• 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.

Defend It!

Random Person

Just Some Random Person
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Wig-Or-Log
Sup peeps, Random Person here. So as you all know, I hate Skyward Sword. I'm not going to beat around the bush to make people feel better, I despise it. It's the only Zelda game I feel Nintendo did not try their best in. AoL may have been bad, but I felt Nintendo tried. It's not that I think SS is a bad game, I just believe that it's a horrible Zelda game and I feel that Nintendo did not put their all into it. But, I'm just a Random Person. And I've been on the other side of the argument as well. Alot of people dislike TP, but I feel that if they would just analyze the arguments for it they would see that it was actually a rather rupee Zelda game. So I think a discussion is in order here for SS. I understand that if you liked the game but still agree that its a bad Zelda game. That's fine, you're aloud to like what you like. I'm moreso addressing the people who think SS is a good Zelda game, regardless of whether they liked it or not. Please defend these points if you will. (Or you don't have to if you don't want to, I'm not the boss of you) Maybe if I can see what you guys see, then I can actually see the goodness in SS and perhaps actually like it. But I've got to warn you, I'm not going to be easily swayed. I need really good defenses because I've built an intense dislike of this game.

Lack of Exploration
Zelda, since the beginning, has emphasized the concept of exploration. The earlier games gave you little to no clues as to what to do so you were forced to explore the entire land just to figure out what to do next. The later games of ALttP through MM made it a bit more apparent as to what to do in their main stories, but the clues were still very vague and there were plenty of side-quests and secrets to find along the way (and when I say "find," I mean you had to go out and look for them). WW through ST made the stories a bit more linear (particularly after WW), but their side quests and secrets were still out of the way. (Again, you had to go out and find them) Even in TP, which was perhaps the most linear Zelda game to date, if you didn't take the time to go look for extra puzzles and prizes, you were most likely not going to find them.
SS is very different from the rest of the Zelda series as it does not encourage exploration at all. The story, like TP, pretty much tells you where to go at all moments making for a linear experience. The sidequests are also very much in your face. Alot of the secrets were put pretty much in front of you along your journey. And while some secrets in TP were also not that hard to find, they usually involved traversing a maze of a cave and/or defeating enemies while SS simply rewarded for blowing up a rock or using your clawshots correctly. And if the secret you were looking for actually wasn't as easy to find as others in SS, dowsing pretty much eliminated any possibility of exploration these quests could have had. How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game when it lacks exploration, one of the key elements to the Zelda series?

Prequel
I've asked this many times and have still not received a justified answer. SS is a prequel, yet it behaves like a sequel. (A very non-Zelda-ish sequel) The story does not incorporate any of the many "historic" tales of Hyrule but creates a new and more Personal one. The races used are not the ones from past games, but are mainly new to the series. The land does not create a "older" Hyrule feel, but rather leaves you feeling like you're in a new world all-together. Only the main questions are answered to the series, not an abundance which is a prequel's job. (Please note this. I get many people saying "well it did answer the main questions." I'm aware of that. However prequels are supposed to do more. This is not a preference that I want to see, this is the job of a prequel). And the answers we did received seemed very... I can't place the word on it so I'm just going to say... bad. I understand the graphics. I can see that Nintendo tried to incorporate a style that involved all their Zelda games.
A prequel is not supposed to create a new experience in a new world, but rather give you another experience in a familiar world. So please defend how SS can be considered a good Zelda game if it failed at its goal to be a prequel.

Difficulty
We Zelda fans don't like easy. It was proven in TP. Yet SS had non-difficult problems which were made even less difficult by the clues the areas gave you. And as if that wasn't enough, Fi, gossip stones and the "2" button tell you how to do almost everything. As mentioned before, finding items is no longer a problem as dowsing pretty much eliminate any need to actually think. One defense I've seen is that people say "those things are optional." The problem with this i past Zelda games have proven that if you don't use all of your assets, you will most likely not get done what you need to get done. Therefore, something being optional doesn't seem like an option when playing Zelda games until you've already beaten the game, in which case, its too late. But even if you accept "being optional" as an excuse, the elimination of these items still leave you with a rather easy game. How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it severely lacks difficulty which is known for being a want in the Zelda community?

Replayability
This incorporates alot of the things mentioned before, but basically the game left many feeling like playing again was more of a chore than pleasure. The game made it easy to remember how to solve every puzzle, find every secret and beat every boss. Whether you thought something was easy or not the first time, you knew how to do it again the second time. The only replayability factors I Personally found were the bosses (yeah, I know I just said they were easy to remember how to beat, but I must admit that they were also fun) the sacred realms and Link's responses. However, the bosses and sacred realms can be reaccessed through the trials of the thunder dragon (admittedly a good feature, but still takes away from the replayability) and replaying the entire game again just to see what will happen if Link says such and such seems really... not fun... especially when now adays we have games like Mass Effect where your response really changes the outcome of the game. Even on a harder difficulty, the game does not aspire much of a change. (Not to mention the whole DELETING YOUR FILE part). How can SS be defended as a good Zelda game, when it lacks a repayable experience?

Changing the Series
For the thousandth and second time, I like change, but SS took it to an uncomfortable level. Zelda has always been about destiny...well, maybe not always, but a good number of games since ALttP have incorporated destiny in them. The games, however, still made it seems like it was the character's choice. SS brings about a new destiny feel in which the character no longer has a say. Most Zelda games with destiny in them said "this character is the only character with the power to do such and such. Should they use it correctly, they will accomplish more such and such" but SS said "This plan was laid out long before any of these characters even knew it existed. Spoiler alert, the hero will win." I'm being silly now, but you get my point. The Link is SS had his whole journey laid out before it even happened. It wasn't a "Legend tells" story, but a "you're supposed to do this" story. It seemed like from the very beggining, Demise and Ghirahim were destined to fail which is a bad set up for a game about a heroic adventure. Then, at the end, SS says that the rest of the Zelda games we've played up to now were also laid out. Ganondorf comes from Demise and will never go away because of Demise. So according to SS, Ganondorf was not returning because his willpower aloud him to, but because Demise places a type of curse of the royal family descendants. This one may be a bit more Personal, but I feel that SS took a very core concept of Zelda and twisted it to an undesired cliche design. How can people defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it changed the series like this so dramatically?

These are some of the basic problems with SS. Some of the other Zelda games have some of these problems too, but to combine all of them in one game is atrocious. If there is an SS fan out there that would take the time and answer these, I would greatly appreciate it. (And please, no fanboys ;) ) This is just a start, but if someone can atleast get those of us who dislike SS to change our minds about these subjects, then maybe we can avoid a TP repeat.
 
Last edited:

Kirino

Tatakae
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Location
USA
Skyward Sword had exploration. I always had to explore and look around for treasures whenever I wanted to upgrade something. You also have to explore for gratitude crystals. Even in the story, you still had to search for things such as Kikwi's or key parts. Yes, dowsing was avaliable for all of these, but they were still difficult to find. Even if you knew which direction to go to, you still had to explore to find out how to get there. Dowsing doesn't tell you everything. Not to mention Pieces of Hearts, which you couldn't dowse for.

Skyward Sword was a difficult game. The enemies were for the most part very difficult, much more that OoT or TP. More difficult that all Zelda games except for the first 2 acually. The enemies were clever, and they adapted. Also, all enemies took off 1 heart of damage. Demise and Moldarach took off 2 hearts in their second phases. In other games enemies usually took off, what, a quarter of a heart, or half of a heart?

Fi also didn't tell you that much. She just gave you a basic description of what to do. Yes, she gave you information about enemies and puzzles. For enemies, that's what she should do. It's better she tell you how to beat enemies. Even if you know how to beat enemies, that doesn't make it easy to do. As for puzzles, she didn't tell you much. She hardly ever helped me beat a puzzle, as she gave little information regarding them. The Shekiah stones also weren't much help, considering they only showed you a part of what to do. Also, you had to go all the way back to Skyloft. The stones were more of a last resort than anything. Skyward Sword has many difficult and clever puzzles as well. Much harder than the more recent Zelda games.( WW, TP, ST, PH)

The game was very replayable. There was over 60 of content in the main game. Hero mode gave you a big incentive to play it again. It added alot to the game, and was a real challenge. The Thunder Dragon's challenges also offered alot of replayability. You could play both the silent realms and bosses over again, arguably two of the funnest things in the game. Every once in a while, even if i'm not in the middle of a playthrough, I boot up SS to beat a boss or a silent realm.

What do you mean it changed the series for the worse? It changed it for the better with all of the wonderful new gameplay additions, and improved storytelling. As for the points you brought up, I disagree. Link went down on his own accord. in other games Link was just saving the world because others told him to, but in SS he had acual motivation.

Also, Ghirahim wasn't a factor in the original plan. The old woman said that Zelda was supposed to come down on her own, and that Ghirahim's appearance was something that was not forseen. The very moment Ghirahim stole Zelda from the sky, was the moment that things stopped going as planned. With Ghirahim working to twist the destiny Link was a part of, there was always a chance that he would fail. Also, Demise was never supposed to be revived in the past. It should have all been happy and good as soon as Link wished Demise dead, but Ghirahim twisted that fate by taking Zelda to the past and reviving Demise.
 
Last edited:

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
Sup peeps, Random Person here. So as you all know, I hate Skyward Sword. I'm not going to beat around the bush to make people feel better, I despise it. It's the only Zelda game I feel Nintendo did not try their best in. AoL may have been bad, but I felt Nintendo tried. It's not that I think SS is a bad game, I just believe that it's a horrible Zelda game and I feel that Nintendo did not put their all into it. But, I'm just a Random Person. And I've been on the other side of the argument as well. Alot of people dislike TP, but I feel that if they would just analyze the arguments for it they would see that it was actually a rather rupee Zelda game. So I think a discussion is in order here for SS. I understand that if you liked the game but still agree that its a bad Zelda game. That's fine, you're aloud to like what you like. I'm moreso addressing the people who think SS is a good Zelda game, regardless of whether they liked it or not. Please defend these points if you will. (Or you don't have to if you don't want to, I'm not the boss of you) Maybe if I can see what you guys see, then I can actually see the goodness in SS and perhaps actually like it. But I've got to warn you, I'm not going to be easily swayed. I need really good defenses because I've built an intense dislike of this game.

Challenge accepted.

Lack of Exploration
Zelda, since the beginning, has emphasized the concept of exploration. The earlier games gave you little to no clues as to what to do so you were forced to explore the entire land just to figure out what to do next. The later games of ALttP through MM made it a bit more apparent as to what to do in their main stories, but the clues were still very vague and there were plenty of side-quests and secrets to find along the way (and when I say "find," I mean you had to go out and look for them). WW through ST made the stories a bit more linear (particularly after WW), but their side quests and secrets were still out of the way. (Again, you had to go out and find them) Even in TP, which was perhaps the most linear Zelda game to date, if you didn't take the time to go look for extra puzzles and prizes, you were most likely not going to find them.
SS is very different from the rest of the Zelda series as it does not encourage exploration at all. The story, like TP, pretty much tells you where to go at all moments making for a linear experience. The sidequests are also very much in your face. Alot of the secrets were put pretty much in front of you along your journey. And while some secrets in TP were also not that hard to find, they usually involved traversing a maze of a cave and/or defeating enemies while SS simply rewarded for blowing up a rock or using your clawshots correctly. And if the secret you were looking for actually wasn't as easy to find as others in SS, dowsing pretty much eliminated any possibility of exploration these quests could have had. How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game when it lacks exploration, one of the key elements to the Zelda series?

I find it very hard to believe that this is your point of view. If there's any Zelda game that had secrets literally along the way, it was Twilight Princess. Everything was so poorly hidden in that game (save the Poes). In Skyward Sword, the majority of the stuff was actually pretty difficult to find, especially involving the Gratitude Crystal sidequests. You had to hunt down the people themselves and then find what they needed. These weren't easy tasks for the most part, either. They required some legit thought, something almost all of TP's secrets didn't. I also find it very odd that you can call Twilight Princess the most linear Zelda yourself but defend it and say it's better than Skyward Sword. More linear = less exploration. What you've said in this paragraph -- whether it's what you meant or not -- is that you can't defend SS because of its lack of exploration (which is an inaccurate claim, btw), but TP has less exploration... but it's okay for some reason because one game can get away with it and the other can't. Despite the fact that the one that can't get away with it has more exploration. That just doesn't add up.

Prequel
I've asked this many times and have still not received a justified answer. SS is a prequel, yet it behaves like a sequel. (A very non-Zelda-ish sequel) The story does not incorporate any of the many "historic" tales of Hyrule but creates a new and more Personal one. The races used are not the ones from past games, but are mainly new to the series. The land does not create a "older" Hyrule feel, but rather leaves you feeling like you're in a new world all-together. Only the main questions are answered to the series, not an abundance which is a prequel's job. (Please note this. I get many people saying "well it did answer the main questions." I'm aware of that. However prequels are supposed to do more. This is not a preference that I want to see, this is the job of a prequel). And the answers we did received seemed very... I can't place the word on it so I'm just going to say... bad. I understand the graphics. I can see that Nintendo tried to incorporate a style that involved all their Zelda games.
A prequel is not supposed to create a new experience in a new world, but rather give you another experience in a familiar world. So please defend how SS can be considered a good Zelda game if it failed at its goal to be a prequel.


You're looking at this too much from a literary standpoint. Zelda has never been about the timeline. Ever. Nintendo hardly cares about it. They only made Hyrule Historia to get the fans off of their backs. That alone is enough in my book to not complain about the lack of connections to other games in the series. But prior to release of the game, Nintendo made no effort whatsoever to say that this game would make any kind of major connections. They said that it was a prequel to Ocarina of Time and that it told the origin story of the Master Sword. That's it. And guess what? That's exactly what we got. We were given what we were promised.

I also find it astounding that you can ignore the step up in the quality of the storytelling. Literally everything was improved. It's still no masterpiece, but it's more advanced than any other past story by far. The plot was more active, more detail was added to the story, the dialogue was beefed up, the characters were more alive and in-depth, the overall presentation was at an all-time high, and the emotion portrayed in the plot was simply gripping. I've never cried in any Zelda game before. Ever. Never even close. I teared up at multiple points in this game and legit cried at one of these. That's ridiculous. I really think focusing only on the prequel aspect of the story is just an undeserved slap in the face and middle finger to Nintendo after handing us the most intricate story the Zelda franchise has had yet. Again, it's no masterpiece, but it's undeniably a significant step up in quality.

Difficulty
We Zelda fans don't like easy. It was proven in TP. Yet SS had non-difficult problems which were made even less difficult by the clues the areas gave you. And as if that wasn't enough, Fi, gossip stones and the "2" button tell you how to do almost everything. As mentioned before, finding items is no longer a problem as dowsing pretty much eliminate any need to actually think. One defense I've seen is that people say "those things are optional." The problem with this i past Zelda games have proven that if you don't use all of your assets, you will most likely not get done what you need to get done. Therefore, something being optional doesn't seem like an option when playing Zelda games until you've already beaten the game, in which case, its too late. But even if you accept "being optional" as an excuse, the elimination of these items still leave you with a rather easy game. How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it severely lacks difficulty which is known for being a want in the Zelda community?

Optional is optional. Period. If it's not forced on you, then there's no reason to complain about it. What I think is more shocking here, though, is you completely ignoring the overall step up in difficulty in, well, everything. The enemies, trekking the overworld, the dungeons, the bosses... seriously everything in this game was a major improvement in the difficulty category. To put this simply, Skyward Sword is the first 3D Zelda game to challenge me since Majora's Mask. The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess posed little to no challenge at all. I played these games years before I did SS. And I still had a harder time completing it. That's really saying something. Being a long-time Zelda vet, I did have a relatively easy time with the game, but the fact that it challenged me is a clear indication that Nintendo brought the difficulty back to its rightful place. I seriously believe 100% that SS has the ideal difficulty level for Zelda. It's not too hard, but it's not too easy. It's at just the right level to keep you on-edge but not enough to make you frustrated. Part of this was due to the game's incredible pacing. The other is just due to the increase in difficulty over the other games from the past decade. SS is legit one of Zelda's more challenging games. No questions asked.

Replayability
This incorporates alot of the things mentioned before, but basically the game left many feeling like playing again was more of a chore than pleasure. The game made it easy to remember how to solve every puzzle, find every secret and beat every boss. Whether you thought something was easy or not the first time, you knew how to do it again the second time. The only replayability factors I Personally found were the bosses (yeah, I know I just said they were easy to remember how to beat, but I must admit that they were also fun) the sacred realms and Link's responses. However, the bosses and sacred realms can be reaccessed through the trials of the thunder dragon (admittedly a good feature, but still takes away from the replayability) and replaying the entire game again just to see what will happen if Link says such and such seems really... not fun... especially when now adays we have games like Mass Effect where your response really changes the outcome of the game. Even on a harder difficulty, the game does not aspire much of a change. (Not to mention the whole DELETING YOUR FILE part). How can SS be defended as a good Zelda game, when it lacks a repayable experience?

What Zelda games don't have the same puzzles all over again in a second playthrough? What Zelda game doesn't have the same enemies and bosses all over again? And how does being able to relive boss fights and Silent Realms decrease the replay value? None of what you've said in this paragraph makes sense.

Changing the Series
For the thousandth and second time, I like change, but SS took it to an uncomfortable level. Zelda has always been about destiny...well, maybe not always, but a good number of games since ALttP have incorporated destiny in them. The games, however, still made it seems like it was the character's choice. SS brings about a new destiny feel in which the character no longer has a say. Most Zelda games with destiny in them said "this character is the only character with the power to do such and such. Should they use it correctly, they will accomplish more such and such" but SS said "This plan was laid out long before any of these characters even knew it existed. Spoiler alert, the hero will win." I'm being silly now, but you get my point. The Link is SS had his whole journey laid out before it even happened. It wasn't a "Legend tells" story, but a "you're supposed to do this" story. It seemed like from the very beggining, Demise and Ghirahim were destined to fail which is a bad set up for a game about a heroic adventure. Then, at the end, SS says that the rest of the Zelda games we've played up to now were also laid out. Ganondorf comes from Demise and will never go away because of Demise. So according to SS, Ganondorf was not returning because his willpower aloud him to, but because Demise places a type of curse of the royal family descendants. This one may be a bit more Personal, but I feel that SS took a very core concept of Zelda and twisted it to an undesired cliche design. How can people defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it changed the series like this so dramatically?

Did Skyward Sword really change Zelda that much? Did it really alter the formula to an extreme extent? Was it really so different that it wasn't recognizable as Zelda? If you answered yes to any of these, I don't know what to say, because that's just not true. It altered things to minor extents (Wii MotionPlus aside). As far as the "I choose/game chooses" thing goes, tell me, which game has dialogue trees quite often in the adventure during conversations? That'd be Skyward Sword. And which Zelda games don't have Link following a predestined journey of which he must embark on? That'd be very few of them. Nearly every Zelda game depicts Link as the chosen hero that must rise to the challenge and overcome his foes to become the hero of legend. What makes SS so different from this? I fail to see the differentiation, and I know why. Because there isn't any. Zelda tells the same story over and over and over again. It just presents it in a different way. Saying what you have in this paragraph is -- and I hate to be so blunt -- utter hypocrisy. You can't say one Zelda game does this sort of thing with its story and that other Zeldas don't without blatantly contradicting yourself. It's just not possible.

These are some of the basic problems with SS. Some of the other Zelda games have some of these problems too, but to combine all of them in one game is atrocious. If there is an SS fan out there that would take the time and answer these, I would greatly appreciate it. (And please, no fanboys ;) ) This is just a start, but if someone can atleast get those of us who dislike SS to change our minds about these subjects, then maybe we can avoid a TP repeat.

Just as a disclaimer of sorts, I can assure you I am no fanboy. I know what flaws Skyward Sword has. The ones you have pointed out, though, are either inaccurate in your presentation or non-existent. That's just how it is.
 
Last edited:

TheMasterSword

The Blade of Evil's Bane
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Location
Temple of Time
Oh god, The war has begun. Good thing I found this in my back yard, Amirite?
Master_Sword_by_SkullBoarder.jpg


It glitters.
 

Cel-Shaded Deku

Ha ha, charade you are!
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Location
Rapin' your churches, burnin' your women!
I almost completely avoided all of those ways to get hints and outside information such as walkthroughs and I had no gripes with the difficulty and exploration. It's certainly more linear than earlier games but still has a satisfactory level of exploration, in my opinion. As for difficulty, I found that to be too difficult if anything because there were very few times when I resorted to cheating. I couldn't replay Skyward Sword even if I wanted to because my Wii Motion Plus is broken and I still haven't gotten a new one. As for changing the series, I just have no opinion whatsoever.
 

Cfrock

Keep it strong
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Location
Liverpool, England
How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game when it lacks exploration, one of the key elements to the Zelda series?

Skyward Sword had exploration. Maybe not as much as earlier games but it was still there. You talk about side-quests and puzzles in Twilight Princess that you had to go out of your way to find. Well I had to go out of my way to find that Bug Catching mini-game in Skyward Sword. I had to go out of my way to figure out how to meet Beedle on his little island. I had to go out of my way to not only find the people who gave Gratitude Crystals but also solve their problems. I encountered the Bamboo Cutting Challenge because I saw an island on my map and thought "I wonder what's over there". That is exploration.
Finding all of the Goddess Cubes, figuring out the patterns to draw on the Goddess Walls, catching each and every species of bug and finding each and every item for upgrades, all of these things are exploration because you aren't told outright where they are, you have to go find them yourself.
Saying there is no exploration in Skyward Sword is simply a lie; it is fallacious. Perhaps there wasn't enough exploration for you but it was there.

So please defend how SS can be considered a good Zelda game if it failed at its goal to be a prequel.


As long as the story takes place before the other stories, it has succeeded in being a prequel. To say it isn't a prequel because there were Mogmas and Parella is absurd and borderline childish. All a prequel is is a story set before the events of an older one. Skyward Sword was exactly that.
Just because Mogmas and Parella and Kikwis have never been seen anywhere else doesn't make the game fail as a prequel. If the game added no new species and just stuck with Goron/Zora/Deku you'd complain that it lacked originality. Maybe the new species died out. Maybe they all built a spaceship and flew off into the stars. Maybe they all killed each other in a huge war. It doesn't matter in the slightest because Skyward Sword takes place so long before anything else in the timeline.
This Older Hyrule feel you expected... The game takes place before Hyrule exists so that's really not a fair point to make. It felt like a new world because it was a new world. The whole thing about going to The Surface was that Link and his friends didn't even know it existed until they went there (this also makes the entire game, from a narrative standpoint, an exploration but that's not the focus just now).
All this about how the game didn't incorporate any of the legends from the series isn't really fair either. They simply didn't base the game off of those. Nintendo wanted to tell an original story and you shouldn't hold that against them just because you had a list of specific questions you wanted answers to. Skyward Sword gave us a great deal to add to our theorising, like the nature of Demise's Curse and Hylia's bloodline. The game simply took place long before any of the things you expected to see in it, from the sound of things. You can't call the game a bad prequel just because it didn't fit what you were expecting.

How can you defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it severely lacks difficulty which is known for being a want in the Zelda community?

This is immensely subjective. You found the game easy; other's will have found it challenging. There were certain parts which had me really putting in effort (The Imprisoned II springs to mind) and I'm sure it was the same for others. Most of the enemies had to be fought in very specific ways, like those three-headed lizards, so getting through standard fights was tougher than in any other Zelda game because you couldn't just target and mash the button to attack. Yes, earlier Zelda games were more difficult but Skyward Sword being easy depends largely on you as a player.
Gossip Stones make the game easier. I never used them. The on-screen control display made it easier. I never used it. The Sheikah Stones made the game easier. Guess what, I never used them. They were optional and so saying the game was easy because of them is moot; you had the option to not use them, nobody forced you to. These optional hints aren't "assests" in the way in-game dialogue, level layout or your inventory are. You're basically saying that if the help is there, you'll use it. Well I didn't and I'm sure thouands of other players didn't either.

How can SS be defended as a good Zelda game, when it lacks a repayable experience?

Adding in a way to replay boss fights detracted from replayability? Ok...
Skyward Sword has exactly the same amount of replayability as any other Zelda game. Once you have completed any puzzle once, you will know the answer. Absoloutely every single Zelda game is exactly the same in this respect. I still know the last Armos Knight in the Eastern Palace on A Link To The Past will turn red and start jumping. I still know I have to shoot a Light Arrow into the red jewel outisde Stone Tower Temple to flip the whole dungeon. I still know that the order to defeat the Deku Scrubs to access the Queen Gohma in Ocarina of Time is "23 is number 1". None of that makes replaying those parts any less fun though.
These 'problems' you say Skyward Sword has apply equally to literally every Zelda game ever made and so none of the points you've made here stand up.
The replayable bosses and Hero Mode add replayability to the game, not take it away. To say that is just silly.

How can people defend SS being a good Zelda game, when it changed the series like this so dramatically?

First off, we all knew Demise was going to fail anyway. As a prequel, we know that if Demise won nothing else in the series could have possibly happened. We knew the outcome because it's a prequel. This is true of all prequels. Heck, Halo: Reach used that very idea as its tagline!
People said The Wind Waker was a terrible game at first because of the drastic changes it made. Now it's one of the most beloved games in the series and it is praised for its willingness to do something different. Ocarina of Time is hailed as the greatest game of all time because it changed things so drastically when all it really did was add lock-on targetting to A Link To The Past. Four Swords changed things dramatically because it added multiplayer.
My point is, you can't attack the game for being different to the ones that came before it. People who I know who don't like Zelda always say to me "They're all just the same game" and I always say "No two Zelda games are the same". That is true and it will no doubt continue to be true. You're complaining that Skyward Sword wasn't a replica of the other games. I say that's not just a good thing, but a great thing! It's great that the series tries new things! It's great that Nintendo still tries to innovate with a series that is older than almost everyone on this forum! It's great that we are still seeing new things and fresh ideas being used in these games and you know what else is great? That most of the stuff they changed in Skyward Sword probably won't be back in Zelda on Wii U because they'll have newer things to show us then!



I understand that you don't like Skyward Sword and I won't try to change your mind. But most of the things you've laid out as reasons for hating it simply aren't fair or aren't correct. The game does have exploration and replayability. It is not disgustingly easy, nor does it fail as a prequel because that can't really happen. Changing the series is a good thing and has always been applauded in the past.

Sure, there wasn't enough exploration for you, it was easy for you, you didn't like the specific changes they made to the game and as a result you didn't want to play it again. But to say those elements simply were not there isn't true at all.
 
Last edited:

Sir Quaffler

May we meet again
About the linearity aspect of Skyward Sword, yes in the end its plot ended up very linear, but the way you went about discovering it was not. Someone posted up a very good article detailing plots that are causal vs those that are coincidental (I forget where it's at), and I feel that's a very good point to bring up here. SS is most definitely a causal plot, in that actions directly impact those that follow it, and that actually leads to a better story IMO. The Lord of the Rings had an extremely linear plot (even if it was split up into 3 or 4 different sub-plots), but I wouldn't have it any other way. The actions you have taken in the past have a real effect on your future actions, unlike in so many other Zelda games where it seems like nothing you do really affects the world until the very end. And as a side-note, yes you DO know what your main objective is in each part of the game, and that goal directly comes from the goal beforehand in a linear manner, but the way you achieve the goal is far from it. I love the maze-like overworld, it allows you to accomplish your goals in so many different ways.

Another thing about the linear plot: Link pursues all of it actively instead of passively. There's no external force pushing him to complete his quest, he does it all to get his friend back. Concerning the point of it all being preordained anyway, well... Would you kindly agree that this same kind of storytelling did not detract from Bioshock's story as well?

As to exploration, I wholly disagree. The weapons and potions upgrade system had me scouring the lands for treasures and bugs, and I quite enjoyed searching for goddess cubes along with the usual pieces of hearts and such. It just didn't have the kind of exploration where you had to bomb every wall and burn every bush just to figure out where the heck to go, which is just aggravating IMO. (By the way, this kind of exploration is a case example of bad conveyance, in that the game itself gives you NO indication of what to do at all and as a result feels aimless.) While SS could have been even better by adding in more secrets, I'm quite content with what they've done.

With the prequel question, my response to that is this: What would being constantly being tied to the events and actions that take place after it chronologically have improved on the game itself? I understand you want the game to behave like a prequel, but, like what JuicieJ stated, Nintendo doesn't really care about its chronology (it's so convoluted at this point that it's impossible to truly satisfy every fan); they want to make good games. While SS does in fact have ties to games after it, its main focus was telling a new story that wasn't bagged down by all the stuff preceding it, and in that regard they pulled it off beautifully. I also don't have a problem with it being in a new world rather than it being in an "old" Hyrule, it just made it that much more exciting. Rather than "Oh, there's Old Kokiri Forest, Old Death Mountain, Old Lake Hylia, etc." It's "There's Old Kokiri For... wait, what the... What IS this place?!" and "There's old Gerudo Des... wait what's this stone for... WHAT IS GOING ON WHY IS EVERYTHING SO COLORFUL?!?!?!?" It's this sense of vague familiarity mixed in with wholly new concepts that I love.

I'll admit that the whole exploration helps being optional is indeed a valid point. But the game is still pretty hard, harder than every one except the first two, I'm not even going to argue that one.

I don't agree with your statement that it lacks replay value. Disregarding all the other valid points about finding new secrets, new ways to fight enemies, etc., the main point for replayability is this: Was the game good? Did you enjoy playing the game? Did you like it so much you wanted to experience it again? If so, you have replay value. It's really that simple: a game is replayable if it is enjoyable enough to make you want to play it again.

As far as you disdain for the change in the series' tone, that's a bit of a personal opinion; not really right or wrong. Personally, I really liked this change of pace. I have played so many Zelda games where it's always "you're destined to defeat the villain, now go collect these 3 or 4 random things and then stab the Master Sword in some dude's face." And, to their credit, I still do like the games that employ this type of storytelling, Ocarina of Time is my 2nd-favorite game of all time. But Skyward Sword switched it up in a GOOD way IMO (for the most part). The Link in SS was on a very personal quest; rather than collecting medallions to save the world, he was searching for his childhood friend and romantic interest and in the process accomplishes so much in his journey. Going back to the point about linearity, this made it much more impacting (for me at least) when you do get to the end goal of a certain leg of a journey. You feel like you actually DID something. Again, though, this is more of a personal point, so you're very welcome to your opinions, but I feel that the changes SS made are very healthy for the franchise as a whole.

(Although that whole part about going back to Faron Woods to collect tadpoles sucked so much, it's the only part of the game I actively hate.)
*ugh stupid typos, keep finding them everywhere...*
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
In Skyward Sword, the majority of the stuff was actually pretty difficult to find, especially involving the Gratitude Crystal sidequests. You had to hunt down the people themselves and then find what they needed. These weren't easy tasks for the most part, either. They required some legit thought, something almost all of TP's secrets didn't.

The is objectively incorrect. The only people that populated Skyward Sword were in Skyloft (spare the Lumpty Pumpkin). How can you say it was difficult to hunt down the people who offered the side-quests when there was only one place to look? And all of the side-quests were largely linear (like the rest of the game) so the side-quests were simple to complete -- requiring little thought or exploration.

JuiceJ said:
you can't defend SS because of its lack of exploration (which is an inaccurate claim, btw)

It's not inaccurate. The whole game is one linear adventure.

JuiceJ said:
Optional is optional. Period. If it's not forced on you, then there's no reason to complain about it. What I think is more shocking here, though, is you completely ignoring the overall step up in difficulty in, well, everything. The enemies, trekking the overworld, the dungeons, the bosses... seriously everything in this game was a major improvement in the difficulty category.

You're exaggerating here. There is no dramatic increase in difficulty. If anything, this game is easier because of its overwhelming linearity. The surface, bosses, dungeons and enemies are all one linear puzzle (and the puzzle is not that difficult to figure out). I'm not saying Skyward Sword is easy, I'm just saying it's not as hard as you claim it to be. All of the Zelda games are largely similar in difficulty.

JuiceJ said:
To put this simply, Skyward Sword is the first 3D Zelda game to challenge me since Majora's Mask. The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess posed little to no challenge at all. I played these games years before I did SS. And I still had a harder time completing it. That's really saying something. Being a long-time Zelda vet, I did have a relatively easy time with the game, but the fact that it challenged me is a clear indication that Nintendo brought the difficulty back to its rightful place. I seriously believe 100% that SS has the ideal difficulty level for Zelda. It's not too hard, but it's not too easy. It's at just the right level to keep you on-edge but not enough to make you frustrated. Part of this was due to the game's incredible pacing. The other is just due to the increase in difficulty over the other games from the past decade. SS is legit one of Zelda's more challenging games. No questions asked.

Some people found it extremely difficult; others found it extremely easy; just because you think it's the perfect difficulty does not mean that it is. People are better (and worse) at gaming then you. The only way to resolve the difficulty issue is to add a difficulty option (which I hope is coming in Zelda Wii U).
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
The is objectively incorrect. The only people that populated Skyward Sword were in Skyloft (spare the Lumpty Pumpkin). How can you say it was difficult to hunt down the people who offered the side-quests when there was only one place to look? And all of the side-quests were largely linear (like the rest of the game) so the side-quests were simple to complete -- requiring little thought or exploration.

I don't know, maybe because there weren't signs that pointed to the people that said "HELP THIS PERSON OUT!"? And, pray tell, what sidequests where you help people out in Zelda aren't linear? Majora's Masks' individual sidequests were most certainly linear. I don't see people ever complain about them. SS and MM actually share a very similar style in sidequests when you get right down to it. It's not objectively incorrect. The sidequests in SS were legit.

It's not inaccurate. The whole game is one linear adventure.

So you're saying there's absolutely no exploration in SS whatsoever? As in there's no freedom to roam around anywhere, no secrets off to the side, and that we're forced down a tiny pathway the entire time? If that's so, I'm pretty surprised, because SS, while definitely linear, is significantly more open than any of the other recent titles.

You're exaggerating here. There is no dramatic increase in difficulty. If anything, this game is easier because of its overwhelming linearity. The surface, bosses, dungeons and enemies are all one linear puzzle (and the puzzle is not that difficult to figure out). I'm not saying Skyward Sword is easy, I'm just saying it's not as hard as you claim it to be. All of the Zelda games are largely similar in difficulty.

Linearity does not equal easy. Look at Portal and Portal 2. Completely linear, no exploration at all. Incredibly mind-bending puzzles.

I'm not saying SS is ball-kickingly hard. I'm just saying it's a significant increase from the other titles to be released as of late, especially TWW, TP, and PH.

Some people found it extremely difficult; others found it extremely easy; just because you think it's the perfect difficulty does not mean that it is. People are better (and worse) at gaming then you. The only way to resolve the difficulty issue is to add a difficulty option (which I hope is coming in Zelda Wii U).

What do the words "I seriously believe" imply to you? That I'm saying I'm absolutely right and that there's no arguing with me? If that's so, you should re-examine your thought process, because that means it's my belief. Difficulty is one of those things that's very subjective. There's no way everyone is going to agree on it completely more than most other things in gaming. I was simply stating that I believe SS has the ideal difficulty level for Zelda. I never said "this is what you have to believe".

I agree on the difficulty level thing. I've been saying that myself for quite a while, now.


By the way, why are you only replying to me? I'm not the only one that responded to RP, you know.
 

Random Person

Just Some Random Person
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Wig-Or-Log
Thank you everyone who responded so far. Okay. From what I read thus far here's my take. If I do not mention a point its because I didn't agree with what you had to say. If you would like me to further explain, I will, but I'm just updating the post for now.

Lack of Exploration
Some people seemed to have misinterpreted my post. The game is severely lacking exploration, not that it doesn't have any at all. If my wording made you believe that, I apologize, but as I said I despise this game so intense words may appear. One thing that you guys suceeded in is mentioning the bugs and items. I admit that I had forgotten about these things and you all are right, they do indeed add to the exploration. I still believe the exploration is at a lower level than most Zelda games as there are some things that lower the exploration in even this area, but it is increased slightly in my eyes.

Prequel
Did not agree with any argument thus far

Difficulty
The regular enemies were indeed slightly more difficult than past series, however, I still see them as very easy. Past Zelda games have had easy minion before which is why I barely even mentioned them in my first post. My mind has not been changed in this area.

Replayability
Did not agree with any argument thus far.

Changing the Series
Did not agree with any argument thus far.

So, I still want to hear what people have to say. One more thing though, I didn't read everything but not because I'm lazy. I'm not trying to insult anyone, so please don't insult me. If you do, I'm just going to ignore your post. Also, it seems that some people are ignoring certain points I made. Please read and interpret EVERYTHING I said.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Prequel
I've asked this many times and have still not received a justified answer. SS is a prequel, yet it behaves like a sequel. (A very non-Zelda-ish sequel) The story does not incorporate any of the many "historic" tales of Hyrule but creates a new and more Personal one. The races used are not the ones from past games, but are mainly new to the series. The land does not create a "older" Hyrule feel, but rather leaves you feeling like you're in a new world all-together. Only the main questions are answered to the series, not an abundance which is a prequel's job. (Please note this. I get many people saying "well it did answer the main questions." I'm aware of that. However prequels are supposed to do more. This is not a preference that I want to see, this is the job of a prequel). And the answers we did received seemed very... I can't place the word on it so I'm just going to say... bad. I understand the graphics. I can see that Nintendo tried to incorporate a style that involved all their Zelda games.
A prequel is not supposed to create a new experience in a new world, but rather give you another experience in a familiar world. So please defend how SS can be considered a good Zelda game if it failed at its goal to be a prequel.

As someone who enjoys the world and lore of the Legend of Zelda, I find this argument to be baffling at best. Skyward Sword not being "a good prequel" does not make the game nor the (in-game)story bad. Like everyone had said before, the chronology of the Legend of Zelda was never a concern. It was gameplay and world-building first, in-game story second, and chronology last. If Skyward Sword is a bad prequel, then Ocarina of Time is the worst Zelda prequel of all time.

For a game that was supposed to be a prequel to A Link to the Past and the original Zelda games, it was clear that it does not fit with them due to very big inconsistencies like Ganon only receiving the Triforce of Power instead of the whole Triforce at the end of game or that the Seven Sages were saved by Link instead being protected by the Knights of Hyrule. Ocarina of Time also introduced new races that were never seen in ALttP/LA or LoZ/AoL such as the Gorons, Deku, and Kokiri. Where were they? Why didn't the Gorons appear in ALttP even though Death Mountain was there? Even the races that do appear in the old games have inconsistencies. The OoT Zoras act nothing like the ALttP/LoZ Zoras and there was no indication of increasing hostility in OoT Zoras. The prequel OoT connection to ALttP was so bad that Nintendo had to write a new timeline where Link was killed by Ganondorf in order for ALttP to happen. Yet despite all of that, Ocarina of Time is still considered to be the greatest Zelda game by many Zelda fans. If Ocarina of Time is still considered to be one of the best despite being a "bad prequel", then why should Skyward Sword be affected by the "prequel" argument?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
I don't know, maybe because there weren't signs that pointed to the people that said "HELP THIS PERSON OUT!"? And, pray tell, what sidequests where you help people out in Zelda aren't linear? Majora's Masks' individual sidequests were most certainly linear. I don't see people ever complain about them. SS and MM actually share a very similar style in sidequests when you get right down to it. It's not objectively incorrect. The sidequests in SS were legit.

I never questioned the legitimacy of Skyward Sword's quests. In your original post, you singled out the Gratitude Crystal side-quest claiming that discovering them were difficult and completing them took actual thought. This statement is wrong, as the population of Skyward Sword is relatively small compared to other games (meaning it won't take that long to talk to everyone, and consequently find all the side-quests) and the dowsing capabilities renders thought useless.

JuiceJ said:
So you're saying there's absolutely no exploration in SS whatsoever? As in there's no freedom to roam around anywhere, no secrets off to the side, and that we're forced down a tiny pathway the entire time? If that's so, I'm pretty surprised, because SS, while definitely linear, is significantly more open than any of the other recent titles.

There's no incentive to roam around because all of the secrets in this game are shoved down your throat as you progress through the game. Sure, you could roam around and explore Eldin Volcano all you want, but you won't find anything different until the story permits you to progress further up the volcano. This is different from previous games (i.e. The Wind Waker or Ocarina of Time) where you could explore a completely different area at whim and discover a cool secret.

I didn't mean there was absolutely no sense of adventure, but it was drastically decreased compared to other installments.

JuiceJ said:
I'm not saying SS is ball-kickingly hard. I'm just saying it's a significant increase from the other titles to be released as of late, especially TWW, TP, and PH.

Meh, opinions. I personally believe they are all relatively similar in difficulty; though not because of linearity.


JuiceJ said:
What do the words "I seriously believe" imply to you? That I'm saying I'm absolutely right and that there's no arguing with me? If that's so, you should re-examine your thought process, because that means it's my belief. Difficulty is one of those things that's very subjective. There's no way everyone is going to agree on it completely more than most other things in gaming. I was simply stating that I believe SS has the ideal difficulty level for Zelda. I never said "this is what you have to believe".

You're arguing that difficulty is largely subjective, yet you called out Random Person on "ignoring the overall step-up in difficulty in, well, everything." Perhaps Random Person didn't find Skyward Sword all-to-difficult, I know I certainly didn't.

Anyways, I wasn't calling you out on anything. I was simply stating that difficulty is subjective. My apologies if my words offended you.

JuiceJ said:
I agree on the difficulty level thing. I've been saying that myself for quite a while, now.

Cool :yes:

JuiceJ said:
By the way, why are you only replying to me? I'm not the only one that responded to RP, you know.

I immediately recognized the length and detail of your post. I think posts like that deserve respect and a response so I decided to reply to yours. My girlfriend is over (she doesn't like me on the computer when she's over :\) so I didn't have time to respond to multiple people. I guess I'll think twice before responding to you again?
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Location
'Murica
LOL this thread. While people like JJ have pretty much said everything that needs to be said, I'll contribute a tad as well.

1. Please tell me how Majora's Mask requires more exploration that Skyward Sword, the notion is laughable. MM is every bit as linear as SS in terms of the storyline. As for sidequests and secrets, the only "obvious" thing about them in SS is that the game tells you if a character has something to say. (Which I find more convenient than bad) Yes, in SS, I remember that totally straight path known as the Faron Woods.... oh.... wait. Also, there were many, many, chests and Goddess Cubes that could be obtained through revisits and careful combing of the area.

Is the game linear in terms of areas? Yeah, but so is every Zelda game to date, and linearity is needed to be able to tell a cohesive plot in the first place.

2. Ha...ha...BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Nintendo: "Skyward Sword is a prequel to Ocarina of Time."
Fans: "OMG ARE THEY GOING TO EXPLAIN HOW TINGLE GOT HIS SUIT? HOW HYRULE GEOGRAPHY NEVER CORRELATES IN THE FIRST PLACE??! MAYBE SOME EVIL VOODOO WITCH CREATED PRINCESS ZELDA'S DRESS? I MUST HAVE THE ANSWERS!"

This "flaw" is only in the minds of the fans. Skyward Sword, as with every Zelda game, is its own personal tale that expands upon the universe and answers a few lingering questions from previous installments. Minish Cap is a prequel to most games, yet I don't see people b******* and moaning over how that game didn't give an answer to every question in existence. Skyward Sword was meant to tell the tale of the Master Sword's creation, the legacy that is Link/Zelda/Ganondorf, and the birth of the land called Hyrule.

3. "We Zelda fans don't like easy." (Oh look, objective generalizations.) While I'd agree that the majority of Zelda fans don't enjoy easy pitifully easy games, I wouldn't even call Skyward Sword an "easy" game in the first place. Puzzles are refreshingly new and interesting. Zelda cliches are completely absent from this game. See that eye? Let me get out my slingshot an- crap... And I should probably mention that not a single damn torch puzzle is to be found in the game. (Unless you count the Fire Sanctuary Boss Key, but even that was creatively done via implementation of the Mogma Mitts.)

And there is a huge difference between "experimentation" and "optional" in terms of gameplay. See that ledge over there? Maybe you can experiment with your Clawshot.... wait maybe the Pegasus Boots are needed to jump..... or perhaps you could just climb those vines! That's experimentation with your inventory. Optional is when you're able to purposely not use something at your disposal in favor of the typical way something is meant to be done.

If a waitress asks "Sir, do you want fries with your meal? It will only take 5 more minutes to cook." and you say no because you're on a dedicated diet, you had the option to do that. You also had the option to say "Yes miss, I would like some fries with my meal." and you would be knowingly going against your diet. Those fries must taste pretty damn good, but you also waited longer for the main course and went against your diet. If you took the former option, you were rewarded with a healthier meal and more satisfaction down the road. If you took the latter, you were rewarded with some delicious fries, but you feel slightly empty and unhealthy inside because you didn't follow the path that was set in front of you. You knowingly took that optional path, and you should blame yourself for it, not the waitress for offering it to you.

4. .....What? I'm sorry.... what?

"I think this game has bad replayability because I've already played it." That's about what you said there. The same could be said for any game...

"I played Halo and know what each stage is." "I played Final Fantasy XIII and know where the story goes." "I played Majora's Mask and understand what to do next because I've already gone through this game."

While replayability is subjective in the first place, in my opinion, Skyward Sword's replayability is absolutely no different from other Zelda games.

5. Time Travel is a tricky thing to comprehend in terms of plot, and while it may seem like everything was predetermined, it really wasn't. Of course we're going to have a happy ending, but if everything was going to turn out ok, Old Impa wouldn't be there in the first place. Impa is there as a catalyst, otherwise, she wouldn't be at all surprised when Ghirahim captures Zelda. As Skyward Sword shows, the past and future can be changed, and the events Old Impa experienced might not have been the same as Young Impa's experiences. Either way, Impa worked in such a way that Link was being pushed towards his goal, not forced because of destiny.

Lastly, bolding your sentences does not make your point any more valid.

I doubt these posts will make any difference in your opinion, and I apologize if I came off strong/rude at points, but these are just my two cents.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
1. Please tell me how Majora's Mask requires more exploration that Skyward Sword, the notion is laughable. MM is every bit as linear as SS in terms of the storyline.

Uhmm, obviously? The whole point of a story-line in a video game is to, well, tell a story. For that to happen, a sequence of events has to occur that play off one another. You can't have a non-linear story -- that would just be a convoluted mess. However, you can have a non-linear video game where it doesn't force you in one direction throughout the whole adventure. In this case, Skyward Sword is largely more linear than Majora's Mask and non-linearity has been a fundamental principle in the Zelda formula (until Twilight Princess and so forth). This just further distances Skyward Sword from a traditional Zelda (whether or not this is a bad thing is up to you).

And Majora's Mask does require more exploration than Skyward Sword. I don't see how you cannot see that.

surferguy7 said:
As for sidequests and secrets, the only "obvious" thing about them in SS is that the game tells you if a character has something to say. (Which I find more convenient than bad) Yes, in SS, I remember that totally straight path known as the Faron Woods.... oh.... wait. Also, there were many, many, chests and Goddess Cubes that could be obtained through revisits and careful combing of the area.

You're also forgetting that Skyloft didn't have too much of a population, leading to less exploration and effort to find side-quests. And the Goddess Cubes were cool I guess, but the fact that you could dowse for them was pretty lame. It would have been advantageous for Nintendo to make it a little more difficult to find the Goddess Cubes. I'm not just talking about liberating the player's ability to dowse for them, but to hide them behind a wall, in a mini-dungeon, etc. That would have really made them interesting.

surferguy7 said:
Is the game linear in terms of areas? Yeah, but so is every Zelda game to date, and linearity is needed to be able to tell a cohesive plot in the first place.

What do you mean by "every Zelda game to date"? I hope you don't think Zelda I, ALttP or OoT are examples of linear games.

Anyways, this is a pretty good argument for proponents of linearity in Zelda games. I enjoy a good story in a video game myself, and that -- really -- can only be accomplished if a video game is linear (at least more linear then Zelda veterans would like it). Now there needs to be a blend of sorts between linearity and non-linearity in Zelda Wii U to satisfy across the board (obviously), but I don't think Skyward Sword is a good example of this. Sure, it has a phenomenal story, but the amount of shoving-in-one-direction it did to the player was overwhelming. For example: I should have had the option to complete the Ancient Cistern, Sandship, and Fire Sanctuary in any order I wanted to. The fact that I couldn't was simply a flaw in the game's design.

surferguy7 said:
3. "We Zelda fans don't like easy." (Oh look, objective generalizations.) While I'd agree that the majority of Zelda fans don't enjoy easy pitifully easy games, I wouldn't even call Skyward Sword an "easy" game in the first place. Puzzles are refreshingly new and interesting. Zelda cliches are completely absent from this game. See that eye? Let me get out my slingshot an- crap... And I should probably mention that not a single damn torch puzzle is to be found in the game. (Unless you count the Fire Sanctuary Boss Key, but even that was creatively done via implementation of the Mogma Mitts.)

I was fond of Skyward Sword's puzzles :yes:

surferguy7 said:
4. .....What? I'm sorry.... what?

"I think this game has bad replayability because I've already played it." That's about what you said there. The same could be said for any game...

"I played Halo and know what each stage is." "I played Final Fantasy XIII and know where the story goes." "I played Majora's Mask and understand what to do next because I've already gone through this game."

While replayability is subjective in the first place, in my opinion, Skyward Sword's replayability is absolutely no different from other Zelda games.

- The fact that you can complete Ocarina of Time's dungeons in different orders makes it more re-playable.
- The fact that you can complete Ocarina of Time's dungeons in different ways makes it more re-playable.
- The fact that Ocarina of Time has a Master Quest (that's actually difficult) makes it more re-playable.
- The Wind Waker's after-game (the photos) makes it more re-playable.
- The fact that you can re-wind time in Majora's Mask makes it more re-playable

I'll stop there. These are facts that make these games objectively more re-playable than Skyward Sword. You could argue that you simply enjoy Skyward Sword more and that makes it more re-playable to you (which is completely fine), but saying Skyward Sword's replayability is no different from other Zelda games is false.

surferguy7 said:
Lastly, bolding your sentences does not make your point any more valid.

I think he made his sentence bold so the reader could quickly glance at one sentence and get a summary of his complaint. Nothing is wrong with that.

surferguy7 said:
I doubt these posts will make any difference in your opinion, and I apologize if I came off strong/rude at points, but these are just my two cents

Random Person is a pretty cool dude, I'm sure he'll take your points into consideration :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom