Random Person
Just Some Random Person
Sup peeps, Random Person here. So as you all know, I hate Skyward Sword. I'm not going to beat around the bush to make people feel better, I despise it. It's the only Zelda game I feel Nintendo did not try their best in. AoL may have been bad, but I felt Nintendo tried. It's not that I think SS is a bad game, I just believe that it's a horrible Zelda game and I feel that Nintendo did not put their all into it. But, I'm just a Random Person. And I've been on the other side of the argument as well. Alot of people dislike TP, but I feel that if they would just analyze the arguments for it they would see that it was actually a rather rupee Zelda game. So I think a discussion is in order here for SS. I understand that if you liked the game but still agree that its a bad Zelda game. That's fine, you're aloud to like what you like. I'm moreso addressing the people who think SS is a good Zelda game, regardless of whether they liked it or not. Please defend these points if you will. (Or you don't have to if you don't want to, I'm not the boss of you) Maybe if I can see what you guys see, then I can actually see the goodness in SS and perhaps actually like it. But I've got to warn you, I'm not going to be easily swayed. I need really good defenses because I've built an intense dislike of this game.
Lack of Exploration
Zelda, since the beginning, has emphasized the concept of exploration. The earlier games gave you little to no clues as to what to do so you were forced to explore the entire land just to figure out what to do next. The later games of ALttP through MM made it a bit more apparent as to what to do in their main stories, but the clues were still very vague and there were plenty of side-quests and secrets to find along the way (and when I say "find," I mean you had to go out and look for them). WW through ST made the stories a bit more linear (particularly after WW), but their side quests and secrets were still out of the way. (Again, you had to go out and find them) Even in TP, which was perhaps the most linear Zelda game to date, if you didn't take the time to go look for extra puzzles and prizes, you were most likely not going to find them.
SS is very different from the rest of the Zelda series as it does not encourage exploration at all. The story, like TP, pretty much tells you where to go at all moments making for a linear experience. The sidequests are also very much in your face. Alot of the secrets were put pretty much in front of you along your journey. And while some secrets in TP were also not that hard to find, they usually involved traversing a maze of a cave and/or defeating enemies while SS simply rewarded for blowing up a rock or using your clawshots correctly. And if the secret you were looking for actually wasn't as easy to find as others in SS, dowsing pretty much eliminated any possibility of exploration these quests could have had. How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game when it lacks exploration, one of the key elements to the Zelda series?
Prequel
I've asked this many times and have still not received a justified answer. SS is a prequel, yet it behaves like a sequel. (A very non-Zelda-ish sequel) The story does not incorporate any of the many "historic" tales of Hyrule but creates a new and more Personal one. The races used are not the ones from past games, but are mainly new to the series. The land does not create a "older" Hyrule feel, but rather leaves you feeling like you're in a new world all-together. Only the main questions are answered to the series, not an abundance which is a prequel's job. (Please note this. I get many people saying "well it did answer the main questions." I'm aware of that. However prequels are supposed to do more. This is not a preference that I want to see, this is the job of a prequel). And the answers we did received seemed very... I can't place the word on it so I'm just going to say... bad. I understand the graphics. I can see that Nintendo tried to incorporate a style that involved all their Zelda games.
A prequel is not supposed to create a new experience in a new world, but rather give you another experience in a familiar world. So please defend how SS can be considered a good Zelda game if it failed at its goal to be a prequel.
Difficulty
We Zelda fans don't like easy. It was proven in TP. Yet SS had non-difficult problems which were made even less difficult by the clues the areas gave you. And as if that wasn't enough, Fi, gossip stones and the "2" button tell you how to do almost everything. As mentioned before, finding items is no longer a problem as dowsing pretty much eliminate any need to actually think. One defense I've seen is that people say "those things are optional." The problem with this i past Zelda games have proven that if you don't use all of your assets, you will most likely not get done what you need to get done. Therefore, something being optional doesn't seem like an option when playing Zelda games until you've already beaten the game, in which case, its too late. But even if you accept "being optional" as an excuse, the elimination of these items still leave you with a rather easy game. How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it severely lacks difficulty which is known for being a want in the Zelda community?
Replayability
This incorporates alot of the things mentioned before, but basically the game left many feeling like playing again was more of a chore than pleasure. The game made it easy to remember how to solve every puzzle, find every secret and beat every boss. Whether you thought something was easy or not the first time, you knew how to do it again the second time. The only replayability factors I Personally found were the bosses (yeah, I know I just said they were easy to remember how to beat, but I must admit that they were also fun) the sacred realms and Link's responses. However, the bosses and sacred realms can be reaccessed through the trials of the thunder dragon (admittedly a good feature, but still takes away from the replayability) and replaying the entire game again just to see what will happen if Link says such and such seems really... not fun... especially when now adays we have games like Mass Effect where your response really changes the outcome of the game. Even on a harder difficulty, the game does not aspire much of a change. (Not to mention the whole DELETING YOUR FILE part). How can SS be defended as a good Zelda game, when it lacks a repayable experience?
Changing the Series
For the thousandth and second time, I like change, but SS took it to an uncomfortable level. Zelda has always been about destiny...well, maybe not always, but a good number of games since ALttP have incorporated destiny in them. The games, however, still made it seems like it was the character's choice. SS brings about a new destiny feel in which the character no longer has a say. Most Zelda games with destiny in them said "this character is the only character with the power to do such and such. Should they use it correctly, they will accomplish more such and such" but SS said "This plan was laid out long before any of these characters even knew it existed. Spoiler alert, the hero will win." I'm being silly now, but you get my point. The Link is SS had his whole journey laid out before it even happened. It wasn't a "Legend tells" story, but a "you're supposed to do this" story. It seemed like from the very beggining, Demise and Ghirahim were destined to fail which is a bad set up for a game about a heroic adventure. Then, at the end, SS says that the rest of the Zelda games we've played up to now were also laid out. Ganondorf comes from Demise and will never go away because of Demise. So according to SS, Ganondorf was not returning because his willpower aloud him to, but because Demise places a type of curse of the royal family descendants. This one may be a bit more Personal, but I feel that SS took a very core concept of Zelda and twisted it to an undesired cliche design. How can people defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it changed the series like this so dramatically?
These are some of the basic problems with SS. Some of the other Zelda games have some of these problems too, but to combine all of them in one game is atrocious. If there is an SS fan out there that would take the time and answer these, I would greatly appreciate it. (And please, no fanboys ) This is just a start, but if someone can atleast get those of us who dislike SS to change our minds about these subjects, then maybe we can avoid a TP repeat.
Lack of Exploration
Zelda, since the beginning, has emphasized the concept of exploration. The earlier games gave you little to no clues as to what to do so you were forced to explore the entire land just to figure out what to do next. The later games of ALttP through MM made it a bit more apparent as to what to do in their main stories, but the clues were still very vague and there were plenty of side-quests and secrets to find along the way (and when I say "find," I mean you had to go out and look for them). WW through ST made the stories a bit more linear (particularly after WW), but their side quests and secrets were still out of the way. (Again, you had to go out and find them) Even in TP, which was perhaps the most linear Zelda game to date, if you didn't take the time to go look for extra puzzles and prizes, you were most likely not going to find them.
SS is very different from the rest of the Zelda series as it does not encourage exploration at all. The story, like TP, pretty much tells you where to go at all moments making for a linear experience. The sidequests are also very much in your face. Alot of the secrets were put pretty much in front of you along your journey. And while some secrets in TP were also not that hard to find, they usually involved traversing a maze of a cave and/or defeating enemies while SS simply rewarded for blowing up a rock or using your clawshots correctly. And if the secret you were looking for actually wasn't as easy to find as others in SS, dowsing pretty much eliminated any possibility of exploration these quests could have had. How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game when it lacks exploration, one of the key elements to the Zelda series?
Prequel
I've asked this many times and have still not received a justified answer. SS is a prequel, yet it behaves like a sequel. (A very non-Zelda-ish sequel) The story does not incorporate any of the many "historic" tales of Hyrule but creates a new and more Personal one. The races used are not the ones from past games, but are mainly new to the series. The land does not create a "older" Hyrule feel, but rather leaves you feeling like you're in a new world all-together. Only the main questions are answered to the series, not an abundance which is a prequel's job. (Please note this. I get many people saying "well it did answer the main questions." I'm aware of that. However prequels are supposed to do more. This is not a preference that I want to see, this is the job of a prequel). And the answers we did received seemed very... I can't place the word on it so I'm just going to say... bad. I understand the graphics. I can see that Nintendo tried to incorporate a style that involved all their Zelda games.
A prequel is not supposed to create a new experience in a new world, but rather give you another experience in a familiar world. So please defend how SS can be considered a good Zelda game if it failed at its goal to be a prequel.
Difficulty
We Zelda fans don't like easy. It was proven in TP. Yet SS had non-difficult problems which were made even less difficult by the clues the areas gave you. And as if that wasn't enough, Fi, gossip stones and the "2" button tell you how to do almost everything. As mentioned before, finding items is no longer a problem as dowsing pretty much eliminate any need to actually think. One defense I've seen is that people say "those things are optional." The problem with this i past Zelda games have proven that if you don't use all of your assets, you will most likely not get done what you need to get done. Therefore, something being optional doesn't seem like an option when playing Zelda games until you've already beaten the game, in which case, its too late. But even if you accept "being optional" as an excuse, the elimination of these items still leave you with a rather easy game. How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it severely lacks difficulty which is known for being a want in the Zelda community?
Replayability
This incorporates alot of the things mentioned before, but basically the game left many feeling like playing again was more of a chore than pleasure. The game made it easy to remember how to solve every puzzle, find every secret and beat every boss. Whether you thought something was easy or not the first time, you knew how to do it again the second time. The only replayability factors I Personally found were the bosses (yeah, I know I just said they were easy to remember how to beat, but I must admit that they were also fun) the sacred realms and Link's responses. However, the bosses and sacred realms can be reaccessed through the trials of the thunder dragon (admittedly a good feature, but still takes away from the replayability) and replaying the entire game again just to see what will happen if Link says such and such seems really... not fun... especially when now adays we have games like Mass Effect where your response really changes the outcome of the game. Even on a harder difficulty, the game does not aspire much of a change. (Not to mention the whole DELETING YOUR FILE part). How can SS be defended as a good Zelda game, when it lacks a repayable experience?
Changing the Series
For the thousandth and second time, I like change, but SS took it to an uncomfortable level. Zelda has always been about destiny...well, maybe not always, but a good number of games since ALttP have incorporated destiny in them. The games, however, still made it seems like it was the character's choice. SS brings about a new destiny feel in which the character no longer has a say. Most Zelda games with destiny in them said "this character is the only character with the power to do such and such. Should they use it correctly, they will accomplish more such and such" but SS said "This plan was laid out long before any of these characters even knew it existed. Spoiler alert, the hero will win." I'm being silly now, but you get my point. The Link is SS had his whole journey laid out before it even happened. It wasn't a "Legend tells" story, but a "you're supposed to do this" story. It seemed like from the very beggining, Demise and Ghirahim were destined to fail which is a bad set up for a game about a heroic adventure. Then, at the end, SS says that the rest of the Zelda games we've played up to now were also laid out. Ganondorf comes from Demise and will never go away because of Demise. So according to SS, Ganondorf was not returning because his willpower aloud him to, but because Demise places a type of curse of the royal family descendants. This one may be a bit more Personal, but I feel that SS took a very core concept of Zelda and twisted it to an undesired cliche design. How can people defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it changed the series like this so dramatically?
These are some of the basic problems with SS. Some of the other Zelda games have some of these problems too, but to combine all of them in one game is atrocious. If there is an SS fan out there that would take the time and answer these, I would greatly appreciate it. (And please, no fanboys ) This is just a start, but if someone can atleast get those of us who dislike SS to change our minds about these subjects, then maybe we can avoid a TP repeat.
Last edited: