• 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.

Spoiler Things Skyward Sword Could Have Done Differently/better?

I don't think you can really distinguish between the two terms.


Either way, though, I'm confused as to how Skyward Sword has graphical, but especially story flaws. The story was handled on a level far greater than almost all of the modern Zelda games. The graphics, while poor compared to newer consoles, were pretty much top of the line for the Wii and looked great despite that because of the art direction.

I agree. While still having the same basic story design from A Link to the Past, Skyward Sword managed to disguise it better and pour in emotional cues that have been unseen since Majora's Mask (though Twilight Princess also put up a good endeavor in this department).
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Ultimately, we're not here for the story or visuals. At its core, a video game is an adventure that allows an ordinary person to becoming someone far more fantastical and accomplish nearly impossible feats at the press of a button. Storylines and refined visuals were added later to make games "experiences". Skyward Sword (and any game for that matter) won't be assessed on how gorgeous it looks or how spellbinding the plot is because the objective is to play the game, not to marvel at its technical prowess. Skyward Sword is a game, not a high-budget movie.
Video game reviews, my good friend, are not based on gameplay alone. I'll provide some links.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/ds/997519-kingdom-hearts-recoded/reviews/review-144967
http://ign64.ign.com/articles/150/150437p1.html
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/960/960212p1.html

[the list could go on, but you get my point]
Everything in the game is assessed, from how sticky the controls are to how well the plot is. If a component is in the framework, it *will* be assessed and tested for optimal quality. SS may not being a high budget movie, however that doesn't mean it shouldn't strive for perfection or damn close to it. Once again, when making any recipe, you don't get some cheap ingredients if you want to serve a legendary dish to your customers. That's asinine and makes no sense whatsoever. As a customer, when I pick up that piece of chicken I will not say "oh, I was here for the chicken which was fresh". I will say, however, "I came here for the chicken but got too much chocolate and some weird...parsley flavouring, so the overall dish is rated lowly because it isn't as good as it could be". Translate the chicken to the gameplay, the chocolate to the story and the parsley to the graphics. Yet again, you do NOT throw some subpar ingredients into a dish that is supposed to be a legendary dish for the customers.

Either way, though, I'm confused as to how Skyward Sword has graphical, but especially story flaws. The story was handled on a level far greater than almost all of the modern Zelda games. The graphics, while poor compared to newer consoles, were pretty much top of the line for the Wii and looked great despite that because of the art direction.
Axle, if you haven't played Super Mario Galaxy, I implore you to buy it (if you haven't already) and just get the first three stars of Good Egg Galaxy. All Wii games are plagued by lack of hardware antialiasing, but SMG does so well with certain shading techniques that, for some reason, makes Skyward Sword's graphical display look like a joke. Jaggies are so easily seen because of the art style, people can complain for that very reason. It's disappointing, really, and it truthfully hurts my eyes.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Everything in the game is assessed, from how sticky the controls are to how well the plot is. If a component is in the framework, it *will* be assessed and tested for optimal quality. SS may not being a high budget movie, however that doesn't mean it shouldn't strive for perfection or damn close to it. Once again, when making any recipe, you don't get some cheap ingredients if you want to serve a legendary dish to your customers. That's asinine and makes no sense whatsoever. As a customer, when I pick up that piece of chicken I will not say "oh, I was here for the chicken which was fresh". I will say, however, "I came here for the chicken but got too much chocolate and some weird...parsley flavouring, so the overall dish is rated lowly because it isn't as good as it could be". Translate the chicken to the gameplay, the chocolate to the story and the parsley to the graphics. Yet again, you do NOT throw some subpar ingredients into a dish that is supposed to be a legendary dish for the customers.
I can recognize if you thought it was a flaw, and that's what this thread is for, stating what you thought could be done better. That said, yes, games are reviewed in terms of all their parts, but that does not mean that all elements are regarded as equal. I'm pretty sure I can speak for most if not all reviewers when I say that I review based first and foremost on gameplay. Good gameplay can redeem bad graphics. But I don't think you'll meet anyone who's okay with terrible gameplay just because the game is flashy.

Graphics are an element - they are not the element.


Axle, if you haven't played Super Mario Galaxy, I implore you to buy it (if you haven't already) and just get the first three stars of Good Egg Galaxy. All Wii games are plagued by lack of hardware antialiasing, but SMG does so well with certain shading techniques that, for some reason, makes Skyward Sword's graphical display look like a joke. Jaggies are so easily seen because of the art style, people can complain for that very reason. It's disappointing, really, and it truthfully hurts my eyes.
I've played Galaxy. Visually, I find Skyward Sword far more impressive. If there's a graphical issue you have specifically because of the artstyle, don't you think that essentially means that you just have a problem with the artstyle? Me myself, not a single element of Skyward Sword's graphics ever bothered me. I think it's the best looking game on the Wii.
 
