I personally didn't think they were particularly well developed. I know a lot of people will point to Groose, but I didn't find his sudden transformation at all realistic. It seemed rather sudden and inorganic, mostly there to spice up the Imprisoned battles - which is a point I'll get to later.
Groose wasn't a main character, for one. Trying to constantly develop him throughout the game would have felt forced. Second, it wasn't exactly sudden. His development was happening away from Link's eyes, which is a very good storytelling element -- something that Zelda pretty much flat-out refused to use in its stories in the past. It's not like he was mean one minute and then nice the very next. It took time for his character to grow. We just didn't witness it, which is fine, as it wasn't all that important to the story.
In your praise of the enemy design, you make a few good points, but also ignore some others that weaken the argument. Yes, enemies in Skyward Sword were considerably smarter, and that is a very good thing. But, Skyward Sword's enemies were fairly uniform. Like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess before it, it was cursed with Bokoblins by the dozen. Most of my memory of combat in Skyward Sword was fighting Bokoblins. Sometimes with wooden sticks, sometimes with electrified sticks. But usually Bokoblins. This isn't to say that Skyward Sword is alone in this limited enemy design, however, as it's sorta the way Zelda games pan out that most of the enemies are pretty uniform throughout. It wasn't any different in this regard.
In terms of gaming in general, yes, SS's enemies are pretty generic. But I'm not talking about gaming in general. I'm talking about within the Zelda series. Enemies in Zelda have never been known to be impressive. Ever. SS is no real exception. But the enemies were enhanced quite impressively from the past games nonetheless, and that's what matters. These kind of enhancements need to keep happening in the future in order for Zelda to not fall into the same rut it got itself into over the recent years, but that's a concern of the future. This is the here and now, and that's what we're talking about.
You mention, however, that they were more diverse in the way you kill them, and likened old methods of killing to pressing a button. That's overly simplistic, and a rather flagrant example of reducio ad absurdum. You neglected to consider enemies like the Stalfos, and the Wolfos - enemies dependent on timing and placement of strikes. Or enemies like the Clam Shells, or the Darknuts, or the Wind Waker-era Stalfos, or Redead, or Gibdos - all enemies that require different approaches to vanquish. And your button-press argument cuts both ways, as well - every enemy in Skyward Sword amounted to waiting and swinging your sword in a particular direction when an opening was presented.
Yeah, some enemies required timing in the past games, but the combat is still nowhere near on part with SS's. The enemies were all react and no read. It was just go in there and fight. There was legit strategy involved with the basic enemies in SS, something that was previously exclusive to the bosses and (some) mini-bosses. Yeah, the enemies have become routine now that I've played the game more, but the fact that more diversity was added, be it due to the motion controls or not -- I disagree with you that it was
just because of them, as they're only a part of the factor -- is a good thing. It's something that the series needed to move forward.
After you've replayed Skyward Sword as much I highly doubt you have to put any further thought into killing enemies - it's probably about as much thought and effort as you put into killing enemies in old titles.
You obviously don't know how much I've played SS. I've played through it 9 times and have probably put in anywhere from 250-300 hours. In 6 months, I've played this game more than I have all past titles in all the years they've been out. It's pretty sad when I think about it, but I don't care at the same time. It's seriously a game that I can't get enough of.
I think you're ignoring that the basic pattern was very much in place in Skyward Sword. With the exception of Ghirahim, who is admittedly a fantastic boss and one that I loved fighting - most, if not every, Skyward Sword boss can be reduced to the same "hit weak point/stun, hack and slash, repeat" method that you decry here. Take Koloktos, for instance, one of the most lauded bosses in the game. Phase 1, dodge his attack and then use the whip to rip his arms off. Phase 2, repeat and take his sword, hitting his chest - stunning him - and then whack him with either his sword or your own sword at his now exposed center. The formula is right there: stun him - dodge his attack, hit him with his own sword in the chest - and then strike - use the whip, slash the core. Scaldera was the same way. Stun him with a bomb, slice, and then run back up. Moldarach, Tentalus, the Bilocyte - all of these things followed the same boss formula as ever.
First, I directly mentioned that the overworld bosses and Tentalus used this style of boss fight, and that I thought it made sense and worked fine with the overworld bosses since they're not the conclusion of a dungeon, so bringing this up is completely redundant. Second, Scaldera may have used that basic outline, but it was anything but basic. Look at the setting. We had to run away from him on a claustrophobic incline, meaning any attacks he launched weren't exactly easy to dodge, slowly chip away at a rock layer in order to even hit his eye, and make an effort to hit his eye by having to swing in specific directions according to its position. That's nothing like a Fyrus or Jalhalla boss fight. That's a legit boss fight that, while not incredibly difficult, provided a nice challenge and change of pace. Third, while Koloktos was a pretty basic Zelda boss, it wasn't as simple as hitting a weak point and slashing away. It was more like with Diababa. It required timing, patience, and, most importantly, effort. And, last, um... Moldarach? Did we fight the same boss? Because I'm pretty sure he didn't have a stun phase. His battle was an exact throwback to the old boss style. He could attack while we were attacking, and we had to exploit his weaknesses in order to win. Not really sure where you got the idea that he was more like Tentalus than Helmasaur.
And while we're talking about bosses, let's talk about The Imprisoned, that monstrously annoying creature that you had to fight constantly over the course of the game, and was almost always the same fight with very little evolution. It was not an inventive nor an engaging fight, relying even more flagrantly on the traditional boss mechanics than any of the others, and was also hardly a threat to the player. A game that has a repeated boss of such low quality cannot be praised as highly for its boss content as you praise it.
The Imprisoned wasn't an incredible fight, no (although I definitely wouldn't call them bad), but he also wasn't exactly a focus point of the game. Sure, he had three fights, but they're relatively spread out and were put there more or less for story development. I'm not saying that justifies the fact that the fights could have been better -- it's actually a beef I have with the game -- but at least The Imprisoned wasn't a large part of the gameplay and provided a couple decent fights.
This is a highly opinionated matter and will vary from person to person. I personally was not pleased with the Overworld of Skyward Sword because it didn't feel like a world. It felt like an endless barrage of linear puzzles with the sole motivation of advancement. There was no drive to explore the world, just to get to the next dungeon. There were virtually no "secrets" in Skyward Sword's overworld - just things you could see in plain sight but had to figure out a puzzle to reach, whereas in past games there would be a path in plain sight in the distance, and following it might lead to nowhere, it might lead to a hidden hole with a puzzle or some enemies, or it might lead to another area of the game entirely - the incentive to explore was great. It felt like a world. Skyward Sword feels very segmented, and I hated that.
If you personally don't like it, that's fine. However, it's a major part of SS's identity, and it's half of what makes it such an amazing game. Whether it's your cup of tea or not is irrelevant. The fact that it was brilliantly-designed and had a lot of detail payed attention to it is all that matters in terms of quality.
There are really two points here - the mini-games may be better than Twilight Princess' mini-games, but they pale in comparison to say, Ocarina of Time's minigames, or Majora's Mask's minigames, or even Wind Waker's minigames.
Some of SS's mini-games weren't exactly fun, sure, but I found Thrill Digger, Pumpkin Pull, and Fun Fun Island (despite how frustrating it could be) to be entertaining ways to take a break from the main quest. I also consider the Lightning Round to be a mini-game, so...
Your other point about the upgrade system is one you acknowledge needs work, but I'd argue it needs more work than you say it needs. Yes, you had choices to make. Yes, you had worthwhile things to spend rupees on. But these things weren't meaningful. There was only a single upgrade path per item rather than branching ones that forced you to prioritize.
What's wrong with this? Zelda isn't an RPG. The upgrade system doesn't exactly have to be in-depth for it to fit nicely. What was done with the upgrade system was fine. It was simple-but-fun. Not sure why you said I think it needs more work on it than I said, though. I didn't give any specifics. I just mentioned that I thought it needed to be improved on. Going off on a tangent about it just didn't seem necessary to me.
There wasn't really much that you could put in the Adventure Pouch that was absolutely critical to success, and thus any decisions you made didn't really impact your gameplay that much. They weren't interesting...
So being able to hold more bombs and arrows isn't worth it? It's not worth it to upgrade ammunition containers? That's the first time I've ever heard that.
Look, if you personally didn't want any of the upgrades, there's nothing wrong with that. That's your personal style of play. But that was the whole point of the upgrade system and the Adventure Pouch: to allow players to carry only what they saw fit. Some people may not want to carry or upgrade much. That's perfectly fine. Why? Because they don't have to. It's a choice. Some people may not want to get all 8 slots for the Adventure Pouch. That's perfectly fine, too. Again, it's a choice. Criticizing something because you didn't feel it was necessary for you to use it just isn't right. Again, just because something isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean it's a bad addition to the series.[/QUOTE]
...and - most annoyingly - they filled my bags with borderline useless treasures that displayed a message every time I picked one up after reloading my game. Oh lord the annoyance.
Are you seriously going to bring that up? That annoys me more than it annoyed some people playing the game. This isn't some kind of major gameplay aspect. So you have to sit through something like this every now-and-then. So what? Did it really affect the overall quality of the game? No. Absolutely not. I didn't find it particularly enjoyable, either, but instead of dwelling on it, I decided to get over it and enjoy the game. Brooding over little things like that just isn't worth it.
I disagree about the difficulty - nothing but Sky Keep and the Sandship seemed particularly challenging at all, certainly not up to the standard of previous Zelda titles. But I will GLADLY concede that the dungeon design was absolutely beautiful. Dungeons need to stop being straight lines of puzzles, which most of Skyward Sword's dungeons were - with the exception of the two aforementioned dungeons, which were very very good dungeons and easily among my favorites.
Thing is, difficulty is one of the most subjective things imaginable. It's in the eye of the beholder in every sense of the term. Some people are better at video games than others. That's just a fact about the world. Some of these have played a series longer than others have. When this happens, it's easier for these people to figure out what to look for involving things like puzzles. Like me. I didn't find SS very difficult at all, but I know that because I am both of those things that I mentioned that I have to give a handicap, in a sense, to the difficulty. If I were to judge lots of games that I play by my skill level in gaming, I would be one of the biggest advocates for games being "too easy" today, which wouldn't be fair at all. I can't blame Nintendo, let alone any game company, for me being good at games and knowing what to look for in a series. That's my problem. I guarantee you that if OoT were to come out today, it wouldn't go down in memory as being as hard as people found it 13+ years ago. SS's difficulty level is just right for the general Zelda audience. Again, I wouldn't mind multiple difficulty levels for the combat, but the puzzles need to stay pretty much right where they're at.
I disagree with almost this entire paragraph. I don't think the reason we cared about Zelda had anything to do with the storytelling itself, but simply with the new emphasis on the romantic attachment between Link and Zelda. At least, that was certainly why I felt more strongly in this case. But beyond that, the story actually felt considerably weaker to me than in past titles. Chasing Zelda aimlessly for the first third of the game was irksome, not inventive. The game seemed to lack drive at that point - we were just going through the motions. I kept hoping that something interesting would happen. Thankfully, it finally did, but only briefly, and only to send us on another fetch quest to... yep, pursue Zelda once again. It just felt aimless for a large portion of the game. The romantic attachment between the two kept me going, but there just wasn't enough there to really satisfy me in the end. I'm not going to criticize the story for being linear, however, because it is clear that Nintendo wanted to push the story of this game far more than other games - hence the incredibly limited and segmented overworld rather than a persistent one. That's another reason that the game probably seemed to have a better story - because there was more emphasis on the story.
You may not have liked chasing after Zelda that much, but, as I've said twice in this post already, that doesn't make it a bad thing. It's actually a very good story element, as it's capable of providing a true drive to keep moving. I quite liked the change of pace it provided from the typical story Zelda had provided in the past. You say the drive was all due to the romantic element between Link and Zelda's relationship. I disagree. It was certainly a big part of it, but saying that it was the only thing there to drive us forward is very shallow thinking. As I said in my original post, there was wanting to know where Zelda had gone, why she was going where she was going, who the figure with her was, and why Ghirahim was after her. I'm pretty shocked how you can't see that.
Ghirahim was an effective villain, but so was Zant. Zant was effective all the way up until the final fight with him, which was inexplicable. Ghirahim is not an exception, but rather the rule - Zelda games, or at least the console Zelda games, have always had very compelling villains.
Zant's conclusion was utterly terrible. He was only effective
until the final fight with him. He went through a character shift that sent him to the polar opposite of what the game had portrayed him to be the entire time. He was cool, calm, and collected -- albeit angry -- until we met him. Then he turned into a complete lunatic out of nowhere. It ruined his character in every way possible, and the fact that his boss battle was pathetic didn't help matters. Sure, the idea was cool, but he required little to no effort and posed no threat whatsoever. He was definitely compelling at first, but "at first" is the key term. He stopped being compelling when he went crazy. As I already pointed out, he was also just a stepping stone. Ghirahim was important the whole story, whereas Zant stopped being important pretty much at the halfway point of TP. Nintendo failed with Zant and Ganondorf. They succeeded with Ghirahim and Demise. That was my point. Yes, previous titles have had compelling villains, but they were never as involved, fleshed-out, and important as Ghirahim was. Nowhere close. Not even Ganondorf in WW (which, even though it was very cool, was incredibly simplistic).
I don't think I even need to say it, but I disagree entirely. SS is far from the best Zelda game. It's not the worst, mind you, and I still very much enjoyed it, but you're placing it on a pillar on which I just don't think it belongs.
That's fine. You don't have to agree with me. You have your opinion and I have mine. Different people have different points of view and judge games in different ways, so there's no way everyone is ever going to agree on what any game is the best, whether it be in a series or video games in general. Just to say it, I would also like you to know that, contrary to popular belief at the ZD forums, I have some issues with SS. It's not a situation where I have nothing but praise. My issues are just very minor and not really worth mentioning in the majority of the threads I respond to.
Not even at least after you beat the game once. 
