Skyward Sword Wasn't Aonuma's Fault

[Lozjam]

SMG2 is it's own story. It's basically DLC that had too much content to be DLC so it became it's own game. In the same way the later Super Luigi U did.

Skyward Sword is Miyamoto and Aonuma's fault. The reason is simple. Two words.

Collective responsibility.

If you oversee a project this large, the whole team takes the blame is things go wrong. It's no good just passing the buck back and forth between the team. The buck has to stop somewhere and it does, with the entire team. If SS failed anywhere, it's the whole SS team's fault it failed. No one individually, just the entire tram as a whole. Of cause the entire teeam takes credit for things done well too.

Would it really be everyone's fault though?
Let's picture this for a second. SS was being developed for 2 and a half years. You are designing the game to not use motion controls. Then, Miyamoto forces you to altogether scrap every single thing you work on to use the Wii Motion Plus. After some testing, you find that the technology just doesn't work. So after about a 3 months of testing, you shrug it off and go back to what you were previously working on. Then Miyamoto comes back and absolutely forces you to use technology that doesn't work. You have to scrap all of your designs, redo all animations, completely remake all enemies and create an entirely new AI system. So the team was forced to start completely from scratch after 2 years of development. Then you have to completely switch gears, work with technology that doesn't work to make it somewhat work, completely remake all AI and make everything designed for this system. On a system that doesn't work. Not only that, but you have a strict deadline despite all these setbacks, because you need to push out this game before the Wii U arrives.

Regarding all of these circumstances. The development team did a great job for what they had to do. But no. The team merely did the best they could with what they had. It was Miyamoto's fault for completely flipping the table on it.

 

[Dio]

Would it really be everyone's fault though?
Let's picture this for a second. SS was being developed for 2 and a half years. You are designing the game to not use motion controls. Then, Miyamoto forces you to altogether scrap every single thing you work on to use the Wii Motion Plus. After some testing, you find that the technology just doesn't work. So after about a 3 months of testing, you shrug it off and go back to what you were previously working on. Then Miyamoto comes back and absolutely forces you to use technology that doesn't work. You have to scrap all of your designs, redo all animations, completely remake all enemies and create an entirely new AI system. So the team was forced to start completely from scratch after 2 years of development. Then you have to completely switch gears, work with technology that doesn't work to make it somewhat work, completely remake all AI and make everything designed for this system. On a system that doesn't work. Not only that, but you have a strict deadline despite all these setbacks, because you need to push out this game before the Wii U arrives.

Regarding all of these circumstances. The development team did a great job for what they had to do. But no. The team merely did the best they could with what they had. It was Miyamoto's fault for completely flipping the table on it.

Its down to the boss at the end of the day. You can sneak things in like was done in OOT and on other occasions you have mentioned. But Miyamoto has the final say. He is the one tying hands and twisting arms and he is ultimately responsible for the final product.

 

[AncientPoe]

There's a lot of interesting conversation going on this thread, but I feel like it's all built on the rather erroneous assumption that Skyward Sword was a failure. In actuality, it was just a failure for a Zelda title, which means it was just mediocre. When you think on it, it actually does quite a few things right.

1. It does a good job of establishing it's characters: Both it's recurring staples (like Link and Zelda) and it's new entires like Groose all feel well rounded and enjoyable. Most people have said they felt more attached to them, and there's a whole horde of y'all clamoring for The Groose to be Set Loose in either Smash Bros, Hyrule Warriors, or both. I call that a victory.

2. Music was top notch: first Zelda with a classical score, and it shows.

3. Does a good job of establishing mood: this is a team effort mostly between the music and visuals, but many of the locations (linear as they were) still felt pretty rich. Faron Wood in particular feels pretty engrossing, at least to me. Other people can say whether or not they agree with me on this point.

4. It had some top shelf dungeon design: While the overworld was nothing to write home about (unless it's an angry letter you're writing) many of the dungeons were actually some of my favorite in the series. Ancient Cistern always comes to mind, but honestly I can't think of a dungeon that I actually hated. Which is funny because there are entires in the series that I think are, on the whole, much stronger games that have downright interminable or tedious dungeons: Majora's Mask had Snowpeak, Ocarina of Time had the Fire Temple, and Twilight Princess had both the Goron Mines and (shudder) the City in the Sky which stands as my least favorite Zelda dungeon to this day in every category.

5. Visuals were quite appealing: Throughout the game I can't think of any instance where I thought the visuals felt jarring or poorly executed. I think SS managed to strike the balance between cartoonish vibrance and realistic proportions. Well, okay, I do have one complaint: Link's silly lips. God I laughed so hard when I first saw those... but that's nowhere near enough to break the game!

 

[Dio]

There's a lot of interesting conversation going on this thread, but I feel like it's all built on the rather erroneous assumption that Skyward Sword was a failure. In actuality, it was just a failure for a Zelda title, which means it was just mediocre. When you think on it, it actually does quite a few things right.

1. It does a good job of establishing it's characters: Both it's recurring staples (like Link and Zelda) and it's new entires like Groose all feel well rounded and enjoyable. Most people have said they felt more attached to them, and there's a whole horde of y'all clamoring for The Groose to be Set Loose in either Smash Bros, Hyrule Warriors, or both. I call that a victory.

2. Music was top notch: first Zelda with a classical score, and it shows.

3. Does a good job of establishing mood: this is a team effort mostly between the music and visuals, but many of the locations (linear as they were) still felt pretty rich. Faron Wood in particular feels pretty engrossing, at least to me. Other people can say whether or not they agree with me on this point.

4. It had some top shelf dungeon design: While the overworld was nothing to write home about (unless it's an angry letter you're writing) many of the dungeons were actually some of my favorite in the series. Ancient Cistern always comes to mind, but honestly I can't think of a dungeon that I actually hated. Which is funny because there are entires in the series that I think are, on the whole, much stronger games that have downright interminable or tedious dungeons: Majora's Mask had Snowpeak, Ocarina of Time had the Fire Temple, and Twilight Princess had both the Goron Mines and (shudder) the City in the Sky which stands as my least favorite Zelda dungeon to this day in every category.

5. Visuals were quite appealing: Throughout the game I can't think of any instance where I thought the visuals felt jarring or poorly executed. I think SS managed to strike the balance between cartoonish vibrance and realistic proportions. Well, okay, I do have one complaint: Link's silly lips. God I laughed so hard when I first saw those... but that's nowhere near enough to break the game!

Its not too bad of a standalone game besides the recalibration issues many people had, the waggle to win, fighting mechanics, the jarring alerts every time you load up a save and collect items you have already collected before. It still feels like an 06 game because of these issues (There's also the lip flapping of characters as they garble like fish with no voices coming out which is just an outdated method of character speech, kept only out of fear and disguised as retaining tradition- akin to choosing to crap in a hole in the ground rather than use a toilet)

SS's real issue was it being a Zelda game as you said. Its a series with an established lore which a lot of its fans are very invested in. It was lauded as a great prequel to OOT whilst answering none of the questions we had about the game and making only vague connections to it. Its very underwhelming as part of the canon.

I think it did well creating a story about rescuing a dear friend, making you care about her and creating likeable main characters with a good depth to them who you also care about. I also think having a villain who you encounter frequently and can observe his changes over the course of the game was an improvement over Zant who you have no idea is insane until the very end.

 

[AncientPoe]

Its not too bad of a standalone game besides the recalibration issues many people had, the waggle to win, fighting mechanics, the jarring alerts every time you load up a save and collect items you have already collected before. It still feels like an 06 game because of these issues (There's also the lip flapping of characters as they garble like fish with no voices coming out which is just an outdated method of character speech, kept only out of fear and disguised as retaining tradition- akin to choosing to crap in a hole in the ground rather than use a toilet)

SS's real issue was it being a Zelda game as you said. Its a series with an established lore which a lot of its fans are very invested in. It was lauded as a great prequel to OOT whilst answering none of the questions we had about the game and making only vague connections to it. Its very underwhelming as part of the canon.

I think it did well creating a story about rescuing a dear friend, making you care about her and creating likeable main characters with a good depth to them who you also care about. I also think having a villain who you encounter frequently and can observe his changes over the course of the game was an improvement over Zant who you have no idea is insane until the very end.

The one thing I'm hoping for most is that Nintendo and the Zelda dev team really uses this game as a lesson for their future endeavors. It is a very clear example of things that work well and things that do not work at all when creating a game for this exalted series.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

he's ruining star fox,he's ruining paper mario,he's ruining 3d mario,he's ruining zelda,he's ruining f zero's comeback,he's ruining this country
;-;

 

[Hylianhero91]

I will never understand why people are so critical of SS. I loved that game! Maybe it has some flaws, but the good parts more than make up for them. For one, the story was simple, but it was great. I loved the relationship between Link and Zelda. It made you feel connected to her and want to save her. I also loved how the dark tone of the game clashed with the bright and cheerful graphics. The soundtrack was awesome and there was a lot of meaningful gameplay happening outside of the dungeons. Again, why are people griping about this game? It's fantastic.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

I will never understand why people are so critical of SS. I loved that game! Maybe it has some flaws, but the good parts more than make up for them. For one, the story was simple, but it was great. I loved the relationship between Link and Zelda. It made you feel connected to her and want to save her. I also loved how the dark tone of the game clashed with the bright and cheerful graphics. The soundtrack was awesome and there was a lot of meaningful gameplay happening outside of the dungeons. Again, why are people griping about this game? It's fantastic.

linearity,crap overworld,very little exploration,bit too much padding,terrible prequel,motion controls felt shoehorned in sometimes [like bomb rolling or swimming],really easy,some weird design choices
this is just from what i gather so don't hold me onto this,i did really enjoy the game and definitely think it gets more hate than it needs,but it does have the most apparent problems out of any zelda game

 

[Soul]

Would it really be everyone's fault though?
Let's picture this for a second. SS was being developed for 2 and a half years. You are designing the game to not use motion controls. Then, Miyamoto forces you to altogether scrap every single thing you work on to use the Wii Motion Plus. After some testing, you find that the technology just doesn't work. So after about a 3 months of testing, you shrug it off and go back to what you were previously working on. Then Miyamoto comes back and absolutely forces you to use technology that doesn't work. You have to scrap all of your designs, redo all animations, completely remake all enemies and create an entirely new AI system. So the team was forced to start completely from scratch after 2 years of development. Then you have to completely switch gears, work with technology that doesn't work to make it somewhat work, completely remake all AI and make everything designed for this system. On a system that doesn't work. Not only that, but you have a strict deadline despite all these setbacks, because you need to push out this game before the Wii U arrives.

Regarding all of these circumstances. The development team did a great job for what they had to do. But no. The team merely did the best they could with what they had. It was Miyamoto's fault for completely flipping the table on it.

Interesting stuff, but do we know that's how it went, or is that just a theory of yours? Not saying you're lying, genuinely interested.

 

[Polychrome]

The lore was not fleshed out. It was contradictory and either did not deliver the answers promised or delivered them in an underwhelming way

I've been playing these games for 18 years and I've played them a lot. If you know the stories of the games you will realise Skyward Sword contradicts a lot of the established lore and its story is poorer than many fanfictions.

I don't see how anyone can defend the game in terms of lore or gameplay unless they are new to Zelda. Just because the characters were likable or you care for them does not mean the lore is good. The lore is something within the Zelda series as a whole not just in one entry and if there is an entry that contradicts the established lore which fans love, then that entry is simply not very good.

Are we really going to pull the "you're not a real fan if" card here? I thought you were a tad bit more respectful of your fellow posters than that.

If we're going to base issues on contradictions, we may as well throw out the entire series. Every game contradicts each other constantly. Just the fact that we have alternate timelines is a contradiction.

Something I've noticed with Legend of Zelda in general is that every story refers to others in an almost mythological sense. No game says "Okay, so here's exactly what happened 200 years ago down to the letter." No, it's more like "According to legend" and we hear it from the point of view of stories passed down through generations. Most of the stories are barely connected together by tiny threads of information, which is far more than enough time for information and stories to be lost or evolve. This is the NORM of Zelda, not the exception.

Frankly, I liked how Demise tied all the villains together, including the sort-of-Ganondorf-but-not-quite ones. (I'm looking at you, Malladus.) I love how Hylia gave a background for the Royal Family, and for Hyrule itself. (Never thought it made sense for Zelda 2 to show up where it did in the Timeline.) I like how the Crest of Hyrule has a history now, and isn't just some random bird with a triforce head. I like how the Oocca now have possible explanations behind them, as they seemed more like a dying race than a high-tech culture. I liked the whole "Atlantis" implication that there was a buried time and culture before Hyrule ever existed. I liked the idea of the spirits of the regions changing forms over time.

If you don't like that? Fine. But don't start implying those of us who like it are somehow unworthy of being fans.

 

[the8thark]

The one thing I'm hoping for most is that Nintendo and the Zelda dev team really uses this game as a lesson for their future endeavors. It is a very clear example of things that work well and things that do not work at all when creating a game for this exalted series.

We all can agree and disagree as to who's fault this was. Agree to disagree qwe all do. But I agree with the post I am quoting here. I really hope the good and bad parts of SS are learned from for future Zelda titles. SS does have very clear good points and very clear flaws.

 

[Dio]

Are we really going to pull the "you're not a real fan if" card here? I thought you were a tad bit more respectful of your fellow posters than that.

If we're going to base issues on contradictions, we may as well throw out the entire series. Every game contradicts each other constantly. Just the fact that we have alternate timelines is a contradiction.

Something I've noticed with Legend of Zelda in general is that every story refers to others in an almost mythological sense. No game says "Okay, so here's exactly what happened 200 years ago down to the letter." No, it's more like "According to legend" and we hear it from the point of view of stories passed down through generations. Most of the stories are barely connected together by tiny threads of information, which is far more than enough time for information and stories to be lost or evolve. This is the NORM of Zelda, not the exception.

Frankly, I liked how Demise tied all the villains together, including the sort-of-Ganondorf-but-not-quite ones. (I'm looking at you, Malladus.) I love how Hylia gave a background for the Royal Family, and for Hyrule itself. (Never thought it made sense for Zelda 2 to show up where it did in the Timeline.) I like how the Crest of Hyrule has a history now, and isn't just some random bird with a triforce head. I like how the Oocca now have possible explanations behind them, as they seemed more like a dying race than a high-tech culture. I liked the whole "Atlantis" implication that there was a buried time and culture before Hyrule ever existed. I liked the idea of the spirits of the regions changing forms over time.

If you don't like that? Fine. But don't start implying those of us who like it are somehow unworthy of being fans.

I'm not saying he is unworthy, but he is uneducated and I am putting him straight. Anyone can like Skyward Sword if they want but loling about someone telling you the game is completely inconsistent like he did was disrespectful and just proved his own ignorance.

There are minor inconsistencies in the series which are non impactful. I have have pointed out in the past the major contradictions and which games dont make sense being in particular placements or in the timeline at all.

Demise didn't tie all the villains together. He was made specifically to look like Ganondorf. Not malladus, not Vaati, not majora. Ganondorf. The only villain he explained the existence of.

Demise was also so poorly executed as a villain with mere moments onscreen, zero fleshing out, before you fight him, that he as an answer to of one of the most popular villains in gaming, is just insulting.

 

[AncientPoe]

Demise was also so poorly executed as a villain with mere moments onscreen, zero fleshing out, before you fight him, that he as an answer to of one of the most popular villains in gaming, is just insulting.

Just do what I do with the Star Wars prequels. Pretend that it didn't happen!

 

[Dio]

Just do what I do with the Star Wars prequels. Pretend that it didn't happen!

Really? I thought the Phantom Menace was the greatest film of all time.

 

[Polychrome]

Demise didn't tie all the villains together. He was made specifically to look like Ganondorf. Not malladus, not Vaati, not majora. Ganondorf. The only villain he explained the existence of.

Malladus looked specifically like a train with a Ganondorf face on it. I'll admit I don't include "sequel" bosses such as Majora, as they were intended as "other adventures" beyond Ganondorf. And while Vaati had two games to himself, he appeared alongside Ganon in Four Swords Adventures.

Demise was also so poorly executed as a villain with mere moments onscreen, zero fleshing out, before you fight him, that he as an answer to of one of the most popular villains in gaming, is just insulting.

Or maybe it was a Japanese Demon answer to said villain? A creation myth of sorts? I don't consider that insulting. I consider it a reference to Shinto, which added to the mythological quality of that particular leg of the series, not to mention the overall mood of the game. Zelda spent most of the game as a Miko of sorts, so this made sense.

Sometimes evil doesn't need a reason. It certainly didn't need a reason in Ocarina of Time, and in many other situations, he is simply the "big evil" to introduce the smaller "villain of the day". Skyward Sword was no different there. The only game in which Ganondorf had a motive that wasn't out of a Saturday morning cartoon was Wind Waker, and that game was pretty much spit on by "real fans" for years. I was sure as heck around to see it, as the first Zelda game came out when I was 6.

So let's just drop the whole who gets to be a real fan thing, okay? Someone saying that they don't feel it was inconsistent with the other games may have their reasons, as I do.