Skyward Sword Skyward Sword is the Best Zelda Game of All Time: Agree or Disagree

[Mercedes]

One of my least favourite Zelda games really, didn't enjoy it at all compared to other games and felt it was very flawed, imo. I'm not going to get into why because a) can't be bothered with raging fanboys who can't accept the notion someone feels a different way about a game they like and try and prove an opinion wrong, and b) everything I say will have probably been said before and debated to death, but in my personal experience of the game I definitely thought it was one of the weakest Zelda games. So I certainly disagree.

 

[onebizarrekai]

Skyward Sword's a good game but I have to disagree. It's just not the best one, nor is it really my kind of game either.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

Okay look. If it makes you feel any better, the only thing I liked about this garbage game was Koloktos and the main theme for the game. Other than that, ****** gameplay, story, graphics and music. This is probably the worst game I have ever played in my life. I'll just go back to playing an actual Zelda game like WW, TP, OoT, MM and stuff instead of the garbage I got with SS. I rest my case.

:kirby:

 

[RedLink]

Okay look. If it makes you feel any better, the only thing I liked about this garbage game was Koloktos and the main theme for the game. Other than that, ****** gameplay, story, graphics and music. This is probably the worst game I have ever played in my life. I'll just go back to playing an actual Zelda game like WW, TP, OoT, MM and stuff instead of the garbage I got with SS. I rest my case.

I see now why they call you Craptainfalcon.

One must incorporate gameplay, story and presentation. All of this goes into, as you put it "how fun the game is." And I wasn't just factoring Revolutionary gameplay. It's the entire package, including how OoT implemented ALttP's music, how beautiful it appeared, how it surprised people with its story, how other games (including those in the Zelda series) based their aspects off of what it has to offer, etc.

The only revolutionary gameplay element of OoT is the z-target. Everything else is generic button mashing (I love a ton of those games, but that's a fact). Music, story, etc... I agree were great in OoT, but they felt much more extravagant in SS IMO.

Again, opinions differ. But whenever I see a top 64 games list, the ones near the top are OoT, MM, Conker's Bad Fur Day (I HATE that game so much) and SSB. Mario 64 is on the list, but not usually at the top.

I'm afraid anecdotal evidence cannot be used as a justification for a claim. Unless these lists you found were produced by a series of noted gaming sites.

Perfect scores do not a revolutionary game make. They're just explaining how good the game is from a professional point of view, which, as time has proven, can be completely different from what the fans feel. SS is similar to TP in that manner, in that many gave them extremely high scores, but only half the fans liked what the game brought.

Perfect scores do a revolutionary game make. When you have more than the majority of gaming publications giving it a perfect score, that's a statistic about how great the game is, considering how uncommon it is these days for any game to get this many PERFECT scores. And I'm not just holding this out for SS btw. This applies to OoT and TP as well.

Fans are not a reliable source b/c they're a biased sample.

And you keep saying that I'm using nostalgia as a justification, but I'm confused as to your definition of what that means. Using nostalgia as justification means I like the game more because its a part of my childhood, not because it was better in its time than what we have today. The latter is simple comparison.

I am afraid that is exactly what I am saying. The only thing the "in time" argument can be used for is graphics and framerate. If the gameplay, story, music, etc....all the "fun" factors are not good nowadays, then the game has not aged well. Regardless, this is a very subjective thing so lots of people will assert OoT is better, and vice-versa for SS.

There is nothing wrong with linearity in a video game so long as the game is fun. I Personally think TP did linearity right for the Zelda series, despite many's claim that they didn't enjoy it. The reason it is frequently brought up is because exploration is expected in a Zelda game which many consider to be the opposite of linearity.

Again, I agree that the exploration was flawed in SS compared to previous games. However, I do disagree that exploration and linearity are mutually exclusive. A lot of series like GTA and AC emphasize exploration of their vast environments despite the linear gameplay.

 

[Random Person]

The only revolutionary gameplay element of OoT is the z-target. Everything else is generic button mashing (I love a ton of those games, but that's a fact). Music, story, etc... I agree were great in OoT, but they felt much more extravagant in SS IMO.

I'll just agree to disagree here. I doubt I'll be able to convince you other wise.

I'm afraid anecdotal evidence cannot be used as a justification for a claim. Unless these lists you found were produced by a series of noted gaming sites.

Agree to disagree

Perfect scores do a revolutionary game make. When you have more than the majority of gaming publications giving it a perfect score, that's a statistic about how great the game is, considering how uncommon it is these days for any game to get this many PERFECT scores. And I'm not just holding this out for SS btw. This applies to OoT and TP as well.

Fans are not a reliable source b/c they're a biased sample.

Agree to disagree

I am afraid that is exactly what I am saying. The only thing the "in time" argument can be used for is graphics and framerate. If the gameplay, story, music, etc....all the "fun" factors are not good nowadays, then the game has not aged well. Regardless, this is a very subjective thing so lots of people will assert OoT is better, and vice-versa for SS.

Agree to disagree

 

[RedLink]

Okay, you can just give up. I'm cool with that

Like Juicie and every important reviewer points out, Skyward Sword was a worthy entry in the franchise that spearheaded it forward. I look forward to what Zelda U holds!

 

[JuicieJ]

Perfect scores do a revolutionary game make.

Actually, they don't. Super Mario Galaxy 2 got perfect scores across the board, and it was pretty much just an expansion of Galaxy 1. It got those scores because it was a fantastic game with incredible design and an overload of creativity, not because it was anything new. Review scores are also not necessarily indicative of objective quality. Some games get ridiculous amounts of praise for laughable reasons. GTA IV and GTA V are great examples of this. Hell, even some Nintendo games are this way, such as Star Fox Adventures and Super Mario Sunshine.

Then you have the whole situation of both GameCube Zeldas having higher composite scores than Skyward Sword, which is pretty hard for me to wrap my head around, as nearly every problem Skyward Sword has are much more existent in them, and they did much less in the realm of innovation and breaking new ground -- in fact, they really didn't break any new ground whatsoever, where as SS did by showing just how much you can do with the Wii MotionPlus. Not to mention they were painfully easy.

Basically what I'm getting at is that review scores should only be taken at face value. They can be useful in determining which games you should pay attention to, but they're not the be-all, end-all measurement of a game's quality.

The only revolutionary gameplay element of OoT is the z-target. Everything else is generic button mashing (I love a ton of those games, but that's a fact). Music, story, etc... I agree were great in OoT, but they felt much more extravagant in SS IMO.

I'll just agree to disagree here. I doubt I'll be able to convince you other wise.

If you really think that Ocarina of Time was better in those categories, especially story, then I suggest seeking help getting those nostalgia shades off your face, as they're probably welded onto your skin.

 

[ShadowDiety]

It's a great game, but to me nowhere near the best. Plus honestly, it's one of the only Zelda games that's not that fun to replay in my opinion.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Its a fun game and all but I don't consider it the best. Honestly its like my third favorite game. It had so many pros and cons, the good stuff definatly outweighed the bad stuff but still there were just so many problems with the game. The Wii motion plus was fun but it felt a bit glitchy, the sword would go out of allignment a lot and then I'd have to recalibrate it. I just wish they would have fixed that problem before releasing the game.

 

[ihateghirahim]

Why is there no poll attatched to this? Seriously why not have one?

 

[JuicieJ]

Why is there no poll attatched to this? Seriously why not have one?

Who knows? I dunno.

 

[Jamie]

Some games get ridiculous amounts of praise for laughable reasons. GTA IV and GTA V are great examples of this. Hell, even some Nintendo games are this way, such as Star Fox Adventures and Super Mario Sunshine.

I actually quite like all 4 of those games. Especially GTA V. I believe it deserved all of the praise it received from reviewers.

 

[JuicieJ]

I actually quite like all 4 of those games. Especially GTA V. I believe it deserved all of the praise it received from reviewers.

You believe a game that's fairly decent at executing a ridiculous amount of ideas at once, but never fleshes any of them out very much is worthy of perfect scores? Okay, then.

 

[Jamie]

You believe a game that's fairly decent at executing a ridiculous amount of ideas at once, but never fleshes any of them out very much is worthy of perfect scores? Okay, then.

Why do you need to respond in such an aggressive, condescending manner? It's just my opinion...

 

[RedLink]

Actually, they don't. Super Mario Galaxy 2 got perfect scores across the board, and it was pretty much just an expansion of Galaxy 1. It got those scores because it was a fantastic game with incredible design and an overload of creativity, not because it was anything new. Review scores are also not necessarily indicative of objective quality. Some games get ridiculous amounts of praise for laughable reasons. GTA IV and GTA V are great examples of this. Hell, even some Nintendo games are this way, such as Star Fox Adventures and Super Mario Sunshine.

Then you have the whole situation of both GameCube Zeldas having higher composite scores than Skyward Sword, which is pretty hard for me to wrap my head around, as nearly every problem Skyward Sword has are much more existent in them, and they did much less in the realm of innovation and breaking new ground -- in fact, they really didn't break any new ground whatsoever, where as SS did by showing just how much you can do with the Wii MotionPlus. Not to mention they were painfully easy.

Basically what I'm getting at is that review scores should only be taken at face value. They can be useful in determining which games you should pay attention to, but they're not the be-all, end-all measurement of a game's quality.

Actually none of those games got as many perfect scores as Skyward Sword did. When you have at least 30 publications giving it a perfect score, that's become a statistically significant number. Not even GTA V got that many.

Why do you need to respond in such an aggressive, condescending manner? It's just my opinion...

He wasn't being aggressive, it's just how he comes off :p