• 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.

How Was Skyward Sword As A Prequel

Is SS a good prequel?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • My Answer is Complicated

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Random Person

Just Some Random Person
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Wig-Or-Log
Sup peeps, Random Person here.

Okay, I've been ranting on and on about the bad things about Skyward Sword, but I'm just a Random Person and the rant means nothing alone. I want to hear how other people feel about this particular matter.

Skyward Sword did a lot of things good and a lot of things bad, but one thing I stress is its capabilities as a prequel. If you've read my article, you know that I believe SS did a bad job as a prequel to the Zelda series. (My view on this is more detailed there) A prequel is supposed to be based upon the series that established it and SS differentiated itself heavily from the series in almost all aspects. SS also failed to answer a good amount of questions we had to the history and land of the Zelda series while at the same time bringing new questions to the party.


So I want to know other people's take on this. Do you agree with me or was SS a good prequel? Did the game fail to answer enough questions or am I asking too many unnecessary ones? Whether its a good game or good Zelda game should be irrelevant here. What I want to know is do you think it's a good prequel to OoT and the Zelda series. Commence ranting!... uh... I mean... discussion!

Edit:
Also, "my answer is complicated" means you're having a hard time deciding. If you think its good or bad but have a long explanation, that would still be a regard to choosing "yes" or "no". My bad :P
 
Last edited:

Sydney

The Good Samaritan
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Location
Canberra, Australia
Sup peeps, Random Person here.

Okay, I've been ranting on and on about the bad things about Skyward Sword, but I'm just a Random Person and the rant means nothing alone. I want to hear how other people feel about this particular matter.

Skyward Sword did a lot of things good and a lot of things bad, but one thing I stress is its capabilities as a prequel. If you've read my article, you know that I believe SS did a bad job as a prequel to the Zelda series. (My view on this is more detailed there) A prequel is supposed to be based upon the series that established it and SS differentiated itself heavily from the series in almost all aspects. SS also failed to answer a good amount of questions we had to the history and land of the Zelda series while at the same time bringing new questions to the party.


So I want to know other people's take on this. Do you agree with me or was SS a good prequel? Did the game fail to answer enough questions or am I asking too many unnecessary ones? Whether its a good game or good Zelda game should be irrelevant here. What I want to know is do you think it's a good prequel to OoT and the Zelda series. Commence ranting!... uh... I mean... discussion!
My simple answer: Yes I believe Skyward Sword is a good prequel to Ocarina of Time.

My complex answer: Skyward Sword did a good job considering it was a rather big prequel. Although there may be unanswered questions after playing the game, some were answered, and some things we found out because of the game. We found out Fi resides in the Master Sword, Zelda's Hylia's incarnation, where SS's map fits with OoT's map, and more. Along with that, unanswered questions gives players the ability to create theories that are logical to what takes place in SS and OoT. Of course I think Skyward Sword failed to meet some expectations on a few points, and failing those expectations made it seem bad, but it was in all fairly good. I think there should have been a lot more backstory in Skyward Sword than just knowing there was a "war" of sorts between all land races + Hylia and the Demon tribe + Demise. So I agree that should have been included so questions and speculations aren't raised. In all, I thought Skyward Sword did fairly well, but missed a few points.
 

zellinkda

one of many
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Location
Talking to the other zellinkdas
Hi there! I chose "My answer is complicated" for the Poll. I thought that SS was pretty good, but MM still remains my favorite (MM 3D? yes please!) I know we learned about the three Goddesses in Ocarina of Time, however I really expected more about Din Nayru and Farore, sort of as a back story, considering that it's not the Ocarina of Time Link and Zelda. I was also confused on how much emphasis was put on the goddess Hylia, while in the rest of the series, we don't hear about it at all. For a game that is supposed to be the first game in the Timeline, there wasn't much connection to the rest of the games as I expected. As a Prequel, If no one had told me that this was a prequel, I would have never guessed. EVER. I tested this theory with my siblings, and had them play SS as they have played other Zelda games. I was right, They had no clue it was a prequel to Ocarina of Time.

I wanted Skyward Sword to really make me go, so THAT'S why so and so happened in such and such game. There wasn't much of that to me. Prequels are meant to be explanatory, fixing any unsolved mysteries or complications in the story it comes before. Ocarina of Time didn't need that, really, so that's probably why I don't think it did such a great job. I think Nintendo made it a prequel because they wanted that springboard off of Ocarina of Time to help the game out. Skyward Sword didn't exactly need the hand holding of Ocarina of Time. It would have done fine on its own. In Fact, I don't remember anyone talking about a spirit in the master sword in Ocarina of time, nor do we ever hear about an old foe named Demise. we just hear about This Gerudo king, Ganon. we also don't here anything about the Sky in Ocarina of Time. Sometimes I wonder what it did have to do with Ocarina of Time. I think it would have been a better prequel had it not been about the sky, and really take the focus of how hyrule began. That would be a nice prequel.

In Contrast, I thought Skyward sword was a lovely game. It had a nice story, and it had strong characters like Fi and Ghirahim. I quite enjoyed the difficulty of the dungeons, not super easy, not chuck-my-wii-remote-at-the-wall-hard. somewhere in between. There were lots of side quests and it wasn't really short. Skyward sword, was a nice game. It just wasn't a good prequel.
 

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
In terms of literary supremacy, no. Even though SS stepped up the antics, it's still not supreme storytelling. It doesn't explain much about the series and makes mostly minor connections that don't really matter. However, in terms of Zelda literacy, yes. Zelda's never been known for its story. Zelda's based on the gameplay, and that's how it always should be, even if the story becomes even more important in the future (which I'm sure it will). I don't see the point in complaining about it not making many connections. It did just fine for Zelda standards. It's also on the Wii, meaning hardware limitations probably prevented from having larger amounts of story, since the game was jam-packed with gameplay material. SS pushed the Wii to its limits, so there probably wasn't any legitimate space to create much more of a story.

That said, it would have been nice if SS had done more (or had been able to do more) with the story, but I honestly don't care due to the things I mentioned. It's highly understandable and hardly worth caring about. It's Zelda. Story is beyond secondary. Complaining about it is rather pointless in my opinion.

So, to answer the question, I'd say Skyward Sword was an exceptional Zelda prequel. Couldn't have asked for much from a Zelda story.
 
Last edited:

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
In my opinion, Skyward Sword was a bad prequel. I knew it was the start of the Zelda series, yes, but it didn't deliver even if I regard it as a single title. The story felt and seemed like a huge fanfic. What I mean by that comment is, it didn't appear to have the structure, the capability, the auspicious audacity of any other title in the series. It bumped up the story within the Zelda series, but for what reason? The writing didn't seem professional, neither did the storyboard, and the characters never appeared to have any believable weaknesses.

If SS was supposed to be a prequel to OoT (which it was specifically, although it doubles as a prequel to the entire series as well), why introduce more lore? How is the legend of Hylia explained? Why was it forgotten so quickly -- surely Link knew about it and can communicate with others? The extra lore that Skyward provided just wasn't worth the effort in my opinion; the legends are forgotten as quickly as they come, and this is made especially known since Nintendo decided to go back in time rather than forward.

What's the deal with all of these races? Why introduce them if they don't make an appearance later? With the pacing of the story, every new race felt like "come and go", like they had no viable reason to exist in the first place. I would write more, but I fear it'd sound ridiculous.
 
I say its complicated and cant come down on a yes or no.

The only thing that really said prequel to me as far as SS is concerned is the forging of the Master Sword, and even then this isn't the first game that we've had to imbue it or power it up so in the same sense it also didn't feel like a prequel. I understand nintendo has to mix things up and create new things; for example the new races and timeshift stones, aside from the Gorons in SS we've never seen any of the races before and it'd be really weird for them to suddenly show up in a Zelda much later in a timeline (unless SS has a split timeline somewhere in it...lol) (and then there is the whole Minish Cap thing.. Link gets his hat but has one in SS.. hmmm.) As for the story as a whole, any Zelda in any installment, had nintendo willed it, could have discovered that she was Hylia. Hyrule is a big place and all those shrines etc that Zelda went to to awaken her memories could still be around or the equivalent of them in the future had nintnedo wanted to pull the the story of SS sooner regarding Zelda. Again, regarding the story as a whole- both Ocarina of Time and A Link to the Past and even Twilight Princess have mentioned social upheaval in Hyrule and great wars. When SS went in to detail about the Demise war it kind of usurped the tale out of prequel status for me because it gave the idea that there was so much more missed time that came before the adventure at hand that it felt as if we could go back further.

On the Demise point of view with the face palm inducing 'bound to this curse' line.... Its been common knowledge since Wind Waker and even probably before that the cycle of the chosen three is repeating, and all SS did was mention it again. Demise didn't even curse Link, he was merely telling him that it was already in place, Demise is not in any position to go around throwing curses at people and would he really want to fight Link again after being whipped so severely?

As for the state of the triforce, Ss didn't go into enough detail of why the silent realms were there or or even needed, Link collected the pieces but all he did with them was to bring them out of the silent realm and out them on the statue of the goddess at game's end. He didn't even make a wish on it as far as i recall, no one did, and again in later games the triforce has been put back in the silent realm, so the point of collecting it in SS was....?

The best thing in my eyes that SS sis as a prequel was give a reason why the big red bird is etched on the Hylian shield and bring up some theories as to what the Wind Palace in MC is or the City in the Sky in TP is..

Just me though, I wanted more answers from SS. i know its a Zelda and story comes second but as a prequel and since nintendo made such a fuss about its placement (evne the TV spots said it) i expected some concrete answers not vagaries. Yet in classic Zelda style we got the latter, there are only very few elements that do say that SS was a prequel but even then they aren't concrete.
 
Last edited:

JuicieJ

SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
On the midnight Spirit Train going anywhere
In my opinion, Skyward Sword was a bad prequel. I knew it was the start of the Zelda series, yes, but it didn't deliver even if I regard it as a single title. The story felt and seemed like a huge fanfic. What I mean by that comment is, it didn't appear to have the structure, the capability, the auspicious audacity of any other title in the series. It bumped up the story within the Zelda series, but for what reason? The writing didn't seem professional, neither did the storyboard, and the characters never appeared to have any believable weaknesses.

And other titles' stories felt professional? If you're gonna complain about SS's story, you're gonna have to complain even more about the stories of every past title, because they're very poor writing in terms of "professional".

If SS was supposed to be a prequel to OoT (which it was specifically, although it doubles as a prequel to the entire series as well), why introduce more lore? How is the legend of Hylia explained? Why was it forgotten so quickly -- surely Link knew about it and can communicate with others? The extra lore that Skyward provided just wasn't worth the effort in my opinion; the legends are forgotten as quickly as they come, and this is made especially known since Nintendo decided to go back in time rather than forward.

What's the deal with all of these races? Why introduce them if they don't make an appearance later? With the pacing of the story, every new race felt like "come and go", like they had no viable reason to exist in the first place. I would write more, but I fear it'd sound ridiculous.

Why was it forgotten so quickly? Why are all the races not in past titles? Well, maybe because these things couldn't have been in past games because they're, well, in the past. Just because SS is a prequel doesn't mean the new things in the game will magically appear in titles that were made before it in real life.
 

AnimeHat

Humming Swordsman
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Location
Arkansas, US
I say "yes, it's a good prequal." The ending is satisfying and gives a good foundation for every game to come. It also gives us a definite story on how Hyrule came to be.
 

Majoras_Wrath

Home Grown Hero!
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Location
Chicago
Honestly I was left with a lot more questions like almost everyone else. As a standalone title I thought it was great. It gave the field of motion gaming a great push forward, but of course this thread isn't about that lol. The land below has it's own mysteries that are left unanswered. Obviously we know how hylians came to the land but we're missing everything else such as Zoras and where exactly those gorons live at. We don't know what happened after the end and where the other current races came into place. They also introduced new races that weren't in OoT and makes you wonder where they went. I just feel like it didn't really connect to everything in Ocarina of Time. There wasn't much to answer. It just ended up giving people more theories to play around with. That's not a bad thing but I don't think Nintendo shouldn't have slapped the "OoT prequel" on it. As a series prequel, it makes more sense since there's still that ambiguity as to where it connects, but directly linking it to OoT leaves you wondering. So in other words my answer is complicated lol
 

Skunk

Floof
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Location
New York
Gender
Nonbinary
As a prequel, it was great because it did explain/elaborate things in future games. An example of this is the foundation of Hyrule kingdom. But it also opens a lot more mysteries, which definetly makes it fail as a sequel. This is illustrated in a small way by the disappearance of several characters and species.
 
I'd say, that as a prequel, it wasn't... deep enough. Sorry, Skyward Sword fanboys, but it didn't show the background I wanted to see. I was expecting the time period even before this game. It established some ground, yes, but I needed to know more about the surface's formation, and what happened to the Golden Goddesses--but then they are once again worshiped later in the timeline whereas Hylia is just... not.

But, don't get me wrong. As a game in the Legend of Zelda series, it is very excellent. There are a few minor flaws, but for how much content was packed into this game, it was great and kept me busy for at least a month or two.

Taking a gander at the official timeline, it really seems that Nintendo has been working backward a lot--since the franchise debuted in 1986. So, maybe the next game will cover what I've been looking for.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
"Good" and "bad" are subjective. Skyward Sword was a prequel - nothing more, nothing less. The only necessary element for something to be a prequel is for it to precede the events of the games before it, and it clearly did that. There's the forging of the Master Sword and many other things in-game, along with several statements by Nintendo and in Hyrule Historia that confirm Skyward Sword is a prequel. "Good" and "bad" express one's opinions, not the true state of the game as a prequel.

There were many missed opportunities in Skyward Sword, though, I will say that. Nintendo could have depicted several origin stories besides that of the Master Sword, but the lack of their presence in the game doesn't make it a bad prequel. It just means that Skyward Sword didn't have all the answers that some Zelda fans were looking for. That doesn't make it good prequel, and it doesn't make it bad prequel. It just makes it a prequel with unanswered questions remaining. I thought that Nintendo still did a brilliant job with the story of Skyward Sword, so a few backstories being left out shouldn't completely discredit that aspect of the game.
 

Random Person

Just Some Random Person
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Wig-Or-Log
"Good" and "bad" are subjective. Skyward Sword was a prequel - nothing more, nothing less. The only necessary element for something to be a prequel is for it to precede the events of the games before it, and it clearly did that. There's the forging of the Master Sword and many other things in-game, along with several statements by Nintendo and in Hyrule Historia that confirm Skyward Sword is a prequel. "Good" and "bad" express one's opinions, not the true state of the game as a prequel.

There were many missed opportunities in Skyward Sword, though, I will say that. Nintendo could have depicted several origin stories besides that of the Master Sword, but the lack of their presence in the game doesn't make it a bad prequel. It just means that Skyward Sword didn't have all the answers that some Zelda fans were looking for. That doesn't make it good prequel, and it doesn't make it bad prequel. It just makes it a prequel with unanswered questions remaining. I thought that Nintendo still did a brilliant job with the story of Skyward Sword, so a few backstories being left out shouldn't completely discredit that aspect of the game.

The words "good" and "bad" can be thought of as subjective, but not here. If you say that using the words "good" or "bad" automatically makes it subjective, then there would be no such thing as a "good" or "bad" video-game, they would all just be games. There would be no "good" or "bad" movies, they would all just be movies. You couldn't have "Good" or "bad" teeth, you would just have teeth. And so on and so forth. Its all about having a mutual understanding of what you mean by "good" or "bad".

Also, saying that the only element require for a prequel is for it to proceed a story, is like saying the only requirement for a video-game is for you to be able to control digital elements on a screen. That means if I make a game with horrible frames per second, a cliche story, and gameplay that is unpopular. I'm still, by that definition, making a "good" game.

When you say something is "good" in literature, you can be asking multiple things. Here we are asking did Skyward Sword followed the correct structure that is known for making prequels. One major point, perhaps the major point of making a prequel is not just to have a story before a story, but to answer questions. A lot of times, people leave mysteries in their tales just so the prequel can answer it. SS did not deliver in answering the questions that the series had established. A prequel with many unanswered questions is by definition, a bad prequel.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom