Skyward Swords Weak Points and Nintendo's Dirty Marketing

[steve12345]

(EDIT: This post contains a less positive opinion on Skyward Sword. I'd like to start a discussion here. If you think you can't handle an alternate view or you think you are unable to type a well-argumented opinion, please do not read this)




Hi,

Anyone here remember those wonderful statements?

"This game has soooo much content, it doesn't even matter we are showing so much! Even Miyamoto himself hasn't had the time to play though all the content!"

"In this game is everything that made all past Zelda games so good! 25 years of Zelda into experience one game!"


I don't know what other marketing lines Nintendo used in advance of Skyward Sword's release, but now, 3 months later these lines seem rather clownesque.

Don't get me wrong! Skyward Sword was a great game. Motion Controls were applicated into a game better than ever before in gaming history. Playing Skyward Sword for the first time was really very good. This game contains some of the best dungeons ever created in gaming history as well and these were what made that first playthrough so damn good. As a player, you were constantly surprised by these dungeons.
But looking back three months after the game's release, you have to admit that there are also lot of apects to Skyward Sword that just weren't that good at all or even plain bad.

Before the game's release Nintendo stated multiple times how Skyloft was packed with deep sidequests just like Clocktown. Now, I only remember some small fetch quests that all lead to the same reward; gratitude crystals.

Before the game's release Nintendo stated multiple times how the game contained sooo much content that it didn't even matter they were spoiling so much in all the trailers. Well, I didn't even find one area in the game that I hadn't already seen, so what "sooo much content" were they screaming about?



It's like they were hyping up every aspect of the game in numerous trailers, interviews and conferences, but now turns out they were just camouflaging the game's weak parts.

The day/night cycle in this game was misplaced, weird and highly unneeded and still they were selling it like it was something unique, new and fresh.


Let's talk about the game's plot:
The first part of the game was chasing Zelda while competing with an interesting antagonist named Ghirahim who wanted to resurrect his master, the second part was upgrading your sword with the three flames in order to get to Zelda, while Ghirahim was figuring out how to get to Zelda as well. Eventually Link gets to Zelda, finally finds out what is going on and destroys Ghirahims master in the present, by making his wish to the Triforce, but Ghirahim succeeds to resurrect his master anyway, by going back to the past, a battle between Link and the master emerges and Link wins.

Is this 2011 standard of what a good plot is? I know games released in 1990-1995 that have WAY better plots than that. Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI, Secret of Mana...



What about Zelda's good old Piece of Heart collecting? Just douse the Goddess Cubes! Well, I was just watching the walkthrough pages on this website made me realize there are many Pieces of Hearts in Majora's Mask that I have never found (and there is even a minigame in which you can shoot at Koume after you beat Odalwa? I never knew that!) Now, I haven't even finished Hero Mode, but I see there isn't anything remarkable that I haven't already found/seen/done yet in Skyward Sword.


Where is the character development? I always knew that character development was never exactly Zelda's strong point, but at least Twilight Princess had Midna. What character's personality changes during the storyline in Skyward Sword? What characters' true intentions become finally revealed during the heat of a huge battle? What character in Skyward Sword goes through this fascinating transformation? In Okami (2008), the moment when Susanno turns up during the first battle with Orochi and Orochi tries to persuade him into forming a bloodband with him in order to become even more powerfull and Susanno refuses and starts attacking him, it just works! That is impressive character development! Anyone who played Okami will know what I'm talking about. When in Chrono Trigger (1995 (17 years ago!!)) in Zeal Kingdom the mysterious prophet turned out to be Magus, the evil wizard from the Middle Ages, who started to attack the main antagonist Lavos to fulfill his own personal goal, it just works! It's sad to see that a game aspiring to be the absolute best nowadays, and whose creators were screaming about the "soooo much content" in advance of the game's release, doesn't even contain this kind of character development. No, instead they come up with Groose and market him like he's made of gold, because in the beginning he hates Link and near the end he helps Link, OMG such a teardrawer! I didn't hear Okami's creators screaming about the "sooooo much content" in advance of the game's release. They just shut up and concentrated on actually creating a full game!

A full game...

Skyward Sword is not a full game. It has good motion controls and the best dungeons ever created, but it lacks in every other department.




As a long time Nintendo fan (I owned a gameboy and played Wario Land when I was 4), all I can say is that Nintendo needs to shake themselves up. Spending five years to create Skyward Sword wasn't worth it, if you look at the actual result.

"Yeah we concentrated on what made the past 25 years of Zelda so good, took these elements and put them together in Skyward Sword". Like their customers aren't going to notice the absurdity of these statements a few months later...

And ofcourse Zelda has a big fanbase and all, but that doesn't mean Nintendo spending 5 years to create an incomplete game and then overmarket it to their own loyal fanbase is such a good idea! They showed every area of the game in advance and suggested it was only the tip of the iceberg. That's quite dirty, if you ask me, expecially regarding the fact their very own Zelda fans are such a loyal fanbase.





Nintendo needs to learn from other games and other companies.
They need to learn about REAL character development, so that they don't rediculously overmarket Groose.
They need to learn about REAL antagonist development, so that they don't kill an interesting antagonist in order for some strange 'Hi, you dont really know me but yeahh... heheh'.
They need to learn about how to create a REAL interesting plot, so that they don't over-market a romance between Link and Zelda and cleverly suggest Demon Lord Ghirahim and the Sheikah woman are both part of a bigger tribe, while they are really just two lone wolfs.
They need to learn about how to organise their work more efficiently, so that they don't have to do in 5 years, what could actually be done in half the time.
They need to learn that all energy put into screaming about how 'sooo much content' the game has, could have also been put in actually creating sooo much content.


Anyway, Skyward Sword was a great game; dungeons were fantastic, fun gameplay and well applied motion controls (I didn't mind the having-to-recalibrate-sometimes at all).
But it could have been waaaay better if Nintendo would actually be open to learn new things from games with storylines, plots and characters(-development) that were created by other companies than themselves.
And the marketingcampaign for Skyward Sword was quite dirty.

 

[MW7]

I really wasn't that disappointed by Skyward Sword's sidequests. You're right that an inordinate amount of them involved fetching an item with drowsing, but there were a couple of quality ones that did remind me of Majora's Mask. Really I thought Skyward Sword's sidequests were one of its strong points because outside of Wind Waker and Majora's Mask the sidequests in Zelda games have been limited. Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess had cool collectathon sidequests but nothing even comparable to the high quality sidequests of Majora's Mask. So in this respect I thought Skyward Sword was actually a step up from Twilight Princess at the very least.

About the dirty marketing you do have a point, but I think you may have believed the hype a little too much. I know I overhyped the game in my mind and ended up being massively disappointed despite Skyward Sword's high quality. One thing related to what you talked about was how Miyamoto said the game would take between 50-100 hours. He failed to mention that he was including Hero Mode in that estimate. I think that was unfair because Hero Mode is far from being whole new content. I guess I'm just bitter that Nintendo is content to make "second quests" into "second playthroughs" now despite how the original Legend of Zelda had a true second quest.

I don't really care that much about plot or character development so I don't have anything to say about that. Most of my complaints about the game were gameplay related such as how the bug/treasure notifications constantly interrupted gameplay (and you couldn't turn them off). That was one of many game design decisions that was absolutely baffling to me- another would be how Hero Mode can only be played as a second playthrough instead of a second mode like how Ocarina of Time 3d lets you choose master quest whenever you want after beating the normal mode once. In Skyward Sword you have to replay the regular quest a whole new time just if you want to replay hero mode. Tons of little things like this piled up in my mind and make Skyward Sword a sore subject for me. With just a few tweaks here and there my experience of the game would have been tremendously improved. As it stands Skyward Sword is a huge disappointment for me, and now I think Nintendo is completely devoid of common sense. And I'm talking about the same Skyward Sword that is my favorite game made in the last eight or so years (going all the way back to Wind Waker before there was a game better in my mind).

 

[bulbasaur]

I am really underwhelmed by SS but what really really got to me was the overworld. Or lack there of.

It was nothing they way Nintendo marketed it was like WW + TP in the one game. Unfortunately what turned out was a small area of sky where goddess cubes will force you to explore what little there is to and 3 areas below with no interconnection and no real exploration required.

And there was also the start of the game with sooooooooo many cut-scenes that basically say "Heads up link and Zelda are childhood friends this will; motivate you to save her" God that was weak.

But yea those were my Major Beefs with SS. Well that and the fact that Nintendo and Many fans were claiming it to be "The greatest/Favourite game ever" before it was released.

 

[JuicieJ]

Thing is, Zelda isn't supposed to be based on story. It never has been and it never should be. The focus is the gameplay. Sure, I'm glad they stepped up the story a bit, but making it the main focus should never happen. I don't think complaining about it not being on the same level as some other game series story-wise is a legitimate complaint for a series that doesn't revolve around the story. Just my opinion.

Oh, and there actually was a lot of content. In fact, it's almost double the amount of content than any other Zelda game has had before. Miyamoto wasn't kidding when he said the game could last from 50-100 hours. That's an accurate statement. It took me 75 hours to 100% the game. That's crazy for a Zelda game. The maximum any Zelda game had taken me before was 40. The amount of mini-games only added to the content from the side-quests, to boot. I honestly can't say I agree with you on most of this post. It has some good points, but most of them aren't completely sound.

 

[GoldenGengle64]

Skyward Sword is a great game, but there were two things that bugged me:

A.) The graphics. They were just sometime... too happy. While it was a nice art style, I just found that sometimes the game was a little too cheery for the plot itself... it just didn't really click with a creepy guy like Ghirahim saying that he'd torture Link to the point where he go deaf from his own screams. Yeah, just doesn't seem to fit. While I do really like the graphical style, I just think that sometimes it didn't fit well with the game's plot. Also, I have a big tv, and I gotta say that when I first started playing SS, I wasn't sure if the slightly gritty/blurred effect was intentional or not. Not really a big deal, but it did take some time to adjust to.

B.) The lack of exploration. One of my favorite things about Zelda is exploring and finding hidden areas and easter eggs and other secrets. I just felt a bit let down by the lack of deep exploration in the game. In places like Faron Woods, there just wasn't a lot to do. No "Kikwi Village" or anything. Eldin Mountain was alright, but it got harder and harder to explore as the lava rose. There were some really neat areas in SS, but overall I felt exploration wasn't nearly as good as it has been in previously Zelda games.

 

[Kupsacker]

The only thing I agree with you on is the sidequests of Skyloft thing. I wanted more to do up there too. As for the rest of your points, I don't agree with them. It seems you're just taking a super pessimistic view on them.

 

[dotngtrtech]

I never thought the marketing was deceptive, but I do think Skyward Sword has a few weaknesses. The four hours of tutorial at the beginning of the game was not really necessary. I could see it being useful if they didn't include a manual with the game, but, there's a manual with it. Announcing the discovery of a "new" bug after restarting a save game gets old especially if you already have the bug in your collection. The thing I disliked the most is the save game system. Finding a statue to save at was pretty lame.

All in all, Skyward Sword is a great Zelda game, but it does have it's flaws.

- Dave

 

[Vanessa28]

The things I didn´t like was the continuous interruption when you catched a claw or bug or something and the fact you couldn´t skip cutscenes. i mean after playing it once you know what is coming

 

[Shadao]

A simple plot can still be a good plot if done well. In my opinion, Skyward Sword has a great plot for a game series infamous for having timeline-confusion and very simple plots. As for Nintendo "dirty marketing" for not delievering, I thought they did delivered if you did not became over-hyped. As for character development, much of it is played subtle such as Impa's opinion on Link changes after her initial berate on him for being late and Ghirahim goes from being over-confident and smuggish to absolute axe-crazy and enraged at the very sight of Link (imo it was both awesome and creepy).

 

[Hyrulian]

Hey! I liked that day-night cycle! :p

Well, nintendo obviously knows how to do character development, just look at Majoras mask, they had very well developed characters in that game. And in TWW Medli and Makar, Aryl, that bottle quest with the poor girl, even your grandmother you cared for. In Twilight princess you had Midna, and I cared for the kids and Ilia. But in SS I didn't have a reason to care for anyone but Zelda... I mean "I'm not very strong! help me!" or "bring me some soup!" or "Can you see if this girl likes me?" Why should I care? I'm trying to save Zelda and the entire WORLD. In the other games I cared because of how the characters were developed and there problems mattered. And plus, they weren't begging me to help them with there pity problems, most of the time you helped them because you wanted to, not because you were asked to, unless the problem was really close to there heart.

Now the plot isn't that bad, sure on paper it is, but that's just 'cause its Zelda. Although the game wasn't that emotional for me, the way the story was told was well done IMO, and that's what Zelda is about. Zelda games don't have this mind shattering plots, which change the way of thinking about plots for the rest of your life, but what Zelda games do change is the way an old story can be told so uniquely, it shows that it isn't just how well written a plot is, but how the plot is told. Although I think Zelda's story needs a bit of a shake-up for it to last another 25 years, I don't find this plot to be as bad as you think it is. Simply because a plot is more then its summary.

The main problem I have with this game is all the missed opportunity, adding other islands in the sky could not only make the game feel more dense(which is what they promised) but it could of added for more of a reason to the knight school(a little war would make things more interesting), the characters in both the world above and the world below could have been more developed(especially those gorons.. Where did the come from!?), and more holes and caves to discover(I thought thats what Zelda was about anyway). Loved the game, but so much they missed! D:

And I know why it took 'em 5 years to make the game; the gameplay. That whole motion plus? The amazing dungeons? Yeah, THATS what all the time went into, not the plot or characters, even the exploration probably got lost because they were working on those amazing dungeons. The game was great because of the things that had to do with the land below, it was all because they decided to not deal with any of the other stuff. Which is why its not my favorite Zelda, if they kept on working on the side-quests and exploration, I might of enjoyed the game better, but maybe not if it were to do so at the expense of the land below.

 

[DeletedUser9]

Reading over your arguments, I can't say I disagree with absolutely everything; Skyward Sword was an imperfect game, wasn't quite what I was expecting from Nintendo, and definitely needed work in some areas due to... frankly bizarre mistakes. That said, it is my new favorite Zelda game and I take up issue with several portions of your post. I can respect that you didn't like the game, definitely, but some of your actual argument, while fine as a personal feeling about the game, don't feel to me like they're fair from an objective standpoint. Particularly, I think you're holding Skyward Sword to an unfair set of preconceived notions you had about the game, some of which I believe may have come from your own presumptions and not actual promises Nintendo made.

I'll get into details on that as I break down your post, but before I get started there is one thing worth noting... Skyward Sword was never going to be a perfect game. It was always going to have problems, as pretty much every game does. Regardless of Nintendo's promises, thinking otherwise would have been completely unrealistic.

Anyone here remember those wonderful statements?

"This game has soooo much content, it doesn't even matter we are showing so much! Even Miyamoto himself hasn't had the time to play though all the content!"

"In this game is everything that made all past Zelda games so good! 25 years of Zelda into experience one game!"

I don't know what other marketing lines Nintendo used in advance of Skyward Sword's release, but now, 3 months later these lines seem rather clownesque.

Right off, here's a good example of what I'm talking about. These are not exact quotes. These are not Nintendo's words. They're not even really paraphrasing. These are your impressions about the game before it came out based on what you saw and heard. I do recall some of those statements, but I recall them being worded significantly (and crucially) differently. Nintendo promised between 50-100 hours of gameplay. Now, no matter what one may glean from that, that's a huge, huuuuge ratio, and is clearly a very noncommittal number. If you play through absolutely everything the game has to offer (that includes Hero Mode, too) and you get over 50 hours on your total time... then Nintendo has kept their promise. That is exactly what they said. Nothing more, nothing less.

I clocked over 50 hours on my first run through the game, before even getting to Hero Mode, so the content quantity is definitely plenty. You discuss more of the quality of the content later, so we'll get to that, but in terms of the promised gameplay time and promised amount of stuff to do, it was delivered exactly as they promised. I can also tell you right off that Nintendo never said anything like this: "This game has soooo much content, it doesn't even matter we are showing so much!" Not at all.

The second quote is also highly exaggerated, but if I recall the lines it's based on were merely saying what I'd been saying: the game is a major fusion of core elements of many, many Zelda games. MM, TWW, TP, PH... etc. Again, what they promised was true, regardless of misconceptions or additional assumptions.

But looking back three months after the game's release, you have to admit that there are also lot of apects to Skyward Sword that just weren't that good at all or even plain bad.

I admit that some things weren't as good as they could have been, but not "that good at all" or "bad"? No, actually. Despite minor annoyances, I was on the edge of my seat the entire game, because of both the gameplay and the story. Thrilling experience for me.

Before the game's release Nintendo stated multiple times how Skyloft was packed with deep sidequests just like Clocktown. Now, I only remember some small fetch quests that all lead to the same reward; gratitude crystals.

Before the game's release Nintendo stated multiple times how the game contained sooo much content that it didn't even matter they were spoiling so much in all the trailers. Well, I didn't even find one area in the game that I hadn't already seen, so what "sooo much content" were they screaming about?

Again, that is an exaggerated quote. They said it was similar. The "just like" part was language the fans decided to use, including myself. Nintendo actually never committed to saying it was very much like Clock Town at all, just that it was kind of similar in concept. And either way, it was basically Clock Town lite. No time cycle, so obviously it couldn't be as deep, since a huge portion of MM's depth came from the daily schedules. People did change throughout the game, and there were many sidequests that weren't much different from MM's. They were just simple. The whole mechanic was essentially the game's version of the "Gold Skulltulas." Instead of spiders, you collected Gratitude Crystals.

Again, I don't recall Nintendo ever saying that there was tons more so it didn't matter what they showed in the trailers. I don't even remember them commenting on that. I know some fans assumed there was heaps more that they weren't showing, but that's still not a false promise on Nintendo's part. Either way, while the areas were all shown, many, many individual gameplay sections were not.

It's like they were hyping up every aspect of the game in numerous trailers, interviews and conferences, but now turns out they were just camouflaging the game's weak parts.

The day/night cycle in this game was misplaced, weird and highly unneeded and still they were selling it like it was something unique, new and fresh.

You need to realize that advertising is selling a product. You need to make it out to be awesome. If for a second you dial it down and say "okay, well it's not freakin' incredible, but it's pretty good", you're simply not going to sell as well. You're upset with a basic and necessary advertising technique, and while I can understand that frustration, aiming it at Nintendo is completely misdirected. All advertising is camouflaging weaknesses. That's advertising. And all products have weaknesses.

But yes, I agree the Day/Night cycle was handled in a pretty ****** way. Liked some of their ideas, but they mishandled it. I don't recall them ever playing it up though. Nintendo never mentioned it. Other sources briefly mentioned it after seeing it confirmed. No one official said it was going to be incredible. No one even focused on it.

What about Zelda's good old Piece of Heart collecting? Just douse the Goddess Cubes! Well, I was just watching the walkthrough pages on this website made me realize there are many Pieces of Hearts in Majora's Mask that I have never found (and there is even a minigame in which you can shoot at Koume after you beat Odalwa? I never knew that!) Now, I haven't even finished Hero Mode, but I see there isn't anything remarkable that I haven't already found/seen/done yet in Skyward Sword.

Again sorta sounds like you're holding the SS/MM comparison to unrealistic expectations, though maybe you were just using it as an example. Either way, I actually liked that Skyward Sword was a little simpler in terms of side content. I don't like it when a game makes me jump through hoops just to experience all the extras. Extras should be fun, definitely challenging, but not frustrating. I thought Skyward Sword was relaxed about it, and at least for a change I thought it was really cool. I don't see how that's objectively bad.

Where is the character development? I always knew that character development was never exactly Zelda's strong point, but at least Twilight Princess had Midna. What character's personality changes during the storyline in Skyward Sword? What characters' true intentions become finally revealed during the heat of a huge battle? What character in Skyward Sword goes through this fascinating transformation? In Okami (2008), the moment when Susanno turns up during the first battle with Orochi and Orochi tries to persuade him into forming a bloodband with him in order to become even more powerfull and Susanno refuses and starts attacking him, it just works! That is impressive character development! Anyone who played Okami will know what I'm talking about. When in Chrono Trigger (1995 (17 years ago!!)) in Zeal Kingdom the mysterious prophet turned out to be Magus, the evil wizard from the Middle Ages, who started to attack the main antagonist Lavos to fulfill his own personal goal, it just works! It's sad to see that a game aspiring to be the absolute best nowadays, and whose creators were screaming about the "soooo much content" in advance of the game's release, doesn't even contain this kind of character development. No, instead they come up with Groose and market him like he's made of gold, because in the beginning he hates Link and near the end he helps Link, OMG such a teardrawer! I didn't hear Okami's creators screaming about the "sooooo much content" in advance of the game's release. They just shut up and concentrated on actually creating a full game!

A full game...

Skyward Sword is not a full game. It has good motion controls and the best dungeons ever created, but it lacks in every other department.

Nintendo didn't even market the storyline in an extreme way, and neither did they mention Groose. This is where I begin to majorly question the foundation of your arguments, because Groose wasn't made all that big a deal of... at all. He was barely even shown. I remember a lengthy period of time where pictures of the "rival" were really hard to come by. The best we had was a fuzzy shot of him on his bird during the Wing Ceremony. Your pre-release memories seem fuzzy, or at the very least, your pre-release expectations really unrealistic. I'm not trying to insult you; I was expecting more from the game myself, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start yelling at Nintendo for not delivering on a promise they never made me.

Either way, good character development? As JuicieJ said, Zelda has never been a game about story. It's about gameplay. That's always been and probably always will be the point. Could it be handled better? Yes. Should it? Yes. That doesn't mean it's terrible. It doesn't even mean it's bad. It means it could be better. Zelda stories are good, even great, for what they are. They're simple tales to fuel the game. They do that job flawlessly. Simple is not bad.

Well developed characters?

-Link, despite never speaking, shows an emotional journey as he leaves his home and has to become a mighty hero. The concept of having to become hard, tough, and unbreakable ("you and your sword must grow together") was a bigger point than ever in Skyward Sword.

-Zelda, she went through basically the same sort of transformation, but in her particular role. The spirit maiden who has to wait for and work through and alongside her hero, but is nonetheless crucial. Link and Zelda both have to grow up. Even TWW didn't exactly deal with Link growing up. He proved himself, but he didn't have to mature in the heat of a crisis.

-Groose, you already covered, but you still oversimplified him. As Fi describes, he is pure of heart despite his attitude, even at the beginning of the game. He loves Zelda, and he is desperate to save her. He's crushed when she disappears. He hates Link not because "lol, he's a jerk", but because Link is actually a complete slackoff, who is still a natural at everything and gets to do tons of accomplishments and get tons of praise (including from his own love interest) without any actual effort. It's furthered revealed that Cawlin is pretty much a raging ******bag, and it can be speculated on how much that may or may not have influenced Groose. Either way, when Groose "turns good", he's initially just in the same situation Link is. He's worried about Zelda. He wants to save her. They have a moment of this shared cause, before, again, Link is the hero who is destined to save Zelda and Groose isn't even allowed to help (as discussed when Groose first talks to the old woman in the Sealed Temple). Groose is then faced with a truly terrifying monster (the actual freaking villain of the game), and can't even confront the notion of fighting it. He watches Link take it down without fear, and is just shocked and, without thinking, begins to give him credit for it. Then through some talking to and bonding with the old woman, he actually mans up and not only chooses to befriend Link, but face the monster he was afraid of and give up Zelda. There's more past that, too, but that's the gist. That's a well-developed character.

-Ghirahim? He's a mystery when he first appears, and he shows up again in almost every single dungeon to show you more about him. Every time he appears, he hints you about how his organization works (Earth Temple), reveals his plans (Ancient Cistern), is discovered investigating information and confronted (Fire Sanctuary), or hell, just stopped from chasing his target (Lanayru Mining Facility). Every time he reveals nuances of his personality. Prideful, arrogant, bloodthirsty, but not without honor. Loyal, impatient, sadistic and indulgent. Keeps up his manners when actually in a good mood, only vicious and rude when angry. And hilarious throughout. His character never changes, but it reveals dimensions as the game goes on. Ghirahim is a multilayered character with a lot of different elements about him that both coexist, and clash. Seeing him onscreen is interesting always; he is well-developed.

Even Impa, or Demise, have their intriguing bits of development. Are the characters simpler than you might be used to? Yes. Are they poorly developed? Absolutely not. They're more well-developed than most characters in the series, and it's honestly not generally a very high standard. But Zelda is first and foremost about gameplay, so these kinds of things will always be second priority.

Skyward Sword is a full game, it's just not perfect. Maybe it has more flaws than some Zelda games do, I'll admit that. That doesn't make it incomplete, because you don't need to be perfect to be complete, and honestly nothing will ever reach that incredibly lofty standard.

As a long time Nintendo fan (I owned a gameboy and played Wario Land when I was 4), all I can say is that Nintendo needs to shake themselves up. Spending five years to create Skyward Sword wasn't worth it, if you look at the actual result.

"Yeah we concentrated on what made the past 25 years of Zelda so good, took these elements and put them together in Skyward Sword". Like their customers aren't going to notice the absurdity of these statements a few months later...

And ofcourse Zelda has a big fanbase and all, but that doesn't mean Nintendo spending 5 years to create an incomplete game and then overmarket it to their own loyal fanbase is such a good idea! They showed every area of the game in advance and suggested it was only the tip of the iceberg. That's quite dirty, if you ask me, expecially regarding the fact their very own Zelda fans are such a loyal fanbase.

5 years is not all that long of a development time, actually. A lot of games go through that, and honestly Twilight Princess was a game that needed more time. If you have so many complaints about what Skyward Sword actually is, then why do you want them to have spent less time -- and therefore less effort -- on it? Look, I still had fun with the game. A lot of fun. Despite its flaws, I still found it enthralling, and reading between the lines, correct me if I'm wrong, it sounded like it was a similar case for you. Fun in practice, flawed on paper and in retrospect. That's how I'd look at Skyward Sword myself. It was flawed and could have been better, but it was still really cool.

Again, all advertisements have to act like that, and naturally they're going to be clearly exaggerated if you look at them later. That's how it works. You have to take things with a grain of salt. I was really optimistic about the game and got something less than I was expecting, but I still got what I was promised. It's not dirty advertising.

Nintendo needs to learn from other games and other companies.
They need to learn about REAL character development, so that they don't rediculously overmarket Groose.
They need to learn about REAL antagonist development, so that they don't kill an interesting antagonist in order for some strange 'Hi, you dont really know me but yeahh... heheh'.
They need to learn about how to create a REAL interesting plot, so that they don't over-market a romance between Link and Zelda and cleverly suggest Demon Lord Ghirahim and the Sheikah woman are both part of a bigger tribe, while they are really just two lone wolfs.
They need to learn about how to organise their work more efficiently, so that they don't have to do in 5 years, what could actually be done in half the time.
They need to learn that all energy put into screaming about how 'sooo much content' the game has, could have also been put in actually creating sooo much content.

I agree Nintendo can learn from other companies, but I will never agree they do things badly, nor should they even change what they do. Nintendo needs to add to their formula, but not actually change the formula; they create really fun, unique experiences. As for Demise? He was present throughout literally the entire game since the opening scene. He was not an undeveloped character, he just wasn't traditionally developed (that's not a bad thing.) The villain and woman were parts of bigger groups, you just don't see them. This is traditional Zelda here; what were you expecting?