Spoiler German Gamepro's Full Review

[steve12345]

The reviewer was not reviewing the game as a Wii game. He was viewing it as a video game. Its perfectly valid to fault the graphics. I think graphics lack of VA and no true overworld warrant a 9.3. If you don't then oh well. Write your own review when you play the game. And who really cares about the score anyway? The reveiwer obviously loved the game. No matter the score it seems every reviewer agrees that this is the best Zelda in a very long time. I see no real reasons to be complaining.

Okey, so you think that if Majora's Mask/Windwaker/etc would have had voice-acting, this would fit the style and athmosphere of the game and improve the game as a whole?

Honestly, I really don't agree at all with that whole "graphics don't matter at all" attitude that very many Zelda fans apparently have. To me it seems like a lame excuse to defend Nintendo (and that's coming from someone who can be described as a Nintendo fanboy - me).
Seriously, would you play SS if it were released with the original Gameboy's 160x144 resolution and 4 monochrome colours? You can't tell me that this would do the game anywhere near enough the justice it deserves.
Graphics are a part of video gaming, as the name implies (FIY, video = Latin for "I see"), just like music, story, controls and gameplay (and yes gameplay is the most important factor for me).
So if the graphics fall short, then it's very appropriate for reviewers to deduct points there, as it is appropriate to deduct points if music, gameplay, story or controls are bad.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still enjoying old NES/SNES games a lot because back then it was the best they had and I respect that.
Maybe I'm spoiled a bit because even on my very first PC in 1998 with its "great" Pentium II 350 MHz processor, 8GB HDD, 64MB RAM and nVidia TNT 2 graphics card (8MB RAM), I always played my games in 1280x1024. But now it's 2011 and a 640x480 resolution is just sub-par, it's a very outdated video broadcasting standard that has been introduced in the 1950s (as NTSC). LOL, even the 1962 PAL standard was better (720x576). Add to that the fact that there is absolutely no anti-aliasing then this makes things even worse. Just look at the Lyre which Link plays at some point in one of the newer trailers (I thin it's when he meets the guy that upgrades his sword to the master sword), you can almost count the pixels. A screenshot to show what I mean:

View attachment 19024

I recently replayed TP on Dolphin at Full HD with 8x anti-aliasing and it looks just soooo much better than on the Wii, I really hope that SS will run on Dolphin too.
So after all I think that they still gave it a good score with 93%, and having in back of the mind that it would probably have been rated higher with better graphics (which I will enjoy with Dolphin) then we can't really complain.

What matters is that the artstyle fits the overall athmosphere of the game. Windwaker would not be Windwaker if it would have had HD Twilight Princess graphics. And Twilight Princess would be quite awkward if it would have had the cartoon-style graphics from Windwaker.
I can imagine Twilight Princess, with it's 'realistic' graphic style would look better if it had even higher resolution and beter overall quality, but I doubt one would even notice the difference after 15 minutes of playing.

But you know, Zelda is not about graphic quality. This game is about the story it tells, the fantasy world it creates and the athmosphere and emotions, you as a player, are absorbed into. Visuals are nessecary to create that world and make it beautiful, but that's it.

What you should do is rent the game Okami. This game is very Zelda-like and has the most weird graphics ever.
After finishing this game, you will perhaps understand what I mean.

 

[Mastik]

I'm not going to get into this with you, it's just not worth it. I made my point about the reviewer making positive comments on what does matter, that's all I need to do. If you want to continue to be stubborn, go ahead.


I would say that any Batman game is filled with enough hype to guarantee a high score. You also have to factor in the fact that Batman is a Western-made franchise while Zelda is Japanese, of course Western critics are going to prefer it. Someone also told me that scores on Arkham City dropped considerably after a while, I'm not sure though.

dude, im playing Arkham City right now. it defentlly justfy the 97 avradge

 

[Caelus]

Perhaps I'm not thinking of this the right way, but it has me a bit concerned: "After about 15 hours, all three areas should be cleaned."

The first three temples, is what they mean. It takes about 30 hours to finish the rest of the temples.

dude, im playing Arkham City right now. it defentlly justfy the 97 avradge

Yeah, but your enjoyment is most likely based on hype.

 

[blubb]

What matters is that the artstyle fits the overall athmosphere of the game. Windwaker would not be Windwaker if it would have had HD Twilight Princess graphics. And Twilight Princess would be quite awkward if it would have had the cartoon-style graphics from Windwaker.
I can imagine Twilight Princess, with it's 'realistic' graphic style would look better if it had even higher resolution and beter overall quality, but I doubt one would even notice the difference after 15 minutes of playing.

But you know, Zelda is not about graphic quality. This game is about the story it tells, the fantasy world it creates and the athmosphere and emotions, you as a player, are absorbed into. Visuals are nessecary to create that world and make it beautiful, but that's it.

What you should do is rent the game Okami. This game is very Zelda-like and has the most weird graphics ever.
After finishing this game, you will perhaps understand what I mean.

Well of course I'm fully aware that artstyle and graphical quality are two very different things. But in my opinion, BOTH should be right. Of course you can have a terrible and unfitting artstyle and in that case, eve the best resolution won't help to improve the game's look. But on the other hand, a very well thought-out art style combined with low graphical quality sucks too IMO.
I think that Zelda games are quite a lot about players being able to be immersed into the game and make you feel like you're right there and of course this is easier achieved, amongst many other factors, with better visual quality
For example let's look at Twilight Princess, whose artstyle fit very well to the game. I even don't think it's that realistic at all, c'mon, just look at Falbi and Fyer to understand what I mean, just two examples of very goofy looking characters. Of course you shouldn't compare it to TWW to see its surrealistic-ness, rather compare it to a modern shooter like BF3 or so. But to get on topic, just compare this crystal-clear image...



to this blurry mess:



The images are quite large and to see the effect fully you should view in original size. For those who don't have a large enough screen, I zoomed in on Link for a more forum-friendly display, here's the comparison:


(for better effect you can press Ctrl (keep it pressed) and scroll the mouse wheel at the same time to zoom in, to reset simply press Ctrl+0 again)

That's a very huge difference for me which also stays apparent after hours of gameplay. What you don't even see are those nasty flickering edges when there is motion in the image, those are really eye-straining for me and actually distract me from the game.
You see, better graphical quality can also help bring across emotions/facial expressions, atmosphere etc. much more effectively.
Note that I'm playing on a 46" LCD screen, of course those things are probably different if you still have an old small CRT.

BTW yeah I heard about Ookami and watched some gameplay videos, looks interesting so far (also the artstyle) maybe I'll get around to it some day.

 

[JohnFC]

@Steve12345

Majoras Mask is 11 years old. It made sense to not include voice acting then. Wind Waker was a moving cartoon so I think text speech works well for it too. But to answer your question, if Nintendo had been able to pull off effective VA for any of those games then it obvioiusly would have improved them. Skyward Sword definately did not need voice acting in my opinion, but it this day and age Nintendo would definately have the means to make it happen and pull it off well. Some people may feel that text speech is inferior, while others may feel that the game works just fine with it. Its all about opinion. This reviewer obviously felt voice acting would have improved the game.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean the review is invalid. Especially since we don't know how much lack of VA affected the overall score. The game lost .7 points for graphics (from a technical standpoint, the reveiwer loved the artstyle), VA, and no connected overworld. Even with those complaints, the game got a very high score and loads of praise. Just because you are really excited for the game and can overlook any flaws doesn't mean everyone else has to. Like I said, if you feel differently then write your own review.

 

[Eddard]

The first three temples, is what they mean. It takes about 30 hours to finish the rest of the temples.



Yeah, but your enjoyment is most likely based on hype.

You can say that about any game. You're enjoyment of Skyward Sword will most likely be based on hype. Batman Is fantastic, SS will be too.

Stop being dumb fanboys.

 

[Clearly]

In my opinion, knocking a good few points off for (technically) limited graphics and a lack of voice acting is a bit ill-balanced for reviewing. However, that's not to say I expect SS to be a flawless game. Indeed, I'm sure there will be at least a couple points that have me sighing impatiently through my nose; but those moments are what justify negative comments and subracting review points, as those are the game's actual flaws. The reviewer can go ahead and give SS an 80 for what little it matters; but if I'm going to take their 'proffesional opinion' seriously, their arguement should be based on something not easily deflected as simply personal taste. Give me critiques of tediously overdone fetch quests, or sloppy controls, or terrible animation; don't penalize a beautifully designed iPhone game for not being as graphically impressive as a game on a 360. In that case you're judging the hardware instead of the game, and that's an unrelative and irrational critique (unless its the same game ported from system to system). Additionally, deducted points because you'd rather have words read to you, rather than read them yourself is a powerfully preference based criticism. It could warrent a comment, with a note of "I would have preferred voice acting"; but actually dinging the game for a lack of it just smacks of personal bias, and as a reader I'm not interested in what basically amounts to points given or taken away for use of their favourite colour. I don't read car or tech reviews looking for comments about what the reviewer thinks of the object's name; but for the actual performance of the item in question.

Again, I'm sure SS does have a couple gameplay issues and graphical weaknesses (the flickering is something I'd heard about before , so that makes sense as a critique at least); but judge the game on those matters, as those are the ones that actually matter.

 

[Mastik]

The first three temples, is what they mean. It takes about 30 hours to finish the rest of the temples.



Yeah, but your enjoyment is most likely based on hype.

not all the time. i was super hyped for Dragon Age 2 after plying it i can say i really don't like the game. i wasn't that hyped for Arkham City, in fact i didn't care abut the it. after playing some of the game i can say it's amazing. and you know, as much as i love Zelda, and i'm hyped for SS ( not as before but still) but i just don't think SS has what it takes to surpass it. hell, i don't evan think it got what it takes to surpass Uncharted. and Im a big Zelda fan...

 

[JohnFC]

@ Clearly

You have good points regarding graphics, but I feel lack of VA is definately a valid complaint. If the reviewer feels the game would have been better with it, then they should obviously deduct points. The Wii may hold back the game graphically, but it in no way prevents VA. But I guess this just boils down to a debate on the true purpose of a review.

I also feel it should be said again that the reviewer took off points for the lack of a connected Hyrule as well. So the deductions were not entirely based on presentation.

 

[Michael Heide]

dude, im playing Arkham City right now. it defentlly justfy the 97 avradge

I concur. I loved Arkham Asylum with its mix of Metroid and Splinter Cell, and its faithfulness to the comic books. And Arkham City is pushing the envelope even further. Better graphics, less linearity, a Gotham City full of life... Hype or no hype, the game is fantastic.

 

[JuicieJ]

I don't see why they said it has "outdated techniques." This is the freaking Wii Motion Plus. It doesn't really get much more new than that.

Honestly, I really don't agree at all with that whole "graphics don't matter at all" attitude that very many Zelda fans apparently have. To me it seems like a lame excuse to defend Nintendo (and that's coming from someone who can be described as a Nintendo fanboy - me).
Seriously, would you play SS if it were released with the original Gameboy's 160x144 resolution and 4 monochrome colours? You can't tell me that this would do the game anywhere near enough the justice it deserves.
Graphics are a part of video gaming, as the name implies (FIY, video = Latin for "I see"), just like music, story, controls and gameplay (and yes gameplay is the most important factor for me).
So if the graphics fall short, then it's very appropriate for reviewers to deduct points there, as it is appropriate to deduct points if music, gameplay, story or controls are bad.

It has nothing to do with "defending Nintendo." It has to do with the truth. Graphics don't make a game what it is. What happens in the game does. Graphics are only there because they have to be. Otherwise the game wouldn't be viewable. They're just part of the visuals and nothing more. Sure, they can help accent the style of the game (like Zelda games in the recent past have done), but they don't make the game good or bad. I'll give you some examples. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. This game had somewhat poor quality graphics for the XBOX, but the game is one of the best ever made. Halo 3: ODST. Great graphics. Horrible game.

You see what I'm saying? Graphics don't make or break a game. They hardly even matter. The only thing they're good for is to aid the feel of the game in style.

 

[steve12345]

Well of course I'm fully aware that artstyle and graphical quality are two very different things. But in my opinion, BOTH should be right. Of course you can have a terrible and unfitting artstyle and in that case, eve the best resolution won't help to improve the game's look. But on the other hand, a very well thought-out art style combined with low graphical quality sucks too IMO.
I think that Zelda games are quite a lot about players being able to be immersed into the game and make you feel like you're right there and of course this is easier achieved, amongst many other factors, with better visual quality
For example let's look at Twilight Princess, whose artstyle fit very well to the game. I even don't think it's that realistic at all, c'mon, just look at Falbi and Fyer to understand what I mean, just two examples of very goofy looking characters. Of course you shouldn't compare it to TWW to see its surrealistic-ness, rather compare it to a modern shooter like BF3 or so. But to get on topic, just compare this crystal-clear image...



to this blurry mess:



The images are quite large and to see the effect fully you should view in original size. For those who don't have a large enough screen, I zoomed in on Link for a more forum-friendly display, here's the comparison:


(for better effect you can press Ctrl (keep it pressed) and scroll the mouse wheel at the same time to zoom in, to reset simply press Ctrl+0 again)

That's a very huge difference for me which also stays apparent after hours of gameplay. What you don't even see are those nasty flickering edges when there is motion in the image, those are really eye-straining for me and actually distract me from the game.
You see, better graphical quality can also help bring across emotions/facial expressions, atmosphere etc. much more effectively.
Note that I'm playing on a 46" LCD screen, of course those things are probably different if you still have an old small CRT.

BTW yeah I heard about Ookami and watched some gameplay videos, looks interesting so far (also the artstyle) maybe I'll get around to it some day.

I get your point.
Ofcourse the picture with the big pixels would be unaccepteble for a game like TP, but that isn't the case when you are playing the game on WII and if it would really be the case that pixels would be so obvious while playing (not while zooming in and entlarging), then ofcourse any reviewer should deduct points from TP because of bad graphics. But let's imagine TP had graphics like Uncharted 3, then the game would still be too easy, the plot change from Zant to Ganondorf would still be a little awkward, so the things that made TP a little disappoining in most people's eyes, would still be there, no matter how good the graphics would be.

So still, I think it is unfair to judge a game based on the technical limitations of the system it was made for.
I think, in the end, graphics should be up to date in the context of the time the game is released, but it should not be nessecary to look just as good as the best graphics of that time.
It's like deducting points from Uncharted 3 for not having 35 hours playtime (it only has 8 hours), since that is the standard these days, or deducting points for not having motion control, since Nintendo already introduced them years ago. These things make no sense. So I really don't see why deducting points from SS for not having Xbox360 graphics is so logical, with all respect for your opinion.

@Steve12345

Just because you disagree doesn't mean the review is invalid. Especially since we don't know how much lack of VA affected the overall score. The game lost .7 points for graphics (from a technical standpoint, the reveiwer loved the artstyle), VA, and no connected overworld. Even with those complaints, the game got a very high score and loads of praise. Just because you are really excited for the game and can overlook any flaws doesn't mean everyone else has to. Like I said, if you feel differently then write your own review.

Dude, don't talk to me like I'm some hyped up fanboy. I'm not. I'm just stating that the argumentation from this reviewer is questionable because 1) he basically extracts points from a game because it was released on and made for the Wii, which simply doesn't have the latest graphic-capacity and 2) he extracts points from a game because of no-voiceacting, while this voiceacting perhaps would not fit the game and if it would have fit the game and Nintendo would have implemented it, the game would not be as large, since all these voice-samples take up a lot of space, so nobody wants that.
If the reviewer had pointed out that for example the later dungeons in the game were really bad and Nintendo's new idea's were awkwardly implemented and gave the game a 7.5 I would not question the reviewer's opinion. Then, he would have a valid point if that was the case.

 

[A Link In Time]

I don't see why they said it has "outdated techniques." This is the freaking Wii Motion Plus. It doesn't really get much more new than that.



It has nothing to do with "defending Nintendo." It has to do with the truth. Graphics don't make a game what it is. What happens in the game does. Graphics are only there because they have to be. Otherwise the game wouldn't be viewable. They're just part of the visuals and nothing more. Sure, they can help accent the style of the game (like Zelda games in the recent past have done), but they don't make the game good or bad. I'll give you some examples. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. This game had somewhat poor quality graphics for the XBOX, but the game is one of the best ever made. Halo 3: ODST. Great graphics. Horrible game.

You see what I'm saying? Graphics don't make or break a game. They hardly even matter. The only thing they're good for is to aid the feel of the game in style.

ODST was far from the best Halo but it was not a horrible game. Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary will surely make my Top 5 this year.

 

[JuicieJ]

ODST was far from the best Halo but it was not a horrible game. Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary will surely make my Top 5 this year.

Maybe not horrible, but you gotta admit, it was pretty bad, especially for Halo. ODST deserves a 6/10.

 

[Vibed]

You know, in this review they mention a 'seal' that separates the land and sky, meaning if that Evil Flying Whale is in the sky (presumably to get the Triforce), Ghirahim somehow broke that seal.