• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Skyward Sword is Making Zelda More Popular Than People Want?

JakeProtagonist

Defender of Peace
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Location
Hyrule
It seems that Skyward Sword's amount of hate, that you may or may not have noticed, seems to be bigger than any other Zelda game. I've been beginning to think about something. Skyward Sword has gotten attention and praise from MANY Critics such as IGN and Game Informer. This has seemingly made it a Zelda game with as much attention as "main stream" games, which hasnt happened in a while. Especially since its been nominated for the argueably most popular show people go to watch who won GOTY and stuff, Spike TV's, Game of the Year. It has made itself clear its one of the best, if not, THE best Zelda game ever made. And Since OOT is considered one of the Best games Ever made, it makes Skyward Sword one of the best games ever made. I think this is true because they both were innovations to Video Games in their own way. Of course when a Game is popular its gonna recieve some hate though, but people seem to WANT this game to be bad. Some bad reviews will almost always make a bias comment, and nitpick the whole time, like they just dont want the game to have the good reputation it has. It seems that others arent used to Zelda being up there with some more popular video game series, and they want it to be. Im not sure why though. I could be wrong of course, but it just seems to be the only reason that people could overly hate this game that much. Some people will flat out say its a good game, but then rate it low for the STUPIDEST reasons. It coudl be that, since it came out around the same time as Skyrim, They refuse to believe that such an old franchise's newest addition could be just as good, if not, better.

What do you guys think the reason is behind all this hate?
 
T

toyall123

Guest
That's a very good question. Unfortunately, I have to delve into my own personal experiences with Zelda.:(

Every game, regardless of how good it is, will never be able to appeal to everyone. It is just how everybody is. While some people don't like Skyward Sword simply because it is popular, others don't like Skyward Sword just because they genuinely don't enjoy it. The same things that make Skyward Sword so popular to the fans can be the same things that further aggravate other players.

And to tell you the truth, I am also a recent Zelda convert.:wave: I was afraid of approaching Zelda because I never liked the fact that you can't build a stronger Link throughout the game with the exception of spells, hearts, etc. Because of that, I never enjoyed franchises like Mario or Super Smash Bros. because it was so different from the JRPGs I was used to playing.

You can tell me I'm not a true Zelda fan if you want, because I genuinely never liked dungeons (dungeons in Zelda are well-made though), due to the fact that to me they just feel long and tedious. I like Zelda for its side quests, which are incredibly well-thought out and spread throughout the game. Of course, by extension that means Majora's Mask is my favorite game in the series by a mile:lol:

Sorry if this is a long read:( I am definitely going to buy Skyward Sword and I do love Zelda, but I don't think it will ever take the place of my favorite JRPG franchises.o.o

Oh and I forgot to mention, people naturally feel threatened when their favorite game is being opposed by another game, which they feel indifferent about.-.-
 

JakeProtagonist

Defender of Peace
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Location
Hyrule
That's a very good question. Unfortunately, I have to delve into my own personal experiences with Zelda.:(

Every game, regardless of how good it is, will never be able to appeal to everyone. It is just how everybody is. While some people don't like Skyward Sword simply because it is popular, others don't like Skyward Sword just because they genuinely don't enjoy it. The same things that make Skyward Sword so popular to the fans can be the same things that further aggravate other players.

And to tell you the truth, I am also a recent Zelda convert.:wave: I was afraid of approaching Zelda because I never liked the fact that you can't build a stronger Link throughout the game with the exception of spells, hearts, etc. Because of that, I never enjoyed franchises like Mario or Super Smash Bros. because it was so different from the JRPGs I was used to playing.

You can tell me I'm not a true Zelda fan if you want, because I genuinely never liked dungeons (dungeons in Zelda are well-made though), due to the fact that to me they just feel long and tedious. I like Zelda for its side quests, which are incredibly well-thought out and spread throughout the game. Of course, by extension that means Majora's Mask is my favorite game in the series by a mile:lol:

Sorry if this is a long read:( I am definitely going to buy Skyward Sword and I do love Zelda, but I don't think it will ever take the place of my favorite JRPG franchises.o.o
Thats is true. Welcome by the way :) I think Zelda is technically qualified as an Action Adventure game though, that has RPG qualities. The only one I think is an actaul RPG is Zelda II. Thanks for being really mature about this by the way :yes:

One question I still have is that pretty much EVERYONE loved OOT, so why not SS? You could say what you said, but it seemed to not apply to OOT for some reason. Well it doesnt really matter I guess.

P.S. My old favorite is Majora's mask too ;)
 
T

toyall123

Guest
I believe that Ocarina of Time really revolutionized the gaming industry back then.:)

Ocarina of Time: it introduced Z-targeting, which would be recycled in other popular games such as Kingdom Hearts; it pushed the N64's capabilities to the max; successfully moved a popular 2D game franchise into 3d, and much more.:nerd:

I believe that Skyward Sword did not make as many changes from its predecessors as Ocarina of Time did, so people are less o_O about SS than OOT. Fortunately, a game doesn't have to be revolutionary to be great.:clap:

And yes, Zelda is an RPG game, and that's why I specifically stated JRPGs. Just if you wanted to know.:cool:

Edit: Oh wait, I just reread your post about Zelda being an action-adventure game. Yeah, I do play other kinds of games like Super Mario Galaxy. I just enjoy JRPGs so much to the point, it really clouds my judgment.:D
 

JakeProtagonist

Defender of Peace
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Location
Hyrule
Skyward Sword did inovate the Wii I think anyway. It pushed The Wii's Maxium Abilities and the motion control Sword Fighting. When it came to revolutionizing, They did about the same. Bit i guess since OOT was older, it probably had more of impact.
 
T

toyall123

Guest
Skyward Sword did inovate the Wii I think anyway. It pushed The Wii's Maxium Abilities and the motion control Sword Fighting. When it came to revolutionizing, They did about the same. Bit i guess since OOT was older, it probably had more of impact.

You're absolutely right. It did innovate the Wii, but therein also lies the problem. Many gamers have been spoiled by the capabilities of the PS3 and the Xbox 360, and let's face it, the Wii doesn't necessarily have the best technology out of the three:(. Skyward Sword went above and beyond with what it could, but I believe gamers are now so used to seeing amazing graphics or whatever, their views on games like Zelda have been shrouded:tired:.

And yes, since OOT was older, it had less competition back in the day. Few games had accomplished what OOT had done back in the '90s, and since the gaming market was over saturated with low-quality games, it was easy for OOT to dominate. Unfortunately, times have changed, and though Nintendo is still the leader in the gaming industry, many other companies stepped forward to challenge them, especially in America.

As for Skyward Sword, it did innovate a lot, but how many of those did we not expect? Twilight Princess had already done a rough version of motion control sword fighting and Skyward Sword's graphics are polarizing in the gaming community. Regardless though, Skyward Sword does what it needed to do right:nod:
 

Blazestarre

*Insert title here*
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Location
Midwestern US
One big difference between OoT and SS is Nintendo's reputation during each game's release. Back when OoT was released, Nintendo was still the king of gaming. Sega was declining and Sony had yet to release the PS2 that gave them such great success. So, when Nintendo released an amazing game, people wouldn't argue and the game would become wildly popular. It also helped that there had only been four Zelda games prior to OoT (not including the CDi games).

Fast-forward to 2011 and things are a bit different. With Microsoft and Sony dominating the market with the PS2 and Xbox, Nintendo lost a lot of reputation and kids who were once fans of Nintendo began to think of its games as 'kiddy.' Even with the success of the Wii, Nintendo hasn't really shaken that family-friendly reputation and PS3 and 360 fanboys can't comprehend Nintendo coming out with a game that could be considered one of the best games ever. The Internet hasn't helped any, either. Essentially, I think you could say Nintendo is to video games as Disney is to movies.

So, it's not really Zelda people are hating on, it's Nintendo. Zelda just happens to be one of the Nintendo franchises that could be said to be aimed to 'hardcore' players (not that I agree with this mindset), gets quite a bit of attention from the industry, and so is an easy target.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
What I find hilarious is the claims that Skyward Sword is more of the same, when it has one of the most original plots of any video game period. Not to mention the fact that those critics rate the copy-paste sequels of this year higher than SS. What makes it okay when they do it? It's not like any of them have the excuse of being developed by rookie companies. These are games made by Naughty Dog, Epic, Valve, and Bethesda I'm talking about. Everyone turns a blind eye when they can't come up with anything original, but they complain about Nintendo doing it even when they aren't. Now that I think about it, I find it more infuriating than hilarious.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
One big difference between OoT and SS is Nintendo's reputation during each game's release. Back when OoT was released, Nintendo was still the king of gaming. Sega was declining and Sony had yet to release the PS2 that gave them such great success. So, when Nintendo released an amazing game, people wouldn't argue and the game would become wildly popular. It also helped that there had only been four Zelda games prior to OoT (not including the CDi games).

Fast-forward to 2011 and things are a bit different. With Microsoft and Sony dominating the market with the PS2 and Xbox, Nintendo lost a lot of reputation and kids who were once fans of Nintendo began to think of its games as 'kiddy.' Even with the success of the Wii, Nintendo hasn't really shaken that family-friendly reputation and PS3 and 360 fanboys can't comprehend Nintendo coming out with a game that could be considered one of the best games ever. The Internet hasn't helped any, either. Essentially, I think you could say Nintendo is to video games as Disney is to movies.

So, it's not really Zelda people are hating on, it's Nintendo. Zelda just happens to be one of the Nintendo franchises that could be said to be aimed to 'hardcore' players (not that I agree with this mindset), gets quite a bit of attention from the industry, and so is an easy target.

I agree.

The existing discourse on the internet regarding Nintendo games is unbelievably messed up. And "popular and professional" gaming websites like the ones that organize Game Of The Year competitions endorse this discourse.
These websites highlight games that are mostly about graphics and open worlds and pay little attention to games that are based on story and gameplay. No wonder every avarage Joe follows this 'mainstream' opinion on what makes a good game.

What I wouldn't like is that most game developers are going to follow this trend and graphic based games will be the only games that will be made, so that games with a good story and good gameplay will become very rare.
Seriously, I doubt if there is ever going to be a new game with a geniously crafted story like Chrono Trigger, I expect in ten years, games will only be about graphics, so called 'realism' and and a large open world.
 
Last edited:

MW7

Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Location
United States
One big difference between OoT and SS is Nintendo's reputation during each game's release. Back when OoT was released, Nintendo was still the king of gaming. Sega was declining and Sony had yet to release the PS2 that gave them such great success. So, when Nintendo released an amazing game, people wouldn't argue and the game would become wildly popular. It also helped that there had only been four Zelda games prior to OoT (not including the CDi games).

Fast-forward to 2011 and things are a bit different. With Microsoft and Sony dominating the market with the PS2 and Xbox, Nintendo lost a lot of reputation and kids who were once fans of Nintendo began to think of its games as 'kiddy.' Even with the success of the Wii, Nintendo hasn't really shaken that family-friendly reputation and PS3 and 360 fanboys can't comprehend Nintendo coming out with a game that could be considered one of the best games ever. The Internet hasn't helped any, either. Essentially, I think you could say Nintendo is to video games as Disney is to movies.

So, it's not really Zelda people are hating on, it's Nintendo. Zelda just happens to be one of the Nintendo franchises that could be said to be aimed to 'hardcore' players (not that I agree with this mindset), gets quite a bit of attention from the industry, and so is an easy target.

I think this is a big part of it. There's no doubt that both Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword are great games, but the fact that one received only perfect or near perfect reviews whereas the other one received some perfect reviews and some of 8/10s or around that area is confusing. I think maybe the video game industy wasn't so dichotomous back in the day. What I mean is back then a person is either a gamer or not a gamer regardless of what system they owned. Nowadays it seems like everyone is labeled based on whether they own a wii or one of the other two systems. So the people on the HD side of things look down on everything on the wii side. Maybe that's a factor.

I also think the video game media is absolutely screwed up. I read an article on IGN a while ago arguing that the Xbox 360 is leading the market over Playstation 3. The media is so blinded by graphical capabilities that some of them don't even consider Nintendo a true gaming company anymore or at least in the same league as Sony and Microsoft. This article completely ignores the fact that Nintendo currently owns about 44% (they sold 89 million wiis, Sony about 56 and Microsoft about 58 so 89/203= about 44 %) of the market share of home consoles because of how much it dominated Sony and Microsoft this generation. The media is so messed up that they can ignore Nintendo's impact on the market even when Sony and Microsoft clearly have borrowed ideas to release their own motion control devices. I haven't even brought up the fact that Nintendo has consistently dominated the handheld market for 22 years.

The point is that the media is mad at Nintendo for being back on top of the gaming industry because the media thinks that they did it the wrong way and that Sony and Microsoft are making video games the right way by focusing entirely on processing power. I think no matter what game Nintendo releases, including Skyward Sword, someone will hate on it just because Nintendo made it regardless of what the game is like. Skyward Sword isn't a perfect game IMO, but saying it's anything less than 8.5/10 is just completely ridiculous. I made the cutoff 8.5 because many reviewers did place it below that, and IMO the game is way way better than that. There has to be variability in review scores but the distribution of scores for Skyward Sword is a little crazy.
 
M

Major

Guest
Its graphics and Nintendo's reputation. The graphics are what they are, and hardcore Sony and Microsoft fans don't like anything but cutting edge. It's how gaming sites, particularly ones that cater to that crowd, gain attention. They make comments considered bold by their usual audience, and while some express...dislike, others don't outright say it, but respect their ability to go against popular belief to express their "opinion" It helps ensure that they will return to the site. I've also noticed that sites that make a little more dedication to the Microsoft portion of their site, therefore attracting more Xbox fans, give SS a higher score. Why? Because of Nintendo's reputation and legacy. A lot of gamer's know that Nintendo's loss in the past year is Microsoft's gain. Wii and Xbox have coexisted rather well in North America, whereas Sony and Nintendo have battled it out in Japan. Sony fans therefore are more critical of Nintendo's products than Microsoft's are. Microsoft is most popular in NA, while Sony is Euro and Japan, and Big N is all around across regions. Also, as posted by others, timing is important. Unlike OoT and MM, SS dropped in a time when their was a lot more competition, and a lot of great games alongside it. If someone bashed N64 Zelda, people would respond with " Oh yeah, where Sega right now? Having fun with your PS2? Sorry, I forgot, THERE'S A SHORTAGE!" However it's the other way around now. Xbox and PS3 are killing it, while Wii has had nothing this year. Also, review scores are low to gain the attention of Sony and some Microsoft fans.
That's my theory.
 

Dio

~ It's me, Dio!~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Absolute unit
Now, on metacritic 67 critics reviewed SS it got a 93 average score with two mixed reviews, and a 7.7 user score from 712 user ratings. To put this into perspective Twilight princess for the Wii had 73 critics review the game and it has a 95 average score, no mixed reviews were given, only positive. 880 users gave it an average of 9.1. Yes, more people have had a chance to play it but really the majority of reviews come out upon release. TP I don't know if you knew or not, recently became the best selling Zelda of all time, outselling OOT. So surely as it is a popular game perhaps more so than SS so far it would have received hate. TP was hype hype hyped before release too, and people spoke about it before release, I have not heard anyone talk about SS except when I have mentioned it. Same goes for OOT as TP, which was very popular and was considered, and still is considered to be the best game of all time by allot of respectable critics.

SO...

The reason for the hate is I believe that the game does not appeal to the mainstream. OOT appealed to pretty much everyone, there is something for everyone to love in the game, it is not very dark but it is not a kiddie game, it is very grown up and deals with adult themes, allot of the humour will be got by adults, as a young boy I saw nothing funny about zelda simply accusing Ganondorf of trying to take over the world simply because of his physical appearance. The simple fairy tale story formula of good versus evil will keep young children enjoying the game. It appeals to everyone. As I said above.

I will talk about twilight princess now. Twilight princess appealed to the mainstream, not quite as much as OOT, but it still did it pretty well. It used an art style everyone could like. It was something people could talk about, it was a cool game like skyrim. It was similar to OOT in style and gameplay, it had Ganondorf, a well known villain from OOT. Fans of OOT would have liked TP, it had similar elements and the sense of familiarity would have been a comforting return to how zelda used to be, before the WW came out and made changes. Some liked the changes, others hated them and wanted Zelda to be like OOT agan. TP, was the answer to their problems.

Now time to go on to SS. SS blended style elements from both the WW and TP. Which in my opinion was a terrible mistake. When you have a divide in a fanbase, one side likes WW style the other like a TP style, and then a game is made blending the two together, only some people are satisfied. They think ''well at least there was compromise and there are some elements of my favourite style there'. Some think 'well this is fantastic they have created a blend of two styles and the result is perfect'. Then allot are unhappy because their style was not used, and was watered down, and became too much like the style they did not like. Unsatisfied people who think it must be one way or the other. Compromise in gaming will rarely make both sides happy it usually makes both sides unhappy. THIS IS JUST ON ART DIRECTION!

Lets talk gameplay now shall we? SS was a motion controlled game for a series that has not really used motion controls before. In TP it was very little, and waving the wiimote was just like tapping B. Not really a motion controlled game. Back then motion controls were cool and new. Motion controls are not cool to allot of people now, many will have been put off by them and disliked the game because of them. Also people disliked recalibration and re centering of the wiimote. The traditional formula in SS was not quite the same as other zelda and there was not a field.

Change for the sake of change rather than big improvements. That is where I think SS might have gone wrong slightly.People fear and dislike change. Unless the change dramatically improves something, it is not taken too well. (OOT changed gaming as it was in 3d and people loved it) As much as they moan about wanting change, in reality the truth is that they are quite content with similarity and games that are like previous releases. COD is a prime example. Millions sold. Slight improvements with each release and an altered storyline. Graphical improvements and gameplay refinement are changes that are welcomed in gaming. Modernisation, like voice acting, would have been welcomed by gamers. What Nintendo did was fail to reach out to the mainstream whilst changing things that perhaps the hardcore zelda player did not want changing. Critics who gave lower scores said they did not change enough. What they really wanted was change in a different way to how it was done.

Well, here is my take on why it might have had some hate.
 
A

Animated Monste

Guest
When you take a ridiculous amount of time to develop a game and fail to deliver on your promises, there is going to be a strong backlash.

The game has an inflated review score, plain and simple. When the hype rubs off, people will begin to recognize the game's faults. Just like Twilight Princess, Grand Theft Auto 4, and Metal Gear Solid 4.

With such strong competition this year, GOTY contenders have to be extraordinary. Skyward Sword isn't.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Which is why Nintendo held off Skyward Sword till it was within a year of release. Too prevent hype blacklash. Also, GOTY is all based on opinions, not facts.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
I'm fine with mainstream hate, like Animated Monste's post because it's ignorant. I don't know what promises were made that weren't held up. I can only assume the faults he mentions are going back to the same 3 areas over and over. Ok, Skyrim has a large world FILLED to the rim with glitches and bugs...barely even playable on the PS3.

I play with the Wii probably 10x less than other systems, but when a Nintendo made game comes out, I'm more excited for that game than any other because I know it's quality and I know they will postpone release to avoid major bugs and glitches. How many patches have you downloaded for a Zelda game? Zero.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom