• 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.

Skyward Sword Huge Disappointment So Far!

Jupiter

Bringer of Jollity
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Location
Great Lakes
I have no idea what ANY is talking about when they say the trees look bad.

Ug, they are dreadful. The leafy parts are just flat slabs...they are not bushy at all. Look at this awefulness. Pathetic. They need to make it busy--leafy! Not a few flat flaps that look like crappy paper craft work!

And did you guys notice if somone make a thread about somthing bad about a zelda game. Evreyone starts protecting Zelda and telling me that i am not a " Real Zelda Fan" pretty fun to see :) That was the hole idea about this thread to awake some serious feeling here!! :) And i know that i exaggerated alot in my first post, but that was the hole point! So continue to protecting zelda and write some more post about the new game Skyward Sword!

Yes! You are right about this...that said, you said that you would not even play older Zelda games because they have bad graphics, and you are missing out on some great games because of that. I happen to think that's silly. And I think that you are wrong about SS for the most part, I think it looks pretty good (except for the ugly, ugly, ugly trees!). But I completely defend your right to criticize the game...we need to criticize what we don'e like and not give Ninty a free pass.
 

knowlee

Like a river's flow, it never ends...
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Location
USA
So why aren't Wind Waker in this list? or the orginal legend of zelda on gameboy and so on.

Beacuse the graphic isen't good enof to enyoy the games or even worth to try it out. I don't mean that the graphics needs to be really good or even be close to Ps2/Ps3 and xbox! But good enof to be playable.
Take MM or Oot for example, it is nothing special about the graphics there but it's still more realistic then cartoon look.

That's why Wind Waker that got good or maby amazing gameplay can't be enyoyable like a good game shall be!

Actually I liked the graphics that WW had. They fit in well with the game and I think that it couldn't have worked out any other way. The saying of 'never judge a book by it's cover' or in this case, 'never judge a game by it's graphics', cause it could actually be good, and this is true in WW's case.

A good game need to have 3 important things and in this order!

1. Gameplay
2. Graphic
3. Storyline

Lets face it skyward sword have just focus on the gameplay, storyline but missed the graphic! I mean come on it looks like a crappy cartoon game! If i want a crappy cartoon game i'll go and buy one! But i expect more for a zelda game that they have been working on for the last 4-5 years from now.
Honestly, I'd rather have more focus on gameplay than on graphics and storyline. Yes, I'd like to have some of that stuff in it, but mainly the whole reason why I buy a game is for the gameplay.

An example for a other game. Jak and Dexter, you guys maby have played it on ps2? The first 3 on is great, one of the best games i have played after Zelda ofc. But in the 4th game they change developers and Jak was never as before! they have changed the graphic and the Gameplay and even the charthers look to somthing terrible. And i'm affraid it will happens to Zelda now when Skyward swords realses 2011.
Yes, I've played the first three Jak games and yes, I will agree that they were great, but I think why the latest game turned out like it did was because of the fact that they did change developers. Zelda hasn't changed developers. It's still being made by Nintendo, Shigeru Miyamoto, and all of those other guys who I can't think of right now. And actually I like how SS looks like. I will admit that I was disappointed when I first saw it, but after a little while, I warmed up to it and I am now greatly looking forward to it's release in 2011. And besides, like the others have said here, the graphics that you saw in the E3 trailer and demo aren't set in stone, they're supposed to be improved by the time of the game's release.

I think sadly Zelda games will die out after skyward sword.
I don't think this is going to happen. At least not anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
T

Triforce Eden

Guest
Just because you personally do not like the art style of a game, does NOT make it a bad game. And you calling OoT and MM realistic games is laughable. At best, those were anime styled graphics. Not very realistic. Calling Skyward Sword a disappointment, even though we have only seen a little bit of one area (which probably won't make it into the final game anyways) is simply absurd. Art is subjective. No one has any right to call any type of art style "bad", even if you don't personally like it. And it definitely shouldn't lessen your enjoyment of the game.

I'm just sad that even now, 6 years after its release (if I'm correct), people still haven't gotten over Wind Waker's art style.
 

Jupiter

Bringer of Jollity
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Location
Great Lakes
Art is subjective. No one has any right to call any type of art style "bad", even if you don't personally like it. And it definitely shouldn't lessen your enjoyment of the game.

Huh? Why not?!??

If art is subjective, he, she, you, I can call whatever we want "bad". Just because people will disagree does not mean that one cannot voice an opinion and explain what they think is wrong with it...

Also, of course an art style can lessen your enjoyment of a game! Now, I am not saying it should be the most important thing, or that it should keep you from playing a game that is otherwise fun and good. But this is just silly, if it was not important then nobody would care--but clearly a lot of people do care! I certainly enjoy a game a lot more if it is nice to look at. Are you saying that you would be just as happy if Skyward Sword were made with OoT graphics? Would Mario Galaxy have bun just as good with Mario 64 graphics?

No.
 
G

Gabbe92

Guest
Just because you personally do not like the art style of a game, does NOT make it a bad game.Art is subjective. No one has any right to call any type of art style "bad", even if you don't personally like it.

Really? I thought forums was for personally thoughts....
 
T

Triforce Eden

Guest
If art is subjective, he, she, you, I can call whatever we want "bad". Just because people will disagree does not mean that one cannot voice an opinion and explain what they think is wrong with it...

Really? I thought forums was for personally thoughts....

This is why.

Calling an art style bad implies that it is a fact. What you should rather say is something along the lines of "I do not like the art style." You can't just outright say it sucks or it's bad. Because, some people are bound to disagree with you. Art is subjective. You can have your opinions about it, but declaring it outright bad is simply not correct.
 

Destiny

Single❒Taken❒Assassin✔
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Location
nowhere
Oh and by the way, I enjoyed WW I just didn't prefer the graphics and art style. But I got used to it and you should definetly play it.
 

Jupiter

Bringer of Jollity
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Location
Great Lakes
This is why.

Calling an art style bad implies that it is a fact. What you should rather say is something along the lines of "I do not like the art style." You can't just outright say it sucks or it's bad. Because, some people are bound to disagree with you. Art is subjective. You can have your opinions about it, but declaring it outright bad is simply not correct.

Baloney. This is sophomoric at best.

First of all, yes, judging art or the value of many other things can be subjective...but when voicing an opinion on it it is typically a given that saying "x" is good or "y" is bad is an opinion. You don't have to say "my opinion is".

Also, sometimes yeah, yeah, yeah, art is subjective, blah, blah, blah. But on the other hand, one can safely say that Michaelangelo's art is better than what sister drew for her 3rd grade art class. It reminds me of a time I went to see a famous poet speak, he was kind of a jerk, but on this occasion I was glad for it. This author was there to read some of his work to the public and some idiot in the crowd stood up under the pretense of asking a question, but really just wanted to read off some of his own poetry...he claimed it was better than what the famous poet had written...it was terrible, and the famous author cut him off (since we were all there to hear him, not this doofus, after all) and said to him, "Sir, not all poetry is created equal. Dante was better than I am; and I am better than you." Exactly right. Some art is better than other art. Objectively.
 
T

Triforce Eden

Guest
Baloney. This is sophomoric at best.

First of all, yes, judging art or the value of many other things can be subjective...but when voicing an opinion on it it is typically a given that saying "x" is good or "y" is bad is an opinion. You don't have to say "my opinion is".

Also, sometimes yeah, yeah, yeah, art is subjective, blah, blah, blah. But on the other hand, one can safely say that Michaelangelo's art is better than what sister drew for her 3rd grade art class. It reminds me of a time I went to see a famous poet speak, he was kind of a jerk, but on this occasion I was glad for it. This author was there to read some of his work to the public and some idiot in the crowd stood up under the pretense of asking a question, but really just wanted to read off some of his own poetry...he claimed it was better than what the famous poet had written...it was terrible, and the famous author cut him off (since we were all there to here him, not this doofus, after all) and said to him, "Sir, not all poetry is created equal. Dante was better than I am; and I am better than you." Exactly right. Some art is better than other art. Objectively.

If you speak to any professional art critic (or at least read a review) you'll know that the way they judge art is on several quality factors. They do NOT judge art on whether they or not they like that kind of art. And yes, when giving your opinion, it is correct to state it as your opinion.

What I'm saying here is that you can't judge an artsytle bad because you simply do not like the style. You have to judge it on its compositional flaws and the quality of the painting (or in this case, game art), and whether or not the artist succeeded in his representation. You cannot simply say "The WW artstlye is bad because it was too cartoony", because cartoony was exactly what the artist was going for, and in WW, I believe he succeeded. However saying something like "I do not like WW artstyle because it was too cartoony" is a perfectly acceptable opinion. There is a difference here folks.

Art is only bad when the artist does not get his message across, or when the art is simply composed incorrectly or of bad quality.
 

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
This thread is drifting a bit off topic. Also, I think some of us need to take a deep breath. There is no need to attack the OP over spelling mistakes as they neither make or break their argument, and honestly, having such dedication to a game that hasn't been released yet is just as illogical as hating the game before it is released. Don't make things personal.

I'd have to say that I agree with the OP slightly. Graphics ARE part of the game, and therefore must be considered when evaluating the game objectively. Obviously, some people may be more concerned about graphics than others, but to say that they don't matter entirely is childish and, for the most part, incorrect. Now before anyone jumps down my throat, let me say that I disagree that the game is a huge disappointment so far. I don't mind the graphics, for the most part, and the gameplay looks solid. We know so very little about the game that I can't really say that I'm that excited for it either, but I haven't written it off yet. I doubt I will, honestly, as Nintendo rarely releases something without any redeeming qualities.
 

Master Kokiri 9

The Dungeon Master
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Location
My ship that sailed in the morning
Compare this to this. They are more or less the exact same graphics with the only difference being the cel shading. You, good sir, have just contradicted yourself. And to counter any arguements that arise, cel shading is not a style in and of itself. Cel shading is an artistic technique used to make a piece brighter and more vibrant. They used that to make the Toon games brighter, more vivid, and all around more visually appealing than that of the dull color pallette of TP and now they're using it to make SS more visually appealing.

Also, the only difference between TP and SS's graphics is that TP's graphics were grainy and dull while SS's graphics are polished, smooth, and overall much more vibrant. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself and compare the trailer you saw to this. They also put more detail into things with SS's style rather than the TP style. Basically, the game is not cartoony in the slightest, but rather, colorful and vibrant.

I read somewhere (I can't remember where the thread is but I'll find it and give you a link eventually) and saw a diagram that the teeth on the Deku Babas in TP are just flat 2D shapes while the SS equivalent is fully rendered and in full 3D as well as the skin of the Deku Baba head of SS containing some sort of extra detail (I don't know what to describe it as, sorry) than they did in TP.

Also, you may argue that the graphics of the trailer look unpolished, and that's true. However, Nintendo has already stated that the final version will look considerably better (as in more polish).

Also, Aonuma said himself that if they had used the TP graphics, that the game would already be out. Basically, that means that TP's graphics are lower quality than SS's graphics. Another thing is that if they had used the TP style, it would be much harder to incorperate WMP as heavily as they are doing it with SS because things would be less noticable. I don't recall the exact quote Miyamoto said, but he said something to that effect and I'm sure of it. The style arose out of a need for good gameplay.

Also, speaking of the gameplay, the game already is showing promise of knocking OoT off it's pedestal... almost. Most people are still too biased and caught up in the past to let anything surpass OoT.

The story, while not much is known about it, seems to show promise of containing one of the best Zelda plots in the series.

As for the importance of graphics, let me break it down for you. Graphics matter, that's for sure. If they came out with a new Mario or Pokemon game with Odeyssey graphics, then that would be completely unacceptable, especially in this day and age where we can produce graphics such as these and still have room for a ton of fully orchestrated soundtracks, tons of goodies, and even a voice acted cutscene or two (SMG DID have voice acted cutscenes, but they were far, few, and short).

However, simply having good graphics isn't enough. You could make a game with the best graphics in the world and have absolutely horrible story, gameplay, and music and it still be a piece of crud. Just look at any Call of Duty game and you'll see. SS has passable graphics no matter which way you look at it, it's not the digi blocks of the NES nor is it the white blocks of the Odeyssey, it's passable at worst.

It makes up for these lack luster graphics as some would call them (myself not included, I think they're absolutely beautiful) with what promises to be incredible gameplay and some of the greatest story in the series.

Now then, I'm off to find that thread with the model comparisons. Ta ta for now.

EDIT: Alright, I'm back and I've found the thread. It was easier than I thought, actually.

Also, I just remembered that you pretty much bashed on the older games in the series such as LoZ and LA. Now, I haven't played the GB games yet but the gameplay and story of both of them make me really want to and have convinced me that at the worst they're great games. After all, it's Zelda, there's never been a bad Zelda game (and before you can say CDi, let me tell you that I don't consider those Zelda games at all: just games with a Zelda moniker on them).

Also, you must remember that past systems will have limitations that more recent ones obviously surpassed. Of course you'll never find a 3D Zelda game on the NES, because that limitation wasn't passed until the 32bit era (original Playstation's time) and the GB had almost identical graphical capabilities to the SNES, albeit it was a little less powerful. The plot and gameplay of these games more than makes up for the lack luster graphics compared to today and also makes them must plays even today.

Alright, that's all from me for now, I'm done with this post.
 

Jupiter

Bringer of Jollity
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Location
Great Lakes
And yes, when giving your opinion, it is correct to state it as your opinion.

If you want to be picayune about it, fine, but if someone says "that song is horrible" or "that game has bad graphics" we all know that is opinion. It is totally unnecessary to say "it is my opinion that" or "I think". It's just unnecessary, states the obvious and the implied, and takes away from the pith of one's statement.

What I'm saying here is that you can't judge an artsytle bad because you simply do not like the style. You have to judge it on its compositional flaws and the quality of the painting (or in this case, game art), and whether or not the artist succeeded in his representation. You cannot simply say "The WW artstlye is bad because it was too cartoony", because cartoony was exactly what the artist was going for

I agree with this generally, that you should judge something based on it's "compositional qualities". It is much better to describe why you think something is good or bad in detail and give your reasons. But, with a video game, you can say "it is bad because it is too cartooney". So what if that is what the artist is going for? Perhaps for a certain game that style does not fit it...if they came out with a cell shaded Modern Warefare, there would be nothing wrong with saying simply, "it is too cartooney", even if that is what the artist wanted.
 

Zeruda

Mother Hyrule
Joined
May 17, 2009
Location
on a crumbling throne
I've been playing Zelda games since 1998 and my first game was Ocarina of Time. And I do not think I need to explain why zelda become my favorite console games!

So far, they have three games which is really good in my opinion! (World class game)

1st Ocarina of Time
2nd Majora's mask
Third Twilight Princess

So why not Wind Waker in this list? or the original Legend of Zelda on gameboy and so on.

Because the graphics are not good enough to enjoy the game or even worth a try. I do not mean that the graphics have to be really good or even be near Ps2/Ps3 and xbox! But good enough to be playable.
Take MM or oot for example, there is nothing special about those things but the graphics are still more realistic than the cartoon look.

Therefore Wind Waker, which had good gameplay, or maybe great gameplay is not as fun as a really good game should be!

A good play must have three important things and in that order!

1st Gameplay
2nd Graphics
Third Storyline

skyward sword has just focus on gameplay, the story but missed the graphics! I mean come on it looks like a crap game signed! If I want a crap cartoon game I will go and buy one! But I expect more of a Zelda game that they have worked with over the last 4-5 years.

I think this is a big step back from the previous, Twillight Princess! Why can they not have the same graphics as TP or work even better for sword skyward? And if they want to focus more on the game, I say fine, but do not image as a stupid cartoon game! Anyway keep it oot and MM level!

And I know you will say "not about the graphics" and I am not, I say that there is much of a good game! Do not miss one of three part and the game is lost.

An example of another game. Jak and Dexter, as you might have played on PS2? The first three are really good, is one of the best games I've played for Zelda ofc. But in the fourth game, changing the developer and Jak will never be as before! they have changed the graphics and gameplay, and also to charthers somthing awful. And I'm afraid it will happen now that Zelda Skyward sword placed 2011th

And another thing about swords skyward. Mushrooms in a Zelda game? Mario eye one one Zelda game? what's up whit that? This isen't Mario and do not mix these games ever. I have been doing wrong?

Unfortunately, I think Zelda games will die out after sword skyward. I was very ecxited For the next Zelda game after the fantastic TP. And now, after having waited four years for the next one and saw the trailer got my heart broken!

I will always be a Zelda fan but if they release the game now, I am disappointed. what did they think of? What have they done in recent years? And how can they do something like this for a Zelda game? are my questions.

This is my opinion, what is yours?
If you want to hate on various games according to their graphics, that's fine. A lot of people do. But you have to realize that Zelda has never, ever been about graphics, and if you're waiting for a huge graphical surprise, then you're going to have to wait until Nintendo makes a HD console.

The graphical limitations are what push Zelda (and other various Nintendo) games to be so great. They make up for graphics with other things, like beautiful, varying art styles, interesting control schemes, storylines, etc. Graphics aren't the core part of Zelda, and if that is what you're holding out for, then you're better off playing another series like God of War, Final Fantasy, or one of the various shooters on the market.

Nobody's going to force you to like all of the titles, but if you're going to dismiss a game's greatness due to what it looks like, then you're only holding yourself back.

Realistic may work in some cases, but there are many things you can't do with realism just like there are many things you can't do with cartoonism or anime. In this case, Nintendo decided it was better to go with a more animated look for SS. They said it is in order to enhance the game's combat system, the characters, and the game's overall feel. Making it realism would make it something they aren't aiming for.

An example you brought up (like so many others have) is TWW. Whether or not you like the style, any other just wouldn't have worked out. They chose the style so you could experience the world through a child's eyes. Such could not be accomplished with TP-style art style. Similarly, the darker overtones of TP's story could not have been accomplished properly with TWW's art style. It all depends on the individual game, and Skyward Sword will not be an exception to this general Nintendo rule.
 

Valexi

Hylian Thief
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
It's a secret to everybody
Well, I suppose part of the reason that I completely disagree with you is partly because of the age difference.
Your first video game was Ocarina of Time, where as my first video game was the first Legend of Zelda.
I started by playing video games solely on the NES.
I'm not discriminating you because of your age, but I'm saying that because older people starting playing games which consisted of giant pixels and no detail, graphics aren't the most important thing to them.
That's how I feel, at least.
Back then all I had were giant pixels and a great imagination (I'm starting to sound like my great-grandmother! oh god!).
That being said, the way I see it is:
Gameplay
Story
Graphics
But, even then, I don't see the reason so deem Wind Waker unplayable at all!
I can understand that the Zelda series has always been rather inconsistent with their art direction, but really, Wind Waker would not have the same impact at all if it had, say, Twilight Princess graphics.
I loved Wind Waker because the story was amazing; I might have groaned a bit at the more childish graphic approach, but after a while I grew to love it! It's more creative and unique; simplistic does not always mean bad. In fact, the art style choice breathed more life into the game and made it more acceptable for the numberous comical and humorous scenes in the game.
In my opinion; Twilight Princess was a step backwards on what Zelda is really about.
I know that Twilight Princess highlighted the series and was meant to bring in the more "mature," and "hardcore" crowd by having "grimdark" graphics, but the Zelda series has never been this way.
A lot of people seem to ignore the humble "cartoony" games that came before it, and put Twilight Princess on a pedestal!
One of the things I disliked about Twilight Princess was the lack of COLOR.
Apparently, when you enter "realistic" graphics, that means that everything turns BROWN.
The "mature" graphics of TP consisted of BROWN and BLOOM.
Now, I'm not against mature Zelda games at all, don't get me wrong! I wouldn't mind a mature Zelda game at all; but I think the maturity should come from the story rather than the graphics. A good example of this is Majora's Mask. The graphics were bright and colorful, some enemies were jiggling jelly balls with goofy eyes and hillbilly teeth! The skeletons in the game were almost cute and weren't scary at all! Yet, despite all this, the game is about the end of the world, and has dark undertones. The maturity of this game doesn't come from the bright, cartoony graphics, but from the story and situation of it all.
Back on track; The graphics seen in Twilight Princess just screamed "GENERIC" (again, this is all just my opinion).
I can't help but think that if the Zelda series continues the this fashion, we won't be able to tell it apart from the graphics of Halo or Gears!
I'd prefer to have something unique and charming.
Now, I'm not out to just crudely bash TP; I did enjoy the game, and I liked the character designs, but it just didn't hold up to the previous titles for reasons that don't only involve graphics (but, that's a different story altogether).
Back on topic; I don't think you should base things off graphics so much. You're going to miss out on some really great games that way.
Video games are about having fun and entertaining yourself by living a life you could never experience otherwise.
I see realistic things all the time. Everywhere I look is realism.
Personally, I love the artistic choice shown in Skyward Sword.
It brings COLOR back to the games, which was lacking in TP.
It's not as cartoony as Toon Link, but not as generic/drab/"grimdark" as TP.
It's a nice mixture of the two, with new elements that are different from the rest!
The impressionistic undertones are a nice compliment to the bright skies and giant clouds (which, I imagine we will be seeing a lot of).
But, we can't truly gauge the quality of the game until it actually come out and we're able to judge it as a whole (as I said before, gameplay and story are more important to me than graphics).
I'm sorry if anyone disagrees with me (I know a lot of people love TP), but I'd just like to stress that this is my opinion, and I won't force my opinion onto you.
I respect you all for your own opinion and your right to have them, so please do the same for me.

(I edited this post about 8 times. Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come out that long :( )
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom