Why would your opinion bother me?
I have no idea but I posted my original comment 3 days ago and we've been talking about it ever since...
Why would your opinion bother me?
Yeah I know that but the way the guy was talking it was like he was trying to say that the game should have had direct ties to OoT like the temple of time should have been made to look exactly like the one in OoT, things like that, I don't know, maybe I just misunderstood him.
It's not that bad, dude. XD
Okay, there are very few direct sequels in Zelda. There's LoZ and LA, OoT and MM, and WW and PH. Otherwise everything is very much it's own story with allusions or references to other games, some more than others.
The point of SS was to establish why it is always Link and Zelda who are born to deal with evil and why that evil keeps recurring. It did that. It explained the connections Hylians have to the gods, the creation of the Master Sword and why Link always has to get it, why Zelda has powers and there is always a strong connection between her and Link. There are so few direct references to other games because NONE of that stuff happened yet. What you do know is that the Ocarina of Time is made from timeshift stone, Zelda's harp and Sheik's harp bear a striking resemblance (something the game creators deliberately point out), and that Link pissed off the greatest evil the world had ever known and vowed to try and destroy him for all eternity.
What more did you want?
my problem w/ skyward sword being a prequel is that it created more questions than answers,such as:
-the freaking robots
-this 4th goddess that virtually nobody remembers in the future
-skyloft post-game
-loftwings post-game
-that giant tub of sand being an ocean once w/ robot pirates.......what?
-mogmas & kikwis post-game
-the province names never coming up again until some random point in the future [tp]
-the rest of the shiekah
But that kind of inconsistency is seen throughout the Zelda series. I don't see why SS should be judged more harshly for inconsistency than the others.
Two reasons.
1-It was supposed to be a landmark, 25th anniversary game. So much so that they even nodded to that in the game at the Wing Ceremony. Even if they don't usually connect a whole lot, they should connect the landmark games.
2-THIS game connected less than the other ones I've played. At least the modern ones. Like I said, I haven't played them all but in MM, it was the same Link as OoT. I've already pointed out the connection points (which I don't think were excessive) between OoT and TP. The biggest problem with SS was that it felt like the programmers had to remind themselves occasionally that it WAS a Zelda game and throw a bone to the long time fans to keep us happy.
But that kind of inconsistency is seen throughout the Zelda series. I don't see why SS should be judged more harshly for inconsistency than the others.
Even if you want to say that Zelda does not usually connect its games as much as it should, its atleast admittable that SS connects even less than they did while hyping itself up as a prequel.
Gaijin Goombah said:In my opinon, there is no BEST Zelda game. There isn't. Because Zelda games are constantly doing new things. I would say, yeah, you can have favorites, but yeah, there is no such thing as a best Zelda game. That is impossible.
Gaijin Goombah said:I guess what it all comes down to is...we as gamers...we enjoy rending games limb from limb like it was a drug.