• 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.

Spoiler Things Skyward Sword Could Have Done Differently/better?

HyruleLove

Twilight Princess
Joined
May 9, 2011
Location
Puerto Rico
I just cant help but be kinda disappointed. Here are my reasons. 1-You cannot skip texts or cutscenes (yeah,you can skip them after youve seen it before). 2- When you collect spoils,save the game, and restart it up later,you still are told what spoils you collected even if you have 50 of them already -__-. 3-I dont like the adventure pouch. Let us carry whatever we want! D: please? :( 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 :( We learned little to nothing about the new races, or anything really. I also found this game to be quite short. I finished it in 4 days. I just expected more, but atleast it was fun to play. Im a huge Zelda fan,dont get me wrong, I just couldnt help but be bothered by those flaws.
 

Cel-Shaded Deku

Ha ha, charade you are!
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Location
Rapin' your churches, burnin' your women!
I don't care about story, graphics, or any of that *bleep* that most people complain about. I absolutely hate how every time you load a save file the game has to stop for a moment and remind you what a treasure or bug is the first time you find/catch them during a session. Didn't Nintendo get any complaints about that happening when you pick up rupees in Twilight Princess? Now it's even worse! In TP you were only likely to be stopped twice, maybe three times by blue, yellow, and maybe red rupees. In Skyward Sword you're likely to be stopped more often because you're likely to pick up many treasures and catch many bugs. I must have been told what an Amber Relic is ten times already! Enough!
 

New Link

Link's Reincarnation
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Location
Forest Haven
The only thing i HATED about skyward sword is that itdidnt do what Wind waker did with islands i mean whats the point of having a bird if all the people do is go skydiving and chop bamboo (which only knights can do) i feel like they should have pulled a Wind Waker there. All there is to do is open chests!
 

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
United States
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.
I agree with most of what you said, but I feel it's more a matter of extent. Smaller flaws can detract from enjoyment as well but they just don't matter as much. Also I'd agree that smaller flaws tend to be more subtle (for instance I commonly complain about linearity and many fans don't understand what I mean at all because they never would notice that, not to mention it's questionable that it's a flaw in the first place), but there can be exceptions. There's one flaw with Skyward Sword that I think virtually everyone had to have noticed, and I don't think anyone viewed it as a positive- the treasure/bug notifications. What makes it worse is how easily the designers could have avoided it by making it optional. Also they had to literally go out of there way to implement a notification system when in reality the game would have been more enjoyable if they never even programmed the system in the first place. Still it does pale in comparison to the things the game does right. It's frustrating though when I can't even estimate how many times I was battling multiple enemies at once, finished one off, accidentally picked up a treasure, and then gameplay was interrupted for a few seconds.

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?

I agree with this; the only games in which I enjoyed the graphics were ALTTP and WW while the only games in which I enjoyed the stories were Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask. I'd go so far as to say that story and graphics are less important to me than music and sometimes I play games muted. So yeah, I'm an example of exactly what you're talking about. Despite not caring about graphics that much, I actually am hoping the Wii U Zelda has Wind Waker style graphics with a traditional transport system (i.e. walking and epona rather than a boat, train, or loftwing) in an overworld like either of the N64 games.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
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.
 
G

Girahim

Guest
I really hated the fact that you couldn't kill enemies with the slingshot anymore and that you don't get a boomerang

and in TP link was smart enough to kick open the chests but now he has gone back to the old ways of bending all the way down and opening the chest by hand
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Majora's Cat

How about that
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
NJ
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.

Demise being a weak boss is your opinion. Not all gamers will have as easy a time as you did playing through Skyward Sword, and not all gamers will think that Demise is easy. The final boss only had two variations, but it can take players multiple tries to finally take him down if they need to decipher the strategy to defeating him themselves.

Also, Link fights The Imprisoned three times. He fights Ghirahim twice before the final confrontation between the two. What weakens Ghirahim in my opinion is the fact that he's shown himself to be no stronger than Link twice before, and in normal form. The Imprisoned is clearly an inferior version of Demise, and it's not a large statement to say that you just defeated Demise's ugly, restrained form. Ghirahim is seen as a more vulnerable character, and the fact that Link meets him at the end of two dungeons only means that he fills the places of what could have been two unique boss battles.

Granted, Ghirahim is not the same boss fight the third time around. But we already know enough about his style and mannerisms to figure out what to do, and fighting him is very anti-climactic. Demise's intimidating stature, the unexpected amount of damage he deals if he lands a hit and the concept of Link fighting in the past is a much more fitting end to a game like Skyward Sword. Demise also had quite the build-up, considering that he is The Imprisoned, and is also shrouded in mystery.

It's personal preference whether you like seeing a very familiar face as the final boss battle or seeing someone that you knew existed and have limited information of, but are also somewhat familiar with.

VanitasXII said:
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. 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.

No Zelda game has a strong story. No Zelda game has had exceptional visuals. You can try to sugarcoat this by saying that they're above-average for Nintendo's consoles, but they are not on par with the rest of the industry. Some Zelda games will have better stories and graphics than others, but neither of the two elements will ever be impressive. Skyward Sword is not the only offender, so I don't understand why people tend to criticize these two aspects in SS in particular. We, as Zelda fans, should be used to this already.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
The Sky
Nintendo, you've made the gameplay really great swordplay (just need offensive enemies), now where is the flight? After all, Sky is in the title too, so it should be emphasized just like the Sword was. We got a barren sky, just like Hyrule Field in TP except...a distinct lack of enemies. I know you can do better.

What do you feel [noparse]The Legend of Zelda:Skyward Sword could have done differently?[/noparse]

There were a few things I disagreed with and some I agreed with, but I can't let this slide without commenting. The Goddess sent SkyLoft to the sky to protect people, her mortal form, and the Hero, from monsters. Of course it lacked enemies - none of them could fly or had bird mounts as Loftwings wouldn't have choosen a monster. This all (minus the Loftwing part - common sense) was explained by Zelda after you go into the past. And the SWORD is a huge plot line. It starts out as the Skyward Sword and the whole game is based on powering it up to the Master Sword. It's not the sky or Skyloft that has the importance, but Link's sword. This IS the origin story, after all.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Demise being a weak boss is your opinion. Not all gamers will have as easy a time as you did playing through Skyward Sword, and not all gamers will think that Demise is easy. The final boss only had two variations, but it can take players multiple tries to finally take him down if they need to decipher the strategy to defeating him themselves.

the fact that Link meets him at the end of two dungeons only means that he fills the places of what could have been two unique boss battles.

Demise's intimidating stature, the unexpected amount of damage he deals if he lands a hit and the concept of Link fighting in the past is a much more fitting end to a game like Skyward Sword. Demise also had quite the build-up, considering that he is The Imprisoned, and is also shrouded in mystery.

No Zelda game has a strong story. No Zelda game has had exceptional visuals. You can try to sugarcoat this by saying that they're above-average for Nintendo's consoles, but they are not on par with the rest of the industry. Some Zelda games will have better stories and graphics than others, but neither of the two elements will ever be impressive. Skyward Sword is not the only offender, so I don't understand why people tend to criticize these two aspects in SS in particular. We, as Zelda fans, should be used to this already.
Definitely true, and I know it to be true as the comments vary from "omfg this game is so hard" to "omfg this game is too easy". Still, me being on the easy side of the argument, it wouldn't hurt to bump up the difficulty.

Again that is true, but I'd rather Ghirahim than something like the uninspiring Tentalus (who *was* a unique boss in the entirety of Skyward Sword). A Koloktos-type boss, with multiple phases and difficulty beyond 'use an item as well as the sword' would be more than welcome in place of Ghirahim II, however.

Stature is nothing if not used. Oh dang guys, a whopping TWO HEARTS. By then, the average player would have close to all but the final two heart containers whose places are filled by Heart Medals. Two hearts is nothing. Demise had no build-up – he was ended just as soon as we were about to find anything about him. At least with Ganon (OoT), we realized he had a decent wish and he showed his ability to get that wish. Demise on the other hand...he's a giant beast then BOOM "HAHAHA, I CANZ DEFET TEH WORLDZ CUS OF MAH LACKEY DEBBIE HAHAHA" then yet another BOOM moments later , Link laughs triumphantly while shouting at the top of his lungs "FATAL BLOW, GET YOUR *** OWNED!". A good tip, and I am addressing this to Nintendo, is to explain your main villain a good deal both INGAME as well as through backstory BEFORE you kill him off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ALttP used Mode7 to a great deal [or maybe that was Super Mario Kart]. You cannot seriously look me in the eye and tell me that OoT and MM didn't have exceptional graphics for their time. OoT laid out the ground work, MM expanded upon that with the expansion pak [no pun intended]. OoT and MM, at least, didn't have many standards for their time [besides FMVs which just weren't possible on the N64 Cartridge – FMVs were a Sony thing that weren't even utilized to their extent till well into the 98s and the 21st century] so their graphics were spot on.

We, as Zelda fans, finally realize that the rest of the gaming community is right because Skyward Sword gives us graphical and story problems dead in our faces. The lack of antialiasing is so much more apparent in SS than in TP – this is due to artstyle, general problems with the Wii as well as lack of optimal shaders. It makes on sense at all that a game like Super Mario Galaxy can outclass that of Zelda: Skyward Sword as far as graphical display goes. SS' story could use a LOT more patching, of which is only rivaled by Twilight Princess' rather lacking story. Come on, MC, you cannot defend the game to the death like this. It has obvious problems that are easily addressed, and you know it to be true.

There were a few things I disagreed with and some I agreed with, but I can't let this slide without commenting. The Goddess sent SkyLoft to the sky to protect people, her mortal form, and the Hero, from monsters. Of course it lacked enemies - none of them could fly or had bird mounts as Loftwings wouldn't have choosen a monster. This all (minus the Loftwing part - common sense) was explained by Zelda after you go into the past. And the SWORD is a huge plot line. It starts out as the Skyward Sword and the whole game is based on powering it up to the Master Sword. It's not the sky or Skyloft that has the importance, but Link's sword. This IS the origin story, after all.
Alike that of what I told Mr.Kitters earlier, the Sky is still in the equation. We had a few islands which is already unrealistic, Nintendo could've made a little more effort and gave us a couple 'extra (here, I mean "essential")' islands. Throw realism out the window – a sky island could not stay there for as long as it does because of all of the things chaining it down and of course gravity. Don't try to throw common sense and realism at me when what you're defending clearly defies sense and realism!

I already know about the G Sword, I knew it was an origin story but still.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
and in TP link was smart enough to kick open the chests but now he has gone back to the old ways of bending all the way down and opening the chest by hand
The chest-opening is handled exactly the same in both games. Link kicks small chests and bends in for large ones with special items. It's no different in either game, aside from the ratio of small chests to large chests. I'm also confused as to how this is a detraction from the game itself. Isn't it just silly as opposed to a problem with the game?
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Alike that of what I told Mr.Kitters earlier, the Sky is still in the equation. We had a few islands which is already unrealistic, Nintendo could've made a little more effort and gave us a couple 'extra (here, I mean "essential")' islands. Throw realism out the window – a sky island could not stay there for as long as it does because of all of the things chaining it down and of course gravity. Don't try to throw common sense and realism at me when what you're defending clearly defies sense and realism!

I already know about the G Sword, I knew it was an origin story but still.

I am not trying to start a fight here. There is an obvious unrealistic aspect of the game with a floating rock city, so I thought to not mention that. If you think, the whole Zelda Universe is unrealistic so why try and butt heads at the obvious? All I am saying is that Skyloft was important, but the sky isn't supposed to be the main point of the game. It serves as the central point, the thing you must go back to, and as a break from everything. If it was full of enemies, yes it would make it more exciting, but that wasn't the point of it at all. The sky is a safe haven.

Yes, of course you know of the sword. So then you know that it is more important than "a few islands." I am not by any means trying to start a fight. I am only saying that Nintendo focused on what was more important for the plot. The sword was more important to the storyline than the sky. That was all I was quickly trying to explain.

EDIT: Everyone has their own views on games and I am not trying to sway yours. I am just stating my own and would appreciate if you do the same. State your opinions yes, but do not try to degrade my own.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Sorry Chibiyu, I was getting a bit confused and enraged, I apologize for how I worded that last sentence and the enmity behind it. What I should've said in the first place is "the Sky is unrealistic but it wouldn't hurt to get a little bit more substance given that the current presentation already defied a bit of logic and physics". So again I apologize for all of the spite and enmity.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Sorry Chibiyu, I was getting a bit confused and enraged, I apologize for how I worded that last sentence and the enmity behind it. What I should've said in the first place is "the Sky is unrealistic but it wouldn't hurt to get a little bit more substance given that the current presentation already defied a bit of logic and physics". So again I apologize for all of the spite and enmity.

Thank you for the apology and it is accepted. I do agree about the sky lacking substance, but personally, I enjoyed the small repreive.
 

Majora's Cat

How about that
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
NJ
We, as Zelda fans, finally realize that the rest of the gaming community is right because Skyward Sword gives us graphical and story problems dead in our faces. The lack of antialiasing is so much more apparent in SS than in TP – this is due to artstyle, general problems with the Wii as well as lack of optimal shaders. It makes on sense at all that a game like Super Mario Galaxy can outclass that of Zelda: Skyward Sword as far as graphical display goes. SS' story could use a LOT more patching, of which is only rivaled by Twilight Princess' rather lacking story. Come on, MC, you cannot defend the game to the death like this. It has obvious problems that are easily addressed, and you know it to be true.

They are not problems, they are shortcomings. I'm as huge a TP fanboy as they come, and the visuals are incredibly flawed. Nintendo attempts realism, but the end result is somewhat sloppy. Nintendo tried something completely different with Skyward Sword. They crafted the game's environments, characters and enemies so that they could stand the test of time (much like the Wind Waker). Characters appear smoother, and while the game looks more simplistic, it knows its graphical boundaries and doesn't try to step outside them like Twilight Princess did.

I never said that I didn't agree that Skyward Sword is lacking in story and graphics. It clearly does. I've said it twice and I'll say it again, that is to be expected of Zelda games. Until the release of the Wii U, the Zelda series won't be able to output true HD. The Wii has clear limitations, and all video games on the platform will always suffer the same issues with graphics as Skyward Sword does. For SS to break the curse of Zelda games' stories and visuals would be nothing less than a miracle, but the gaming industry isn't a fairy tale. SS has some of the prettiest graphics for a Zelda game and a heart-warming plot that ties the gameplay together tightly, and that's enough for me to appreciate the game.

Ultimately, we're not here for the story or visuals. At its core, a video game is an adventure that allows an ordinary person to becoming someone far more fantastical and accomplish nearly impossible feats at the press of a button. Storylines and refined visuals were added later to make games "experiences". Skyward Sword (and any game for that matter) won't be assessed on how gorgeous it looks or how spellbinding the plot is because the objective is to play the game, not to marvel at its technical prowess. Skyward Sword is a game, not a high-budget movie.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
They are not problems, they are shortcomings.
I don't think you can really distinguish between the two terms.


Either way, though, I'm confused as to how Skyward Sword has graphical, but especially story flaws. The story was handled on a level far greater than almost all of the modern Zelda games. The graphics, while poor compared to newer consoles, were pretty much top of the line for the Wii and looked great despite that because of the art direction.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom