More importantly, you contradict yourself when saying that waiting to be struck by an enemy (therefore they are the aggressors) is a negative thing while also wanting enemies to be more offensive. Say that you are allowed to make the first move with enemies and hit them - that means you are on the offensive, yet you want enemies to be more aggressive in future Zelda games. What?
You can't be serious. How can you introduce more than two main villains without making them all seem lame? Demise's demeanor already made Ghirahim look like less of a man (as if he was much of one to begin with). Two's a party, but three's a crowd. I would have been severely disappointed if Ghirahim was the final boss because he's a bit too flamboyant and is too familiar to Link. After a few appearances, Ghirahim starts to become less of an intimidating villain and more of a stalker that seems to be interested in following two teens where they go. Demise did make a short-lived appearance in the game, but his presence throughout lingered in the air. We were aware of his existence very early on, and expect great things from him.
Really? If I remember correctly, his first form needs to be chipped away. His reactions are very quick, and it takes a little while to finally cast 30 blows on him. Then we toy around with him with lightning. I must admit that once you decipher his attack patterns and discern the method to defeat him, he becomes rather easy. However, he should pose a threat the first time you meet up with him. Additionally, Ganon from Ocarina of Time was pathetic? If a final boss that epic can be viewed as wimpy, then it's no wonder that you dislike Demise.
I guess I didn't make myself clear with that one. Yes, "waiting for the enemy" usually makes the enemy the aggressor, but that's not the point of it. An aggressor should be a good one, quick at that. It shouldn't take two seconds for it to click in the aggressor's head that "oh look, he's wide open for attack, let's go ahead and attack". It should snap like a rubber band when you pull it hard enough; very quickly.
To the two bolded parts: a familiar villain is a good one. A familiar final boss is a good one, if done correctly. Ghirahim was done exactly like I'd like a villain...until I realized that his purpose was an entirely weak one. If Fabulous was infact the final boss of the game (not like his third phase), I'm definitely sure that Nintendo would have done a great move. We know the villain, we know his ins and outs and we have a settled rage against him. If we win against him, it's by decisive battle, not by some foolery or a miscalculation on the stronger fighter's behalf. THAT is why Demise was such a terrible boss. Another thing, this is in regards to expectations for Demise, is that we (or at the very least, I) get so much expectation from the master villain, but when we're presented with this weaksauce boss, it completely belies said expectations. Crushes them into dust and throws them to the wind. If that is how every Zelda villain duo must go, then I'd rather we just take another OoT Ganondorf.
His reactions themselves are quick, but him being such a bulky brute makes him all too slow. Need I bring up "Shield Bash, Spin Attack" yet again, or shall I post a 27.XX video of him being completely obliterated? I think that is the better way out, here is said video. [video=youtube;6aKgKoGccFw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aKgKoGccFw[/video]
That comment about Ganon (OoT) being pathetic was difficulty wise, but story wise Demise is far less than Ganon. Ganon for one actually had buildup. Demise? Yes, but partial buildup. The focus was more on Debbie than it was Demise.
@ MW7
That's...actually what I would have liked, and I wish I worded it a lot better than what I did. It's sort of like playing a Fire Emblem hack. If you make it too easy for the enemy, then their attack will be too high but usually they'll have low defense to make up for it. If you make it too hard for the enemy, then their attack will be too low but usually they'll have high defense to compensate (at least in a balanced hack). Thanks, MW7!
Agreed, defenders of SS will very quickly call us nitpickers when in fact we're pointing out flaws.
Besides every new enemy encounter being a tutorial in and of itself, this was true for me. I guess the puzzles, outside of the enemies, were too bunched together so that by the time you're finished with Ancient Cistern then you basically have "beaten the game".
I didn't want the whole cast of characters, what I meant was that more characters should've been involved than just the four (?) protagonists and the two antagonists. Sure, Scrapper and some of the other indigenous to the sectioned off areas helped us, but they really weren't "involved" in the overall plot on the level of, say, Groose or Zelda.
Agreed again. Imprisoned was a cool concept, but he got a bit too repetitive in the grand scheme of things. Linearity over nonlinearity...it's good to have a helping hand every once in a while, but to force us to beat the game in ONE WAY AND ONE WAY ONLY is a little restrictive if you ask me. Still, it's a player style thing so not much we can do about that.
I rule in favor of player choice. Little things like being able to skip cutscenes from the start...those should be one of the first things after gameplay to be put into the game. Well, at least we get to skip the cutscenes at all; if you go play a game such as Kingdom Hearts 1, you'll have to rewatch ALL OF THE CUTSCENES, even on a second, third fourth or Nth playthrough.
Larger, more noticeable flaws can detract from a video game. These are detrimental to a person's enjoyment of the game and severely cripple the gameplay. Smaller flaws take a keen eye to find, and they may not directly impact how much you enjoy a game. We play video games for the combat, puzzles - for the in-game content. A gamer's outlook on a game shouldn't be affected by these minor flaws because, well, they pale in comparison to all the aspects of a game that are done right.
No, Zelda isn't about the graphics. However, Skyward Sword's art style will appeal to a lot of people, but there will be those who dislike it. You say [...] Skyward Sword after the lack of crisp, clean textures in Twilight Princess. Zelda isn't about the story either. Ever. [...] it's just a matter of preference of either a darker story focused around helped Midna regain her throne or saving Zelda from being used as a pawn in reviving the Demon King Demise.
These two problems don't just plague Skyward Sword, but the entire franchise as well. In fact, these two so-called "problems" are the two elements of Zelda that matter least to its fans and to gamers in general. Why make a big deal out of them?
Take this as an example:
you have a house and everything is so beautiful and placed correctly except for one brick at the base. Under some circumstances, taking the brick out won't cause the house to collapse but is only a disturbance. In some other circumstances, taking the brick out "will" cause the house to collapse and you'll have to rebuild the thing up entirely. What in the world stops you from placing that brick in correctly? What that means is, correct any and all flaws no matter how big or small they may be. Somethings, like quick bugfixes, may not be entirely possible but other flaws such as the ones "complained" about in the Zelda series are easily rectified.
To the two bolded: I'm tired of Zelda defenders using this stupid excuse 'Zelda isn't about graphics' or 'Zelda isn't about story'. You have them in the equation, so effect them to the best possibility you can. I'll give you another example:
suppose you have a recipe for...I dunno, some kinda food. You have to use 1 pound of chicken, 2 tbsp of parsley and one ounce of baker's chocolate. The bulk of the food is the 1lb chicken, so you make for damn sure that you get the highest quality, freshest chicken out there with which to extract your 1 pound of chicken. You care a little bit about the baker's chocolate, and even less so about the parsley. But why? Given that you use parsley and baker's chocolate, why do you not make sure that you have the highest quality, freshest parsley and chocolate that you possibly can, assuming you're only able to get such and such quality because of funds? That's utterly ridiculous, stupid, and can cause the recipe to fall apart entirely giving an undesired effect to those that eat that delectable food. We know that the gameplay (the 1lb of chicken) is going to be extremely great, because that's how Zelda starts out – gameplay first, everything else not so first. Still, we DO have a story (baker's chocolate) and we DO have graphics (parsley). There's no excuse possible for the story and graphics to be so mediocre outside of base limitations of the system (funds).
Graphics weren't a problem for LoZ, AoL, ALttP, LA, OoT, MM, TMC, ALttP+FS, or OoX. Only with the recent releases, TWW, TP, PH, ST and SS were graphics a problem. IMO, the story of the former games were far better than the latter with the exception of TWW which was on par with OoT/MM again in my opinion.
4-Shield. Why must the shield be sooo stinking fragile? Sure you can upgrade...I just didnt like having to. Over all, when it comes to the story, Nintendo made it seem that we would get a really good story. I feel nothing much was explained as to how it related to OoT. Yeah yeah, Demise, his hatred, Ganondorf, whatever. I kinda wanted a more detailed story 
