past games, but the combat is still nowhere near on part with SS's. The enemies were all react and no read. It was just go in there and fight. There was legit strategy involved with the basic enemies in SS, something that was previously exclusive to the bosses and (some) mini-bosses. Yeah, the enemies have become routine now that I've played the game more, but the fact that more diversity was added, be it due to the motion controls or not -- I disagree with you that it was just because of them, as they're only a part of the factor -- is a good thing. It's something that the series needed to move forward.

After you've replayed Skyward Sword as much I highly doubt you have to put any further thought into killing enemies - it's probably about as much thought and effort as you put into killing enemies in old titles.

You obviously don't know how much I've played SS. I've played through it 9 times and have probably put in anywhere from 250-300 hours. In 6 months, I've played this game more than I have all past titles in all the years they've been out. It's pretty sad when I think about it, but I don't care at the same time. It's seriously a game that I can't get enough of.

I think you're ignoring that the basic pattern was very much in place in Skyward Sword. With the exception of Ghirahim, who is admittedly a fantastic boss and one that I loved fighting - most, if not every, Skyward Sword boss can be reduced to the same "hit weak point/stun, hack and slash, repeat" method that you decry here. Take Koloktos, for instance, one of the most lauded bosses in the game. Phase 1, dodge his attack and then use the whip to rip his arms off. Phase 2, repeat and take his sword, hitting his chest - stunning him - and then whack him with either his sword or your own sword at his now exposed center. The formula is right there: stun him - dodge his attack, hit him with his own sword in the chest - and then strike - use the whip, slash the core. Scaldera was the same way. Stun him with a bomb, slice, and then run back up. Moldarach, Tentalus, the Bilocyte - all of these things followed the same boss formula as ever.

First, I directly mentioned that the overworld bosses and Tentalus used this style of boss fight, and that I thought it made sense and worked fine with the overworld bosses since they're not the conclusion of a dungeon, so bringing this up is completely redundant. Second, Scaldera may have used that basic outline, but it was anything but basic. Look at the setting. We had to run away from him on a claustrophobic incline, meaning any attacks he launched weren't exactly easy to dodge, slowly chip away at a rock layer in order to even hit his eye, and make an effort to hit his eye by having to swing in specific directions according to its position. That's nothing like a Fyrus or Jalhalla boss fight. That's a legit boss fight that, while not incredibly difficult, provided a nice challenge and change of pace. Third, while Koloktos was a pretty basic Zelda boss, it wasn't as simple as hitting a weak point and slashing away. It was more like with Diababa. It required timing, patience, and, most importantly, effort. And, last, um... Moldarach? Did we fight the same boss? Because I'm pretty sure he didn't have a stun phase. His battle was an exact throwback to the old boss style. He could attack while we were attacking, and we had to exploit his weaknesses in order to win. Not really sure where you got the idea that he was more like Tentalus than Helmasaur.

And while we're talking about bosses, let's talk about The Imprisoned, that monstrously annoying creature that you had to fight constantly over the course of the game, and was almost always the same fight with very little evolution. It was not an inventive nor an engaging fight, relying even more flagrantly on the traditional boss mechanics than any of the others, and was also hardly a threat to the player. A game that has a repeated boss of such low quality cannot be praised as highly for its boss content as you praise it.

The Imprisoned wasn't an incredible fight, no (although I definitely wouldn't call them bad), but he also wasn't exactly a focus point of the game. Sure, he had three fights, but they're relatively spread out and were put there more or less for story development. I'm not saying that justifies the fact that the fights could have been better -- it's actually a beef I have with the game -- but at least The Imprisoned wasn't a large part of the gameplay and provided a couple decent fights.

This is a highly opinionated matter and will vary from person to person. I personally was not pleased with the Overworld of Skyward Sword because it didn't feel like a world. It felt like an endless barrage of linear puzzles with the sole motivation of advancement. There was no drive to explore the world, just to get to the next dungeon. There were virtually no "secrets" in Skyward Sword's overworld - just things you could see in plain sight but had to figure out a puzzle to reach, whereas in past games there would be a path in plain sight in the distance, and following it might lead to nowhere, it might lead to a hidden hole with a puzzle or some enemies, or it might lead to another area of the game entirely - the incentive to explore was great. It felt like a world. Skyward Sword feels very segmented, and I hated that.

If you personally don't like it, that's fine. However, it's a major part of SS's identity, and it's half of what makes it such an amazing game. Whether it's your cup of tea or not is irrelevant. The fact that it was brilliantly-designed and had a lot of detail payed attention to it is all that matters in terms of quality.

There are really two points here - the mini-games may be better than Twilight Princess' mini-games, but they pale in comparison to say, Ocarina of Time's minigames, or Majora's Mask's minigames, or even Wind Waker's minigames.

Some of SS's mini-games weren't exactly fun, sure, but I found Thrill Digger, Pumpkin Pull, and Fun Fun Island (despite how frustrating it could be) to be entertaining ways to take a break from the main quest. I also consider the Lightning Round to be a mini-game, so...

Your other point about the upgrade system is one you acknowledge needs work, but I'd argue it needs more work than you say it needs. Yes, you had choices to make. Yes, you had worthwhile things to spend rupees on. But these things weren't meaningful. There was only a single upgrade path per item rather than branching ones that forced you to prioritize.

What's wrong with this? Zelda isn't an RPG. The upgrade system doesn't exactly have to be in-depth for it to fit nicely. What was done with the upgrade system was fine. It was simple-but-fun. Not sure why you said I think it needs more work on it than I said, though. I didn't give any specifics. I just mentioned that I thought it needed to be improved on. Going off on a tangent about it just didn't seem necessary to me.

There wasn't really much that you could put in the Adventure Pouch that was absolutely critical to success, and thus any decisions you made didn't really impact your gameplay that much. They weren't interesting...

So being able to hold more bombs and arrows isn't worth it? It's not worth it to upgrade ammunition containers? That's the first time I've ever heard that.

Look, if you personally didn't want any of the upgrades, there's nothing wrong with that. That's your personal style of play. But that was the whole point of the upgrade system and the Adventure Pouch: to allow players to carry only what they saw fit. Some people may not want to carry or upgrade much. That's perfectly fine. Why? Because they don't have to. It's a choice. Some people may not want to get all 8 slots for the Adventure Pouch. That's perfectly fine, too. Again, it's a choice. Criticizing something because you didn't feel it was necessary for you to use it just isn't right. Again, just because something isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it's a bad addition to the series.[/QUOTE]

...and - most annoyingly - they filled my bags with borderline useless treasures that displayed a message every time I picked one up after reloading my game. Oh lord the annoyance.

Are you seriously going to bring that up? That annoys me more than it annoyed some people playing the game. This isn't some kind of major gameplay aspect. So you have to sit through something like this every now-and-then. So what? Did it really affect the overall quality of the game? No. Absolutely not. I didn't find it particularly enjoyable, either, but instead of dwelling on it, I decided to get over it and enjoy the game. Brooding over little things like that just isn't worth it.

I disagree about the difficulty - nothing but Sky Keep and the Sandship seemed particularly challenging at all, certainly not up to the standard of previous Zelda titles. But I will GLADLY concede that the dungeon design was absolutely beautiful. Dungeons need to stop being straight lines of puzzles, which most of Skyward Sword's dungeons were - with the exception of the two aforementioned dungeons, which were very very good dungeons and easily among my favorites.

Thing is, difficulty is one of the most subjective things imaginable. It's in the eye of the beholder in every sense of the term. Some people are better at video games than others. That's just a fact about the world. Some of these have played a series longer than others have. When this happens, it's easier for these people to figure out what to look for involving things like puzzles. Like me. I didn't find SS very difficult at all, but I know that because I am both of those things that I mentioned that I have to give a handicap, in a sense, to the difficulty. If I were to judge lots of games that I play by my skill level in gaming, I would be one of the biggest advocates for games being "too easy" today, which wouldn't be fair at all. I can't blame Nintendo, let alone any game company, for me being good at games and knowing what to look for in a series. That's my problem. I guarantee you that if OoT were to come out today, it wouldn't go down in memory as being as hard as people found it 13+ years ago. SS's difficulty level is just right for the general Zelda audience. Again, I wouldn't mind multiple difficulty levels for the combat, but the puzzles need to stay pretty much right where they're at.

I disagree with almost this entire paragraph. I don't think the reason we cared about Zelda had anything to do with the storytelling itself, but simply with the new emphasis on the romantic attachment between Link and Zelda. At least, that was certainly why I felt more strongly in this case. But beyond that, the story actually felt considerably weaker to me than in past titles. Chasing Zelda aimlessly for the first third of the game was irksome, not inventive. The game seemed to lack drive at that point - we were just going through the motions. I kept hoping that something interesting would happen. Thankfully, it finally did, but only briefly, and only to send us on another fetch quest to... yep, pursue Zelda once again. It just felt aimless for a large portion of the game. The romantic attachment between the two kept me going, but there just wasn't enough there to really satisfy me in the end. I'm not going to criticize the story for being linear, however, because it is clear that Nintendo wanted to push the story of this game far more than other games - hence the incredibly limited and segmented overworld rather than a persistent one. That's another reason that the game probably seemed to have a better story - because there was more emphasis on the story.

You may not have liked chasing after Zelda that much, but, as I've said twice in this post already, that doesn't make it a bad thing. It's actually a very good story element, as it's capable of providing a true drive to keep moving. I quite liked the change of pace it provided from the typical story Zelda had provided in the past. You say the drive was all due to the romantic element between Link and Zelda's relationship. I disagree. It was certainly a big part of it, but saying that it was the only thing there to drive us forward is very shallow thinking. As I said in my original post, there was wanting to know where Zelda had gone, why she was going where she was going, who the figure with her was, and why Ghirahim was after her. I'm pretty shocked how you can't see that.

Ghirahim was an effective villain, but so was Zant. Zant was effective all the way up until the final fight with him, which was inexplicable. Ghirahim is not an exception, but rather the rule - Zelda games, or at least the console Zelda games, have always had very compelling villains.

Zant's conclusion was utterly terrible. He was only effective until the final fight with him. He went through a character shift that sent him to the polar opposite of what the game had portrayed him to be the entire time. He was cool, calm, and collected -- albeit angry -- until we met him. Then he turned into a complete lunatic out of nowhere. It ruined his character in every way possible, and the fact that his boss battle was pathetic didn't help matters. Sure, the idea was cool, but he required little to no effort and posed no threat whatsoever. He was definitely compelling at first, but "at first" is the key term. He stopped being compelling when he went crazy. As I already pointed out, he was also just a stepping stone. Ghirahim was important the whole story, whereas Zant stopped being important pretty much at the halfway point of TP. Nintendo failed with Zant and Ganondorf. They succeeded with Ghirahim and Demise. That was my point. Yes, previous titles have had compelling villains, but they were never as involved, fleshed-out, and important as Ghirahim was. Nowhere close. Not even Ganondorf in WW (which, even though it was very cool, was incredibly simplistic).

I don't think I even need to say it, but I disagree entirely. SS is far from the best Zelda game. It's not the worst, mind you, and I still very much enjoyed it, but you're placing it on a pillar on which I just don't think it belongs.

That's fine. You don't have to agree with me. You have your opinion and I have mine. Different people have different points of view and judge games in different ways, so there's no way everyone is ever going to agree on what any game is the best, whether it be in a series or video games in general. Just to say it, I would also like you to know that, contrary to popular belief at the ZD forums, I have some issues with SS. It's not a situation where I have nothing but praise. My issues are just very minor and not really worth mentioning in the majority of the threads I respond to.
 

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
I loved it, not as much as Twilight princess or OOT, but I believe that was due to me spoiling the game for myself. If I had discovered everything on my playthrough instead of reading and watching videos on the internet I would have enjoyed it much more. There were some other issues I had with the game, but it's one of the best gaming experiences I have had.
 

Non-Epic

Resident Cucco Kicker
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Location
Labrynna, because Hyrule is too mainstream.
There are enough of these posts. People have established whether they like Skyward Sword, and there's always extremes.

The People Who Completely Dislike It

The People Who Are Torn About It

and The People Who Love It.

Let's all just drop it and stick to what makes us happy :)
 

Non-Epic

Resident Cucco Kicker
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Location
Labrynna, because Hyrule is too mainstream.
Did You Like SKYWARD SWORD?

People, what's your opinion on Skyward Sword? Scratch that, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people asking each other's opinions of Skyward Sword or telling everyone if they like it or not. People can get into arguments, and that's bugging me. Please STOP :(

I understand if you like it or not, I don't like it that much personally, but that's okay. I play Skyward Sword and like it for what it is. Whatever your opinion is, that's good. Having a nice debate on game traits, that's great. Just don't get into heating arguments and make things personal, keep it fun and clean. That's why we're here. :D
 

Cel-Shaded Deku

Ha ha, charade you are!
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Location
Rapin' your churches, burnin' your women!
I thought it was a great game for only one playthrough as long as you calibrate the motion controls well. Nintendo just needs to make certain aspects less annoying to truly make it an amazing game. Some particular parts I thought were annoying were the later "The Imprisoned" battles.
Like when you had to control the Groosenator in one of them, and the electric waves that were created as he walked.
Not to mention the LACK OF ABILITY TO SKIP CUT SCENES! :mad: Not even at least after you beat the game once.

Basically, it's great and has greater potential but lacked replayability for me and that's been the case for many games recently.
 

EternalNocturne

Fluffy hair!
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Location
Skyloft
You could skip cutscenes in Hero Mode, but I really wish skipping cutscenes would have been available as an option at all times. I loved watching them, but it would have been better to give people the option (for speedruns and 2nd quests and whatnot).

Did I like Skyward Sword? There are no words to describe my feelings for this game. <3
 

Fig

The Altruist
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Location
Mishima Tower
I liked Skyward Sword, I really do! Was it perfect? It was pretty close. If Nintendo could have added some more features to the game, I would have probably loved the game even more than as it already is: An awesome Zelda adventure packed with the perfect blend of puzzles and action that both casual and pro players can enjoy no matter what! I <3 Skyward Sword!
 

A Link In Time

To Overcome Harder Challenges
ZD Legend
I liked Skyward Sword as not only a videogame but the embodiment of all that is Zelda. True I had trouble with thrusts and bomb rolling at the beginning, however, things gradually got better the more play time i had with the game. The story was engrossing and deeper than all before bar Majora's Mask with excellent characters to boot such as Link, Zelda, Groose, Fi, Ghirahim, Demise, and more. While the sidequests were not up to par with those of some earlier installments, they certainly did top those in Twilight Princess. I smiled to myself upon seeing Nintendo keep gold on its promise to seamlessly blend dungeon with overworld which it did by adding more enemies and puzzles to the latter. The dungeons and boss battles were top notch and reminded me of a mix of all the best from Ocarina of Time, The Minish Cap, and Twilight Princess.

The above are simply my opinions on the first main quest. Nintendo was kind enough, however, to include several bells and whistles on top especially for early adopters. Hero Mode was a welcome addition as well as challenge, essentially equal to the second quest in the NES original. As a person who preordered the game, I also enjoyed the 25th Anniversary Soundtrack. Skyward Sword was a marvelous way for Nintendo to celebrate the lifespan of one of its greatest franchises.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom