Legend of Zelda The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword - NO SPOILERS, USE THE SPOILER THREAD PLEASE

[MuraRengan]

I never said there wasn't a Zelda formula. Of course there is one, EVERY game has one. But on what grounds would people say that it needs to be "changed" or "refreshed", especially in comparison to the new series that do nothing of the sort themselves? How much different is Black Ops from MW3? How much different is Arkham City from Arkham Asylum? How much different is Skyrim from Oblivion? Games always add tweaks to the system, which Zelda has always done, but the formula ALWAYS stays the same.

Comparing Zelda games to other big titles should have NOTHING to do with how the game is reviewed. It doesn't matter if today's gamer wouldn't be interested in Zelda because of distraction from other big names. That's not the game's fault, and it's no reason to criticize the formula.

Skyward Sword, above all other Zeldas yet, has taken Zelda as a series through leaps and bounds. It changed damn near everything about the game. And if not having voice acting and amazing graphics makes the modern gamer toss it to the side, then modern gamers have pretty immature standards. The type of overhaul to the formula that a appeal to a new gamer would essentially be: overly-emphasized graphics, blood and gore, voice acting, gritty themes, and give all female characters boob jobs. None of this changes the essentials of what makes Zelda Zelda. It just appeals to modern gaming trends. The games would not be any better or worse. Nintendo understands that.

 

[theeboredone]

I never said there wasn't a Zelda formula. Of course there is one, EVERY game has one. But on what grounds would people say that it needs to be "changed" or "refreshed", especially in comparison to the new series that do nothing of the sort themselves? How much different is Black Ops from MW3? How much different is Arkham City from Arkham Asylum? How much different is Skyrim from Oblivion? Games always add tweaks to the system, which Zelda has always done, but the formula ALWAYS stays the same.

Comparing Zelda games to other big titles should have NOTHING to do with how the game is reviewed. It doesn't matter if today's gamer wouldn't be interested in Zelda because of distraction from other big names. That's not the game's fault, and it's no reason to criticize the formula.

Skyward Sword, above all other Zeldas yet, has taken Zelda as a series through leaps and bounds. It changed damn near everything about the game. And if not having voice acting and amazing graphics makes the modern gamer toss it to the side, then modern gamers have pretty immature standards. The type of overhaul to the formula that a appeal to a new gamer would essentially be: overly-emphasized graphics, blood and gore, voice acting, gritty themes, and give all female characters boob jobs. None of this changes the essentials of what makes Zelda Zelda. It just appeals to modern gaming trends. The games would not be any better or worse. Nintendo understands that.

The only valid statement I can offer when you compare a series like CoD to Zelda is...

CoD basically comes out every year, so it's hard to ask for some new innovation system every year. However, at some point it is required given how many reiterations you're throwing out. At the end of the day though, if people keep buying, then there really is no urgency from developers to change the formula much.

Zelda console games come out every 3-5 years...and that alone gives reason to have high expectations. Me personally, I want something new, different. It's bee 5 years since TP came out, and I was left a bit disappointed in what this game had to offer. People say "well 1:1 swordplay." Well tell me this, is this really an innovation when this is what we envisioned about sword combat with Zelda from its TP days? I mean, had they not included it, that would have been the biggest disappointment ever. At the same time, because it is in there, I don't consider this a true innovation, because EVERYONE and their grandma knew it was coming. It has already been stated that at the end of the day, Link can only swing in 8 directions. True 1:1 innovation, with increased enemy AI resilience would have been made me clap my hands for this game. A simple thrust can be aimed at the chest, head, legs. A horizontal swing aimed at the mid section or neck. Instead, I feel like they checked out early when developing the sword combat.

But I do think the NY times critique was...a bit wrong. This Zelda game was/is the fastest to reach I believe 500k copies in the US. CLEARLY this is just not the nostalgia fanbase at work. There are still growing fans who appreciate and fall in love with the Zelda formula.

And I believe, no one is acting Zelda to go on this gore, sex appealing route (though I personally would like to see a more mature themed Zelda dealing with death, more details on things like the Shadow temple, etc). However, as I've stated before. Nintendo needs to figure out what it wants. As much as I love reading text, there's a problem when, during a cinematic scene, there is action going on, but I have to tilt my head down to read the damn text. If I prefer to watch the scene first, then read the text...well now I have to find out at what points each text piece was "said." The solution to that? Either limit the cinematic scenes to stand stills or include VAs. I enjoy watching the details in a scene, but at the same time, I hate it when the scene is "done" and the characters are just standing there while I read text.

And just fix the stupid characters lips moving with nothing coming out. That's just...gah.

 

[kupo15]

Skyward Sword, above all other Zeldas yet, has taken Zelda as a series through leaps and bounds. It changed damn near everything about the game. And if not having voice acting and amazing graphics makes the modern gamer toss it to the side, then modern gamers have pretty immature standards. The type of overhaul to the formula that a appeal to a new gamer would essentially be: overly-emphasized graphics, blood and gore, voice acting, gritty themes, and give all female characters boob jobs. None of this changes the essentials of what makes Zelda Zelda. It just appeals to modern gaming trends. The games would not be any better or worse. Nintendo understands that.

Not trying to sound facetious but what new ground did SS actually break? What is everything that has been changed? I hear this from everyone but I can only think of one thing that is actually new. This award I feel goes to MM

People say "well 1:1 swordplay." Well tell me this, is this really an innovation when this is what we envisioned about sword combat with Zelda from its TP days? I mean, had they not included it, that would have been the biggest disappointment ever. At the same time, because it is in there, I don't consider this a true innovation, because EVERYONE and their grandma knew it was coming. It has already been stated that at the end of the day, Link can only swing in 8 directions. True 1:1 innovation, with increased enemy AI resilience would have been made me clap my hands for this game. A simple thrust can be aimed at the chest, head, legs. A horizontal swing aimed at the mid section or neck. Instead, I feel like they checked out early when developing the sword combat.

That is exactly how I feel!!

 

[WindMajor]

I think that IGN's review of SS is the best one I read so far, mainly because he goes in-depth about why certain aspects of the game were good/bad for SS. It looks like he actually paid attention to some details that other reviewers missed and gave reason to all the details in the game, like for example, the empty spaces in the map.

 

[MuraRengan]

Not trying to sound facetious but what new ground did SS actually break? What is everything that has been changed? I hear this from everyone but I can only think of one thing that is actually new.

Swordplay and combat
Overworld layout and travel system
Level design
Exploration system
Item Enhancement
Dynamic incorporation of items
Control Scheme (Including movements and menus)
Plot
Story telling and cinematography

 

[Luigitoilet]

You're being very facetious, or willfully obtuse if you say you can only think of one new thing in this game.

 

[kupo15]

You're being very facetious, or willfully obtuse if you say you can only think of one new thing in this game.

In sense I am but at the same time I'm curious to know what makes him as well as others think that a certain X or Y is brand new to the series. And maybe I can think of two

Swordplay and combat
Overworld layout and travel system
Level design
Exploration system
Item Enhancement
Dynamic incorporation of items
Control Scheme (Including movements and menus)
Plot
Story telling and cinematography

Sorry for being specific and asking questions but I am really interested in what you mean by these titles exactly.

Swordplay
Item enhancements

Technically, didn't Zelda II already pioneer these making them not new?

I can kinda understand Item enhancements but this feels very RPGish which is found in Zelda II as well.

How is the Overworld/travel system any different than WW other than being themed differently? (which doesn't count)

What do you mean about the exploration system?

The control scheme is the major change I was thinking, the sprint/leaping feature to be exact. The menu I can take it or leave it. The 1 button menu isn't any different. The only thing new about the Item Screen I see is the fact that it doesn't pause gameplay. At first I liked it but this has it has some downsides to it as well. The fact that it is motion controlled really doesn't jump out as an improvement or advancement really. Even though it is an improvement over TP wii I think TP GC is still the superior one of the Item Wheel layout.

And if you really think about it, the Zelda Item select has went full circle. We went from one active item>2>3>4>back to 1 active item. This feels almost like a regression, not a progression.

Plot and Story...maybe? I'm not sure but I really liked the cinematography in OOT and story telling in MM. I mean OOT actually used the Vertigo shot! Seriously, how many video games (especially older ones) have you seen that used the Vertigo shot? That is really amazing!

Level design as in revisiting the same place over and over?

And what exactly do you mean by Dynamic Incorporation of items? I haven't finished the game so I don't have the full picture of the usage of these items. Can you provide an example that demonstrates unprecedented item usage?

 

[theeboredone]

I think Kupo was asking in terms of complete originality. Games already exist with item upgrading, exploration, story telling, etc. etc.

Edit: neverrrmiiiind.

And the IGN review smelled of meat riding all over. Not as bad as Uncharted 3 (god I hate Greg Miller), but it was pretty blatant in the review. Objectivity has never existed and never will in video game reviews. If I knew web lingo, I'd start my own review site. I got some neat ideas to make it unique.

 

[kupo15]

That is also part of it too ^^ Complete originality within the franchise to be more specific.
Games naturally upgrade and improve things from before. What makes the things in SS anymore special? Most of the things I can think of that people say are unprecedented changes that change the direction of the Zelda series have roots in the previous games. I am asking to make sure that I still stand by that statement

 

[WindMajor]

Yeah, the game makes numerous strides in Zelda standards, but not many if you're taking into consideration every single video game created until today.

The rest of this post can be considered as spoilers of different sorts, none relating to the story, so read with caution I guess?

How is the Overworld/travel system any different than WW other than being themed differently? (which doesn't count)

Spoiler

In terms of structure of the overworld, there's nothing really different other than the fact that Skyloft is clearly the central and most important location of the entire game, where as Wind Waker was just an ocean where you start out in Outset Island but it's not actually that important later on in the game. However, if you were to compare sailing to flying, then the structure of the overworld is practically the same. There are different levels scattered across a large overworld, and you have to use an item of transportation other than your own two legs to travel between areas.

As for travel system, I guess the bird statues can be compared to the tornados/cyclones from Wind Waker, but the obvious difference would be that the bird statues are a travel system set right at the beginning of the game, and it reaches to much more places than that one song in WW will. Where as after a dungeon, you would have to travel to your boat then use the song, then get launched somewhere in the middle of the sea in WW, in SS, you could take two steps from the dungeon and find a bird, then go straight to the sky.

What do you mean about the exploration system?

Spoiler

It has a lot to do with the level design really, where as in a game like Twilight Princess, places like Hyrule field are large but empty, and everything within it is immediately accessible right from the start, the formula changes in SS by introducting large areas that you have to thoroughly explore at first to open up later in the game. For example, Faron Woods is a large area that starts off as very closed off, but after exploring it for a while, everything opens up and connects to each other like a spider web. In TP, once you get to Hyrule Field, it's like if the spiderweb is already made, where as in SS, getting to Faron Woods means that you have to make the spiderweb yourself, and in order to do that, you have to explore every nook and cranny.

Then there's also the part where new areas can open up from places that you'd normally overlook.

Plot and Story...maybe? I'm not sure but I really liked the cinematography in OOT and story telling in MM. I mean OOT actually used the Vertigo shot! Seriously, how many video games (especially older ones) have you seen that used the Vertigo shot? That is really amazing!

Spoiler

This is the first game where I actually cared about the characters inside the game, which I think is a big enough leap for story-telling in Zelda to warrant at least some attention. I honestly think that the first part of the game is designed so brilliantly, that the only way to express how brilliant it is would be through an Egoraptor-esque analysis (Note: Link has strong language).

On the note of shots, Skyward Sword also has excellent framing as well. It wasn't only noticed by me (a Digital Animation student), but it's also in the review by IGN.

And what exactly do you mean by Dynamic Incorporation of items? I haven't finished the game so I don't have the full picture of the usage of these items. Can you provide an example that demonstrates unprecedented item usage?

Spoiler

What he means is that items don't get forgotten in the process of progressing in the game. Unlike in other Zeldas where you would find an item in a dungeon and the rest of the puzzles in the dungeon seem to heavily focus on that new item, in SS, you get a new item, but you're still using all of your old items constantly. It has to do with the level design, which I'll get into next.

Level design as in revisiting the same place over and over?

Spoiler

That would be one thing. The re-use of the similar locations in Skyward Sword are done fairly well to say the least. Examples of this would be:

The path to the Ancient Cistern dungeon in the Faron region:

Spoiler

They throw you back into a previously beaten dungeon, for a reason that makes complete sense.

The task you do after completing 6 dungeons, and before the 7th:

Spoiler

When you have to seek pieces of the songs from the dragons,

Spoiler

they drown one location, giving an old location a fresh experience, open a new area for another region, and make you progress a familiar situation in the form of a sneak mission. Old locations, fresh experiences.

Spoiler

Everything you do in Skyloft.

Another thing would be what I mentioned before about exploring and the spider web concept for outside dungeons.

The third would be the layout of dungeons, in which it's no longer all about pushing blocks to their place, hitting objects in a pattern, and lighting torches to magically open doors. Dungeons don't feel like puzzle houses anymore. They feel like obstacle courses, and the only thing you're looking for is the key to the next room. A good example of this would be the first temple, in which

Spoiler

right in the beginning, you go down a spiraling descent, cutting trees, killing enemies, and climbing over ****, until you hit a gemstone to open a door. Then you do one puzzle, and then it's back to obstacle courses starting in that one big room that floods with water (the one before the room with the Beetle). In those rooms, it's basically swimming, climbing, swinging on vines, and finding keys/gemstones to open doors, instead of lighting torches and what not.

This obstacle course feeling is largely dominant in not only dungeons, but in the overworld as well, in places that are formed like spiderwebs.

Not only that, but in order to navigate these so called obstacle courses, you have to make constant use of every item you have, instead of having levels themed after one item.

Edit: Just saw the ninja. My stance would be that it does nothing that's COMPLETELY original (since the Zelda series is quite big and diverse; it's basically done it all), but it does step it up in a lot of different areas, from motion control to level design to story telling, etc., and and it's a combination of those things that make it feel so different and fresh compared to other titles. It's not so much that there's this one big thing that separates it from it's predecessors, it's more that there are a lot of little changes to it that make it feel like a new experience.

 

[Luigitoilet]

There are no item enhancements in Zelda 2.

Also, I thought we were talking about innovations in the series, not in all of videogames. That's kind of a heavy deal to put on any one game.

 

[theeboredone]

That is definitely true. I don't hold Zelda up to that standard, but I still feel like they half-***** a lot of their "features." The item upgrading...it would not surprise me at all if the next Zelda game takes it to a whole new level and goes a bit more in depth about it. The same with the 1:1 sword play, which could truly have been innovative to me.

I don't know if it was hardware limitations or what, but as I mentioned earlier...the 1:1 sword play could truly have been something else.

 

[kupo15]

There are no item enhancements in Zelda 2.

Also, I thought we were talking about innovations in the series, not in all of videogames. That's kind of a heavy deal to put on any one game.

I'm not comparing SS to the innovations of all video games. That would be silly.

Yeah, the game makes numerous strides in Zelda standards, but not many if you're taking into consideration every single video game created until today.

Yea I'm not talking about every game made cause then that will remove Link's new Assassins Creed ability which is an advancement in the series.

Spoiler

In terms of structure of the overworld, there's nothing really different other than the fact that Skyloft is clearly the central and most important location of the entire game, where as Wind Waker was just an ocean where you start out in Outset Island but it's not actually that important later on in the game.

Well, technically Outset is when you get the 3rd medallion...and the triforce map and shard. And speaking of the center of the game, PH and ST both have established this "center of the game location" with that main tower. SS just took that concept and split it up into two different areas (so far in my quest) which IMO is more of a pain than anything given the travel system. I enjoyed not relying on a main hub to progress the story more because it feels more epic and organic. OOT/Lttp are the ultimate examples for this.

Spoiler

As for travel system, I guess the bird statues can be compared to the tornados/cyclones from Wind Waker, but the obvious difference would be that the bird statues are a travel system set right at the beginning of the game, and it reaches to much more places than that one song in WW will. Where as after a dungeon, you would have to travel to your boat then use the song, then get launched somewhere in the middle of the sea in WW, in SS, you could take two steps from the dungeon and find a bird, then go straight to the sky.

The first thing I thought was a direct comparison to MM's owl statues. Not only do they do everything the bird statues do but they do more. You open them up as warp points as soon as you meet then and you can warp directly to them from anywhere. In SS you actually have to travel to that location in order to warp and if you want to warp to a different statue after inside that area, you need to exit the area then re-enter. So IMO this is a huge downgrade from a solid warp system found in the previous titles. This includes OOT and even Lttp even though you get the flute later in the game.

Spoiler

It has a lot to do with the level design really, where as in a game like Twilight Princess, places like Hyrule field are large but empty, and everything within it is immediately accessible right from the start, the formula changes in SS by introducting large areas that you have to thoroughly explore at first to open up later in the game.

I think this point is preference whether or not it really is a plus for the franchise. I feel like closing the areas off instead of having it wide open loses a lot of what makes Zelda Zelda. The exploration aspect of the game actually suffers when exploration is forced IMO. I can't tell you how many times in SS where I felt like I was being a clever gamer by exploring areas I thought would be overlooked by many or noticed objects that I thought I would be rewarded for only to find out that they were actually part of the story. One key moment that comes to mind is finding the key bits in the volcano. There was one that was really out of the way that I thought for sure was going to be a Piece of heart instead.

I feel like the series is taking a turn for the worse by becoming extremely linear and removing all the joys of exploring because they are transforming the exploration aspects and integrating them into the story. This leaves the game with hardly a fulfilling exploration experience compared to pre WW games. What distinguishes each Zelda title is not the main story, but rather the sidequests and a rewarding exploration of new worlds. I hope this makes sense.

Spoiler

For example, Faron Woods is a large area that starts off as very closed off, but after exploring it for a while, everything opens up and connects to each other like a spider web. In TP, once you get to Hyrule Field, it's like if the spiderweb is already made, where as in SS, getting to Faron Woods means that you have to make the spiderweb yourself, and in order to do that, you have to explore every nook and cranny

I guess that was cool how you could push logs to access shortcuts and things. But I mean this stuff has been around especially in temples and even outside of them. One example I can think of is the Well in MM. After you get the mirror shield you can use it to remove the sun block as a shortcut to the castle. I feel like acquiring these new weapons to open up shortcuts is much more rewarding then having shortcuts being the reward for exploring the area. While I understand where you are coming from I think this should be saved for the temples.

I mean, you are essentially talking about the shortcut system, right? Unless I am misunderstanding your spiderweb analogy I can't think of anything else that would "open up" via exploration.

Spoiler

Then there's also the part where new areas can open up from places that you'd normally overlook.

I can't say this is the first time I've encountered this in Zelda. PH and ST come to mind

Spoiler

This is the first game where I actually cared about the characters inside the game, which I think is a big enough leap for story-telling in Zelda to warrant at least some attention. I honestly think that the first part of the game is designed so brilliantly, that the only way to express how brilliant it is would be through an Egoraptor-esque analysis (Note: Link has strong language).

Really? You didn't care about MM's characters? That Kafei's quest was something else and that postmans quest gave me chills.

Spoiler

On the note of shots, Skyward Sword also has excellent framing as well. It wasn't only noticed by me (a Digital Animation student), but it's also in the review by IGN.

But...but...what about the Vertigo shot!!! But yea, SS has some good framing.

Spoiler

What he means is that items don't get forgotten in the process of progressing in the game. Unlike in other Zeldas where you would find an item in a dungeon and the rest of the puzzles in the dungeon seem to heavily focus on that new item, in SS, you get a new item, but you're still using all of your old items constantly. It has to do with the level design, which I'll get into next.

I guess but hasn't other games done just as good a job at it? I feel like OOT was probably the best use of all the items. Making a difference between childhood and adult items is a brilliant idea and you are always using those items when you are both forms. I honestly enjoyed this a lot better because it distinguished almost each item as important throughout the entire game. A prime example is the slingshot and the bow. Nowadays, the only real difference between the two is one has a poor trajectory so once you get the bow using or even upgrading the slingshot is completely pointless. This is not the case in OOT. It was even more awesome that you had to go back as a child for the Spirit temple which required you to use items once thought to be useless to the game.

I definitely agree with your TP comparison (ball and chain anyone??) but I feel like the best counter arguments will come from the earlier games. They did so many revolutionary things so early its hard to come up with something better.

And since we are on the item usage topic, whatever happened to collecting useless items? I loved how Lttp had so many awesome items to collect even though they didn't do anything for anything really lol Except the magic cape. Even MM had 25 masks to collect. So much fun!

Spoiler

That would be one thing. The re-use of the similar locations in Skyward Sword are done fairly well to say the least. Examples of this would be:

The path to the Ancient Cistern dungeon in the Faron region: They throw you back into a previously beaten dungeon, for a reason that makes complete sense.

The task you do after completing 6 dungeons, and before the 7th:When you have to seek pieces of the songs from the dragons,they drown one location, giving an old location a fresh experience, open a new area for another region, and make you progress a familiar situation in the form of a sneak mission. Old locations, fresh experiences.

I guess this could be preference again. I didn't find the appeal in going back to the Forest temple and randomly having to find a key to a door that I already unlocked.

Spoiler

Everything you do in Skyloft.

Everything you do in Clock town

Spoiler

The third would be the layout of dungeons, in which it's no longer all about pushing blocks to their place, hitting objects in a pattern, and lighting torches to magically open doors.

First two aren't quite true. I just beaten the Pirate ship and I've already encountered block pushing and hitting objects in a pattern.

Spoiler

Dungeons don't feel like puzzle houses anymore. They feel like obstacle courses, and the only thing you're looking for is the key to the next room. A good example of this would be the first temple, in whichright in the beginning, you go down a spiraling descent, cutting trees, killing enemies, and climbing over ****, until you hit a gemstone to open a door. Then you do one puzzle, and then it's back to obstacle courses starting in that one big room that floods with water (the one before the room with the Beetle). In those rooms, it's basically swimming, climbing, swinging on vines, and finding keys/gemstones to open doors, instead of lighting torches and what not.
This obstacle course feeling is largely dominant in not only dungeons, but in the overworld as well, in places that are formed like spiderwebs.

I guess that is kinda cool. Though I don't find coordination tests for the sake of coordination tests to be that special. Coordination tests mixed with puzzles I'd favor more. This could be preference too.

Spoiler

Not only that, but in order to navigate these so called obstacle courses, you have to make constant use of every item you have, instead of having levels themed after one item.

Thats cool...though, I don't think I've played through enough of the game to really comment on this. But I can say that if the game wants to focus on using every item in the arsenal all the time, giving the player only one active item slot does not help the cause at all.

 

[Spire]

I think the main problem with SS is that it was created by the same team that made ST and directed by the guy who directed the Oracles, FS, TMC, and PH. SS did some fantastic things for the series, but holy mackerel the linearity of the game was on par with FFXIII. It was dissenting, sickening even. The structure of this game was extremely reminiscent of PH/ST. What separated Zelda from Mario games was that dungeons could once be completed in just about any order. That is impossible in SS. While the regions open up with time, you're never really discovering anything at all. Every nook and cranny was subordinate to the direction of the story.

Literally, the only actual discovering we do in SS lies in the side quests. And even then, you must figuratively unlock side quests by completing others (the Kukiel quest must be completed in order to open up other quests for instance).

Miyamoto, Aonuma, and Kondo are the magic of the series. None of them had a huge stake in this game. It's obvious.

Edit: With that being said, Skyward Sword is still one of the best titles in the series. It's very niche though; I'd like to see Nintendo continue experimenting with the structure. Wouldn't mind a diversion like Majora's Mask again. Something totally unorthodox and unprecedented. My main gripe with SS was the lack of true exploration.

 

[Jam Stunna]

It deeply saddens me that, with the exception of Tingle and some references in the Smash series, Nintendo treats Majora's Mask like it never existed. There isn't even a single MM song on the tribute album, and it was a console Zelda for God's sake.

 

[Spire]

And yet Song of Healing may just be the most emotionally evocative song in the series. At least they revived it for Twilight Princess.

If I'm not mistaken, the opening track on the tribute album contained Spirit Tracks music. Why that would be included over Majora's Mask beats me. It still sounded great at least!

 

[Jam Stunna]

There were so many brilliant design choices in MM that Nintendo continue to ignore. I was actually hoping that the surface in SS would have the same oppressive feeling that Termina had, but alas, it was not meant to be.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Well it wasn't a gripe for me personally that they didn't have that much exploration. I do think that more sidequests would be welcome, it would compensate.

But eh, it's so hard to make an open world without linearity and keep it balanced. Really really really really hard.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Games with a strong narrative seem to be more linear, and SS seems to have a stronger story than other Zeldas, so I guess that's the tradeoff.

 

[kupo15]

I think the main problem with SS is that it was created by the same team that made ST and directed by the guy who directed the Oracles, FS, TMC, and PH. SS did some fantastic things for the series, but holy mackerel the linearity of the game was on par with FFXIII. It was dissenting, sickening even. The structure of this game was extremely reminiscent of PH/ST. What separated Zelda from Mario games was that dungeons could once be completed in just about any order. That is impossible in SS. While the regions open up with time, you're never really discovering anything at all. Every nook and cranny was subordinate to the direction of the story.


Miyamoto, Aonuma, and Kondo are the magic of the series. None of them had a huge stake in this game. It's obvious.

I completely agree.

Literally, the only actual discovering we do in SS lies in the side quests. And even then, you must figuratively unlock side quests by completing others (the Kukiel quest must be completed in order to open up other quests for instance).

Well it wasn't a gripe for me personally that they didn't have that much exploration. I do think that more sidequests would be welcome, it would compensate.

To add to this, actually having all the side quests opened from the start is best for two reasons. Its a pain to have to revisit all the houses and rooms every time I come back to Skyloft to see if a new sidequest has been unlocked. 2nd by having the sidequests unlocked as you go on, the game literally tells you how to do them. Prime example is the rattle quest.

Spoiler

Since the beginning of the game I knew that would be a sidequest but I could never do it. It was unlocked after I got the clawshot which means that you needed the clawshot to complete it. There is also only one spot where the clawshot is needed so the game told me the answer before I even started it.

But eh, it's so hard to make an open world without linearity and keep it balanced. Really really really really hard.

Balanced with what? The story obviously needs to have some structure and linearity so linearity shouldn't be shunned completely.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Games with a strong narrative seem to be more linear, and SS seems to have a stronger story than other Zeldas, so I guess that's the tradeoff.

Which could be fixed with a **** ton of sidequests tbh

@Kupo
Balanced story, balanced enemies etc
You gotta realized that at one point of the game,

Spoiler

your sword damage doubles.

 

[Spire]

Nintendo seems to forget (or ignore) the fact that people enjoy combat, regardless of the controls. Progressive field enemy difficulty is a must. It capped when

Spoiler

Moblins started inhabiting the surface, which preceded the forging of the Master Sword. At one point most of the Deku Babas were replaced by gold Deku Babas, which upped the danger. Once you get the Master Sword, they fall in one hit. There wasn't much free-roam replay value at that point.

I want increasingly difficult enemies with more variety. This game felt like it had the smallest bestiary, considering many types of enemies had cousins like the Technoblin and yellow Zol.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Yes I can agree to that, but you have to consider, if you have an overworld, things are going to get hard to actually make harder. The best thing you can do is add new enemies in the dungeons itself and making the bosses harder, the first of which they did to a certain extent.

 

[etecoon]

eh, it did work for MM but I'm not sure "more sidequests" is a general recipe for a stronger narrative. I like the sidequests that are in SS for instance but none of them were strongly tied into the main story, where EVERYTHING in MM had the underlying thread of "the world is ending in 3 days". the main events of the game are omnipresent and inescapable, there are a limited number of story premises you could use to replicate that

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Sidequests would simply add to the exploration elements.

 

[z00ted]

I'm not enjoying this game for some odd reason.

I'm in the the third dungeon, and nothing really has happened that makes me think this game is a "masterpiece" by any means.

I loved the intro, that's about it.

Seems overrated as of now, does it get better? Cause I really am not having the drive to stick the disk back in my Wii especially with finals coming up.

 

[Luigitoilet]

You probably might as well give up.

though the fourth dungeon is my personal favorite, the game isn't going to suddenly shift gears

unless that happens at some point after where I'm playing (out of the 5th dungeon).

gah I hate that word so much "overrated"

 

[Player-1]

I won this game in a brawl tournament with a bunch of scrubs (didn't lose a single stock) a couple of days before the game came out, and I just now got it. Didn't know the game required wii motion plus and the TOs didn't get me the deluxe version or w.e so now time for a 40 minute walk to walmart and back

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Honestly, the bosses get way better as the story progresses. As do the dungeons.

Dungeon 2 and 3 bosses were not as good as the rest, imo

 

[Luigitoilet]

3rd boss is the lamest thing ever. It should have been a 1st boss, but then that would have lessened the impact of the actual 1st boss.

 

[The Real Gamer]

Why do people insist that the Zelda series needs voice acting?

Serious question btw.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Because, for some reason as time goes on, people's requisite for what makes a great game means "how much is it like a movie?"

 

[etecoon]

I like minimalist games that are primarily about gameplay as much as anyone but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the cinematics to be more movie like if the developers insist on forcing you to watch a lot of unskippable scenes with slow text, you can't have it both ways.

 

[z00ted]

gah I hate that word so much "overrated"

Sorry.

I didn't really mean to say that word, it's a GOOD game.. it just doesn't compare to the other installments of the Zelda series yet.

 

[The Real Gamer]

I like minimalist games that are primarily about gameplay as much as anyone but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the cinematics to be more movie like if the developers insist on forcing you to watch a lot of unskippable scenes with slow text, you can't have it both ways.

Sounds like a SS rant. I haven't played it yet. Are the scenes not animated enough or is the text just really that slow? Or both?

 

[Luigitoilet]

I dunno. I'm a good way into the game and I can probably count the amount of unskippable cutscenes on one hand that I was forced to watch.

There might be a huge plot dump coming up but so far this has been by far the least narrative-driven 3D Zelda game so far. In no way would I ever say there are "a lot" of cutscenes in this game. There has never been any sort of wall of text and most of the story-related cutscenes minus the intro are over within a minute.

The slow moving text is a problem though, yeah.

 

[MuraRengan]

I like minimalist games that are primarily about gameplay as much as anyone but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the cinematics to be more movie like if the developers insist on forcing you to watch a lot of unskippable scenes with slow text, you can't have it both ways.

Personally, I don't have a problem with text-filled cutscenes, but voice acting would obviously enhance the storytelling aspect of the game. It's not necessary, but it would be an improvement. Problem is, if Zelda, Link, or Ganondorf got a bad voice it would kill me inside, and I don't trust Nintendo in that realm. PLEASE NO ****ING TRANSLATED REDUBS OF JAPANESE DIALOGUE GOD NO.

 

[theeboredone]

200 years from now, when we have full fledged VR Zelda games...My third generation kid/Link walk up to an NPC and see a text bubble pop up instead of hearing a voice. Old school Zelda fans will be laughing in their graves.

 

[kupo15]

Which could be fixed with a **** ton of sidequests tbh

@Kupo
Balanced story, balanced enemies etc
You gotta realized that at one point of the game,

Spoiler

your sword damage doubles.

I swear I'm not trying to play dumb or anything but I still don't understand what the main point is about balanced story and its effect on gameplay. You can have an overall story that is linear (well you have no choice but to have a linear story) but have a gameplay that isn't so tied down to that story. Everything pre WW has been this way. All you need are major focus points in the plot and everything else ready and unlocked from the start. What I mean by that is once you have the tools necessary then you can unlock the story further. Look at OOT for example. The game has a linear story but a sandbox gameplay. The story arc is:
-3 Spiritual stones
-Temple of time <-Major plot moment
-5 Medallions
-Ganons castle <-Major plot moment

Thats all you really need. Everything you do in between the major plot moments are unique to each player. The problem now in this generation is that companies are too focused on having everything go according to plan all the time which is accomplished by forcing tons of small story moments at each step of the way. OOT explained the circumstances of the quest in the beginning during the major plot moments then left you on your own. One small example from TP that proves this newer philosophy of making games:

When you are going to climb the mountain, maybe the first time you play you don't know that you need the boots but you are told after you try and fail. But if you already know where to go, there is no point in trying to climb and fail because you already know. But the problem is that the game forces the player to fail first every time before allowing you to visit the Mayor. This has a major impact on that open world feeling even if you are playing for the first time and you haven't yet learned that you will need the boots to progress. Lets say you are at that climbing part but you want to explore your hometown more instead of progressing the story. If you try the mayor's house it will be locked even though that really is the next step. If the game allowed you to access it without forcing that fail attempt, the player would feel rewarded for his exploration efforts. This is a simple way to have gameplay follow a linear story while being open.

And how does the fact that SS

Spoiler

doubles your sword damage anything more a big deal than when it double damaged in previous games?

I'll touch on this and your balance enemy difficulty in your next quote.

Yes I can agree to that, but you have to consider, if you have an overworld, things are going to get hard to actually make harder. The best thing you can do is add new enemies in the dungeons itself and making the bosses harder, the first of which they did to a certain extent.

It really isn't that hard to make things in the overworld harder; you can look back at the successful formula for examples. All you have to do is segment the overworld into a progressive order. This section is first, this one comes next etc. Then you have to make the enemies progressively harder. Things like enemies have more health and deals more damage instantly tells the player that this section is harder. You have the option to explore this section at your super lvl 1 weak state if you want but it will be extremely hard because you are not ready yet. This is still a valuable reward for exploring to the player. You can see what is yet to come and it gives you a reason to progress the story so you can get stronger weapons and armor etc... Once again, open and free world but you wont get very far in the advanced areas if you haven't progressed the story enough.

Main point: Trial and error is the best thing for a game instead of completely shutting off an area because we said so.

Now to your sword double damage thing, balancing really is not a problem. Once you reach the point in the story where your sword is double damage then all the enemies should be at an appropriate level where having the double damaged sword feels like a requirement if you don't want to get completely destroyed.

TL;DR for this section:
Its all about planning and tweaking the survival aspect of the game more than increasing the complicated attack patterns of the enemies.

eh, it did work for MM but I'm not sure "more sidequests" is a general recipe for a stronger narrative. I like the sidequests that are in SS for instance but none of them were strongly tied into the main story, where EVERYTHING in MM had the underlying thread of "the world is ending in 3 days". the main events of the game are omnipresent and inescapable, there are a limited number of story premises you could use to replicate that

Yea this is what a true sequel is all about, focus on one thing. MM took one thing about OOT and expanded it into an entire game which was the masks. Before it was a little sidequest, now its the thesis of the term paper so to speak. With SS I get the feeling of reading a term paper that doesn't know what the main point is but instead tries to be everything at once. I hope that makes sense.

Because, for some reason as time goes on, people's requisite for what makes a great game means "how much is it like a movie?"

So sad. Before video games were arcade style where only the best survive and complete the game. Now developers make their games so that everyone can get to the end of the game by turning it into interactive movies. I guess that is the business model of today's games; its not a good business strategy to make games that everyone can't finish. I find this to be insulting to seasoned gamers personally.

Sidequests would simply add to the exploration elements.

Yes and no. If they are primarily fetch quests then exploration isn't really being exercised. I agree with etecoon than there is more to improving the exploration factor than simply adding more side quests.

 

[The Real Gamer]

More people need to realize that yes most video games greatly benefit from voice acting. However, LoZ games are not those types of games. LoZ fans didn't become intrigued by the Zelda universe through cut scenes and random dialogue, they became intrigued as a result of the atmosphere the games provide, the dungeons, the bosses, the amazing soundtracks, etc.

Plus the whole argument that voice acting = a higher level of immersion is far from the truth. One of the most intense games I've ever played was a visual novel adventure. No voice acting, no long drawn out cut scenes, still characters, and it was all text.

Bottom line is that the Zelda series at this point has very, very little to gain and a LOT to lose as a result of voice acting. I mean do we REALLY need to hear Link talk?