Skyward Sword is Making Zelda More Popular Than People Want?

[JakeProtagonist]

One big difference between OoT and SS is Nintendo's reputation during each game's release. Back when OoT was released, Nintendo was still the king of gaming. Sega was declining and Sony had yet to release the PS2 that gave them such great success. So, when Nintendo released an amazing game, people wouldn't argue and the game would become wildly popular. It also helped that there had only been four Zelda games prior to OoT (not including the CDi games).

Fast-forward to 2011 and things are a bit different. With Microsoft and Sony dominating the market with the PS2 and Xbox, Nintendo lost a lot of reputation and kids who were once fans of Nintendo began to think of its games as 'kiddy.' Even with the success of the Wii, Nintendo hasn't really shaken that family-friendly reputation and PS3 and 360 fanboys can't comprehend Nintendo coming out with a game that could be considered one of the best games ever. The Internet hasn't helped any, either. Essentially, I think you could say Nintendo is to video games as Disney is to movies.

So, it's not really Zelda people are hating on, it's Nintendo. Zelda just happens to be one of the Nintendo franchises that could be said to be aimed to 'hardcore' players (not that I agree with this mindset), gets quite a bit of attention from the industry, and so is an easy target.

I Like this. Nintendo is to Video Games as Disney is to Movies. I think that is a BRILLIANT ANOLOGY :yes:

 

[Ventus]

Skyward Sword has bad graphics for its time. I think that's reason enough for reviewers/haters to give it a bad score. It is no secret that Nintendo purposefully has stuck with SD graphics rather than HD so as to make a less expensive console, but that was in 2005 where HD was almost completely mainstream. Now in 2011 with the death of the Wii, it's best game yet comes out...but has less than subpar graphics among graphics fanatics. Easy enough to give it a biased, completely unreasonable 7.5/10. And with these bad scores comes viewers, and people actually try to play the game to see if a Zelda game has actually fell to lower standards (we know Zelda series has high standards).

Personally speaking, I think Nintendo wouldn't have had as many haters if it would've took the jump to HD graphics back in 2005, and ditched motion controls. They're unneeded, to say the least. People don't buy an Xbox360 for the Kinect. People don't buy a PS3 for the Move. People do, however, buy the Wii for the Wiimote, because that's the only medium with which to play games (barring the obvious games that allow CCP and GC controllers). People don't buy a Wii for great graphics, but they DO buy 360/PS3 for top notch graphics. It's just how the world works nowadays. Nintendo could make a Zelda game with realistic, HD graphics. They really could, I know because they made Ocarina of Time which was one of the best looking games of its time (iirc). Skyward Sword could've been Zelda Wii U had Nintendo made the jump to HD in 2005. Skyward Sword is in no way a bad game, but it does have its flaws. Call them nitpicks if you will, haters will see them as critical company flaws.

 

[MW7]

Skyward Sword has bad graphics for its time. I think that's reason enough for reviewers/haters to give it a bad score. It is no secret that Nintendo purposefully has stuck with SD graphics rather than HD so as to make a less expensive console, but that was in 2005 where HD was almost completely mainstream. Now in 2011 with the death of the Wii, it's best game yet comes out...but has less than subpar graphics among graphics fanatics. Easy enough to give it a biased, completely unreasonable 7.5/10. And with these bad scores comes viewers, and people actually try to play the game to see if a Zelda game has actually fell to lower standards (we know Zelda series has high standards).

Personally speaking, I think Nintendo wouldn't have had as many haters if it would've took the jump to HD graphics back in 2005, and ditched motion controls. They're unneeded, to say the least. People don't buy an Xbox360 for the Kinect. People don't buy a PS3 for the Move. People do, however, buy the Wii for the Wiimote, because that's the only medium with which to play games (barring the obvious games that allow CCP and GC controllers). People don't buy a Wii for great graphics, but they DO buy 360/PS3 for top notch graphics. It's just how the world works nowadays. Nintendo could make a Zelda game with realistic, HD graphics. They really could, I know because they made Ocarina of Time which was one of the best looking games of its time (iirc). Skyward Sword could've been Zelda Wii U had Nintendo made the jump to HD in 2005. Skyward Sword is in no way a bad game, but it does have its flaws. Call them nitpicks if you will, haters will see them as critical company flaws.

Nintendo would definitely have less haters, and it was worth it to take on those haters in order to dominate Sony and Microsoft in console sales as well as not be forced to sell consoles at a loss like Sony did for a while. It's Sony and Microsoft's problem that Nintendo outsmarted them this generation, and the haters will hate just because they think the Wii is a joke compared to the 2 HD capable consoles. I think it's telling of how much Sony and Microsoft realized that Nintendo had it right this generation that they both decided to release motion controls as well. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Part of the reason for the hate might be because the HD gamers are mad that the companies they have supported aren't doing as well as Nintendo. It's human nature to want the decisions you've made (and an investment in a console is a fairly large decision) to be proven "right" so it's natural for them to be made at Nintendo for what seems like absolutely no reason.

Also I think that despite the very high quality of graphics that Ocarina of Time had, one of the very few criticisms it received was that the graphics weren't quite as good as Banjo Kazooie's- I remember reading that on Wikipedia once.

I have no idea what Sony and Microsoft (and their fans) will do once the next Zelda releases on Wii U. By that point I think graphics won't be hugely different between consoles, and so their arguments against the game will be reduced to "it's the exact same game because it still has Legend of Zelda in the title."

 

[Forlong]

Skyward Sword has bad graphics for its time. I think that's reason enough for reviewers/haters to give it a bad score. It is no secret that Nintendo purposefully has stuck with SD graphics rather than HD so as to make a less expensive console, but that was in 2005 where HD was almost completely mainstream. Now in 2011 with the death of the Wii, it's best game yet comes out...but has less than subpar graphics among graphics fanatics. Easy enough to give it a biased, completely unreasonable 7.5/10. And with these bad scores comes viewers, and people actually try to play the game to see if a Zelda game has actually fell to lower standards (we know Zelda series has high standards).

In that case, I'm curious as to what you consider the Xbox 360, because it isn't an HD console either. More of a hybrid HD console, which actually sucks at HD. Fortunately for Microsoft, Sony doesn't know how to take advantage of HD; so no one has noticed for five years.

True, the Wii is a weak console. However, that should not greatly effect how the game is rated. No one marks down PSP games for not being in HD, do they? Is "Portal" in HD? No? Well, that shows that you don't need the latest graphics to be the best, let alone good. Even if PS3 games look better (more on that later), it doesn't mater if SS is more fun to play. The graphics play a part, but they don't always make or break a game.

And FYI, most PS3 games look like crap in a blender. Sony doesn't seem to have gotten the point of High Definition: to have more detail. If your games are have grey and brown as the predominant colors, they aren't going to look any better in HD. SS looks a lot better than PS3 games because it takes full advantage of what it has. The WiiU isn't going to be Nintendo playing catch up as much as Nintendo showing Sony how things get done right.

 

[toyall123]

You are absolutely right, Forlong.

But graphics does have influence on a lot of people, especially the casual gamers.>.>And since many casual gamers expect a Zelda game that looks similar to Twilight Princess, SS may scare away some of them.

Portal is an amazing game, just like what Skyward Sword probably is(I haven't played yet sadly) Unfortunately, even a game like Portal has its fair share of haters. Just like for every game, there are always people out there that genuinely do not enjoy Portal, Skyward Sword, etc.:cry:

 

[Animated Monste]

I'm fine with mainstream hate, like Animated Monste's post because it's ignorant. I don't know what promises were made that weren't held up. I can only assume the faults he mentions are going back to the same 3 areas over and over. Ok, Skyrim has a large world FILLED to the rim with glitches and bugs...barely even playable on the PS3.

I play with the Wii probably 10x less than other systems, but when a Nintendo made game comes out, I'm more excited for that game than any other because I know it's quality and I know they will postpone release to avoid major bugs and glitches. How many patches have you downloaded for a Zelda game? Zero.

The promise was that Skyward Sword was going to mix up the Zelda formula and surprise fans.

What we got was a game that stuck to the same formula Nintendo has been using since A Link to the Past. Collect 3 items/sword upgrade/rest of the dungeons.
Some of touted new gameplay of Skyward Sword: item wheel, stamina gauge, sprint button. You know, standard features in contemporary games.
There's also the gameplay that doesn't work so well, like Dousing and the Harp.
On top of that, Nintendo didn't even fix the stuff that everyone complained about with Twilight Princess: slow opening, pointless fetch quests, easy difficulty

After 5 years and all their talk, I expected more. Skyward Sword is good, but it's not god's gift to innovation/originality like some of you are making it to be.

As for major bugs and glitches, I'll leave you with this:


http://www.1up.com/news/beware-game-breaking-zelda-skyward-sword-bug


Metroid Other M also had a game breaking bug. What did Nintendo ask you to do? Mail them the game to be replaced.

 

[steve12345]

By the way, last week I bought Batman: Arkham City on PC, one of those games with the best graphics out there.
Summary, after 10 minutes of playing I didn't even notice the great graphics. The main story only took between 10 and 12 hours to beat and the sidequests weren't that long either, just fly and run around and you'll find things and are automatically lead to the next beaconpoint. I bought the game on friday and already had finished it on monday (I didn't even play that long these days, sunday I didn't play at all and monday I just finished some of the sidequest and found out there wasn't anything more to do except flying around and enjoying the ' amazing graphics'...). I must admit that I somewhat have buyers remorse, since I paid E 49.95 for the game and that I am surprised that this game even got 49% against Skyward Sword. It should have gotten around 20% really.
It is a good game and it's fun to play, but it's not even close to being even 25% as good as Skyward Sword. The pacing was almost amateurish and during the middle of the main story, there was this part in which the game got very repititive for quite a time.
Based on gameplay, combat and storyline this game is not impressive at all. But yeah, based on graphics it is one of the best ever made.
You can really see obviously that according to the current discourse graphics are just way more important, while they're actually hardly relevant. Graphics don't matter.

I always find these high-graphic, + low gameplay/story games comparable to a goodlooking guy who is still unable to get girls.

 

[Bastian]

Twilight princess appealed to the mainstream, not quite as much as OOT, but it still did it pretty well. It used an art style everyone could like.

That's quite a statement. Everyone? I, for one, felt it was a huge step away from what makes Zelda, Zelda. I did NOT like the graphic style at all, and felt that not only was it not very Zelda, but pretentiously dark for no better reason than to pander to immature kids who begged for a darker Zelda.

The day we see a photo realistic Zelda with blood gushing from every sword slice is the day I'll stop playing the series because it will have stopped being itself. Zelda is quirky, and colorful and fun. It has some dark moments, sure, but it also has some wacky, hillarious, sad, joyful moments too.

Fans of OOT would have liked TP, it had similar elements and the sense of familiarity would have been a comforting return to how zelda used to be, before the WW came out and made changes.

TP was not a return, TP was a departure. It moved away from the colorful, vibrant world Zelda has always had. TP was a step away from that, and was melodramatically dark just to be dark. SS felt like a true return to what makes Zelda, Zelda.

A friend of mine came over while I was playing SS. He was a gamer when he was a kid, but now that he's no longer in HS, he doesn't game hardly ever. He said, "Oh, that's the new Zelda? Wow, it looks like they finally went back to their roots."

OOT changed gaming as it was in 3d and people loved it)

Not everyone. I have some older friends for whom ALttP was their last Zelda game because they did NOT like the move to 3D.

SS, however has been heralded as one of the best, if not the best, Zelda games ever made. And I feel it deserves that. It really does feel like a return to the roots in terms of graphical style, but amazingly innovative in terms of gameplay.

As for why it's gotten so much hate from gamers: gamers incorrectly attribute "mature" with good and colorful with "kids-y"/bad. When they grow up, they'll see how absurd their notion of "mature" is. Critics by and large have given it great scores. And the few reviews I've read/seen where a bad score has been given, it was clear that the reviewer was mistaking their ineptitude as an issue with the game (controls issues in one infamous review, wrong assumptions in another, poor journalism in a third). I think that in the wash, SS will stand the tests of time as one of the best videogames made.

 

[ZeldaPokemon25]

The promise was that Skyward Sword was going to mix up the Zelda formula and surprise fans.

Actually he's rather correct because you set yourself up for disappointment. I mean what were expecting a Bioware or Bethesda experience?

What we got was a game that stuck to the same formula Nintendo has been using since A Link to the Past. Collect 3 items/sword upgrade/rest of the dungeons.
Some of touted new gameplay of Skyward Sword: item wheel, stamina gauge, sprint button. You know, standard features in contemporary games.
There's also the gameplay that doesn't work so well, like Dousing and the Harp.
On top of that, Nintendo didn't even fix the stuff that everyone complained about with Twilight Princess: slow opening, pointless fetch quests, easy difficulty

Ah those are what you call IMPROVEMENTS? From my experience with SS there are some fresh elements developed into the game like the overworld having more of a purpose instead of just being empty and barren. I guess you miss the fact that the overworld are now actual levels just like the dungeons and temples. The Shield and Stamina gauges actually made the game more challenge because of how limit your time to get to next area. This is when you are climbing the vines and running out of energy when fighting enemies. The shield being removed at the player's choice, elements affected it like the iron shield being affected by lighting attacks, and breaking when it takes too many blows. This should be indicating that it has become more difficult then both TWW and TP.

The enemies are a little more smarter and you have to out maneuver them. The boss fights were actually great improvements instead of being the usual quick defeats like OOT, TWW, and TP. I couldn't disagree more about thinking the Harp and Drousing were a waste of time when fact it's actually helped me find some things when I got lost. I fall to notice any flaws with the Harp and this seems to be more of your preference of not liking it then a flaw. Funny I actually find more purpose behind those fetch quests and this actually lead to the NPCs involvement with Link and they actually develop throughout the game. As for difficulty I never saw this as a problem in the series and this is a indicating that your taste towards gaming has changed.

After 5 years and all their talk, I expected more. Skyward Sword is good, but it's not god's gift to innovation/originality like some of you are making it to be.

LOL Expecting the Bioware and Bethesda experience again? Actually I say SS is a god send to the series because unlike TP with its lazy designs SS brings fresh elements to the series that you simply overlooked out of your bias just because it's not the Elder Scrolls format.

As for major bugs and glitches, I'll leave you with this:


http://www.1up.com/news/beware-game-breaking-zelda-skyward-sword-bug


Metroid Other M also had a game breaking bug. What did Nintendo ask you to do? Mail them the game to be replaced.

I like to call this being right for the wrong reasons. What's funny is that this is one glitch. Is it a flaw in the design? Differently but you don't have a problem with this on the other consoles' games that have way more than one glitch. You only added this in as a way to put salt to wounds and you may be correct about the fact but the way you're going about it just gives you a bad rep with your attitude.

 

[PK Love Omega]

BAD GRAPHICS?
Erm no, that's an opinion. To me, COD graphics could be terrible, but for you, it could be the best graphics.
But Skyward Sword PUSHES the limits of the Wii and the visuals and amazing. Also, you said there are so many flaws, yet you only mentioned Bad Graphics. But let's remember, Minecraft, Pokemon, Mario's, a few Zelda games and a lot more games are 2D or have graphics not as great as other games, yet they succeed.
But I shouldn't waste my time on someone who thinks that MW3 is better than Skyward Sword. Sad that you are oblivious to the fact that it uses the same engine and one of the worst companies is making the multiplayer section of the game, as well as the poor reception and complaints about small maps and etc.

But Zelda has been popular for a while. It is the second most popular Nintendo series since the release of the first LoZ, and became quite a bit more popular with the release of Smash Bros. Also, it's failing to sell over here in the UK. I suppose it's because not many people here are hardcore (By hardcore, I mean not sticking to the excuses for games like Fifa and Cod)

 

[jokekid]

nintendo tries to make new stuff, sony tries to copy without it being noticed, microsoft just cares about sales, so copies the one who looks better to their eyes.

first analogic control in the 64, a bit later a new controller for psx came out
gamecube didnt have much special, basically a ps2 from nintendo...
wii had completely new controls, and keeps innovating, ps3 started with this weird motion stuff in the controller, and later made the psMove, which is just the wiimote with a ball on top >.<

and main problem is tat if ppl bought the PS3 for 500€ (sry, im european), they dont want to hear that a system that costed 250 is actually better...

 

[ZeldaPokemon25]

That's quite a statement. Everyone? I, for one, felt it was a huge step away from what makes Zelda, Zelda. I did NOT like the graphic style at all, and felt that not only was it not very Zelda, but pretentiously dark for no better reason than to pander to immature kids who begged for a darker Zelda.

I understand why you felt it was a step down and making a darker theme like Majora's Mask did kind of made TP the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion of the series. Personally I thought it not staying its welcome was best for the series because I don't think it would have worked in the long run.

The day we see a photo realistic Zelda with blood gushing from every sword slice is the day I'll stop playing the series because it will have stopped being itself. Zelda is quirky, and colorful and fun. It has some dark moments, sure, but it also has some wacky, hillarious, sad, joyful moments too.

This. I remember one time I showed my friend TP and he just grimaced about it and even implied about Link "why is he wearing a skirt" :facepalm:. He even did the same thing when I was playing ALTTP after I said the graphics in the game have aged beautifully. Let's face it the only way Zelda would be "taken seriously" is when Link starts killing people and acting like a "badass" with a five year old mind set. I agree and when Zelda starts being "mature" with Link being a "badass, blood and gore, too realistic, and sex. That's when it will loses its charm and it's a good thing Nintendo stopped at TP with using a dark and realistic style.

TP was not a return, TP was a departure. It moved away from the colorful, vibrant world Zelda has always had. TP was a step away from that, and was melodramatically dark just to be dark. SS felt like a true return to what makes Zelda, Zelda.

Actually I would say OOT was more of a departure from series then TP was. Let's just say I didn't like the art style in OOT because it wasn't similar to A Links to the Past and Link's Awakening. To me it felt too realistically and the lighthearted artstyle in 2D games is what made Zelda.

A friend of mine came over while I was playing SS. He was a gamer when he was a kid, but now that he's no longer in HS, he doesn't game hardly ever. He said, "Oh, that's the new Zelda? Wow, it looks like they finally went back to their roots."

I weren't doubt he would think that because of departure from series' true design that OOT started.

SS, however has been heralded as one of the best, if not the best, Zelda games ever made. And I feel it deserves that. It really does feel like a return to the roots in terms of graphical style, but amazingly innovative in terms of gameplay.

I differently think the same thing and SS exceeded my expectations more than TP did when I first completed it. This new installment will easily be replacing one of my favorite games in my top 10 and even lowering TP to a number 6. That's how amazing I thought it was and this is the best Zelda game up to date.

As for why it's gotten so much hate from gamers: gamers incorrectly attribute "mature" with good and colorful with "kids-y"/bad. When they grow up, they'll see how absurd their notion of "mature" is. Critics by and large have given it great scores. And the few reviews I've read/seen where a bad score has been given, it was clear that the reviewer was mistaking their ineptitude as an issue with the game (controls issues in one infamous review, wrong assumptions in another, poor journalism in a third). I think that in the wash, SS will stand the tests of time as one of the best videogames made.

That has been a problem with the game community for years even before the GameCube and TWW were released when it comes to Nintendo. It is ridiculous how so many think whether a game is kiddy makes it trash and Shovelware. Unless your badass with a five year old mindset seeking revenge and killing people in a brutal manner it's the best thing ever. This reminded me of when TWW came out and I trashed the game for having "kiddy" graphics. Now today I feel completely stupid for thinking that because TWW was a much better game and realized this is what ALTTP would have looked like today. Games like ALTTP, LA, OOA, OOS, TWW, TMC, and SS will stand the test of time thanks to artstyle and graphic design. What's funny is that TTW still looks good and that I find amazing.

 

[A Link In Time]

Correction: Skyward Sword is returning the popularity the Zelda franchise once had and rightfully deserves.

 

[Ventus]

Define "bad graphics"

Polygon count. Textures. Draw distance, and more. You already know what I'm talking about, don't feign ignorance.

But I shouldn't waste my time on someone who thinks that MW3 is better than Skyward Sword. Sad that you are oblivious to the fact that it uses the same engine and one of the worst companies is making the multiplayer section of the game, as well as the poor reception and complaints about small maps and etc.

Using the same engine means nothing at all. A bad company making the maps also means nothing at all. MW3 is the best selling game in history to date, I think that means enough. At least 50 percent of the CoD population knows that each new game is a rehash of MW1, yet they continue to buy it because they like it. To them it's better than anything else. Small maps mean nothing, CoD is a shoot em up, not a sniper war. Story doesn't make a game, however stories DO make books. >.>'

 

[-KingJason]

I love this! To me, a game should simulate a book. A game that has a story is always better than one with no plot, character developement is what makes you want to play. Well besides the idiots who love to "shot-em'-up".