A

ALinkToSTI

Guest
I've seen the "Zelda has never been known for it's graphics or story" logic many times already and I quite don't understand it. OOT was amazing for its time, and so was WW. TP's visuals only started looking dated because the next-generation consoles had both been launched by that time, but were also great compared to games of its generation. SS obviously isn't the greatest looking game technically, but the system's limitations had everything to do with that. Most Zelda fans wouldn't put graphics or story ahead of gameplay, but I don't think the games have been lacking graphically. Oh, and just in case, I loved SS's graphics, I'm not trying to bash them, only defending the Zelda's that came before.

Story, well yeah, I do agree with that. Story has never been the series' strong point, but I think they do a great job of immersing you in its world and it makes you not think about that too much. Although a great story wouldn't hurt either (SS's story was pretty good IMO).

Also, I think those of you saying that it wouldn't make sense to have more islands or have more NPC's because of the story are just trying to defend the game with any argument you can. How can you say story is not nearly as important as gameplay, but then say that certain elements of the game that were maybe lacking couldn't have been made any other way BECAUSE of the story. I don't really think that having more islands or people in the sky would've clashed with the game's story. Maybe the surface could've been more inhabited, obviously no humans, but any race could still have had some small town or village left after the war. Anything!!! Give me one shop at least, just one..
 
T

Tranceparty455

Guest
I wanna see zoras, gorons, gerudos, not stupid kiwii kwiki whatevers. i just dont like the new characters. also, the music in it sucks. its missing that "edge"

and i hate riding on that stupid bird
 
I've played through SS twice now, because i had to because Hero mode erased my previous complete save... but there is one thing i still don't get and need someone who defends SS with its story against all that is wrong with it to help me out here.

Skyloft was originally on the ground, it was raised into the sky to protect the people etc. That much I get. But the surface is a big place... why was only the small area of what would become Skyloft populated by humans/hylians and no-where else on the surface, surely they would have spread, surely there would be other areas on the surface with people... the surface was created long ago, so why are there only 100 people at a push just on Skyloft and nowhere else on the surface.. there had been a war etc before Skyloft got raised into the sky.... so where is everybody? It might have been answered but i've been through it twice and didn't see the mention of other humans... the war Demise led to get the Triforce couldn't have killed every human/hylian on the surface the people of Skyloft prove that so, will someone explain it?

I understand everyone who defends SS's story and applies it to the games shortcomings on gameplay and things to do. Fair enough the Goddess raised Skyloft and only Skyloft into the sky, thats the story thats what we get, one island, but by the same token Nintendo could have made that island bigger, instead of an island make it a province instead of just an island, that would have sorted the barren sky thing out..

I admit, i head about there being three separated regions in SS before playing it and i guessed through common sense that some if not all of the island in the sky would fall back to the surface, but then i also thought; if the regions are separated then perhaps Skyloft falls and unites the provinces of the surface... I knew at least a little bit of Skyloft would remain in the air to have the City in the sky dungeon in TP later in the timeline, but then when i played SS and finally saw Skyloft (because i avoided videos etc as much as i could) i was kind of disappointed that Skyloft was such a small hub.

But yeah.. point still stand that Nintendo could have made this bigger without needing to change any of the story, in fact they'd just need to change words. 'Hylia raised an island into the sky/ Hylia raised a province... but Nintend just didnt... and figured an island is enough.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
I've played through SS twice now, because i had to because Hero mode erased my previous complete save... but there is one thing i still don't get and need someone who defends SS with its story against all that is wrong with it to help me out here.

Skyloft was originally on the ground, it was raised into the sky to protect the people etc. That much I get. But the surface is a big place... why was only the small area of what would become Skyloft populated by humans/hylians and no-where else on the surface, surely they would have spread, surely there would be other areas on the surface with people... the surface was created long ago, so why are there only 100 people at a push just on Skyloft and nowhere else on the surface.. there had been a war etc before Skyloft got raised into the sky.... so where is everybody? It might have been answered but i've been through it twice and didn't see the mention of other humans... the war Demise led to get the Triforce couldn't have killed every human/hylian on the surface the people of Skyloft prove that so, will someone explain it?

I understand everyone who defends SS's story and applies it to the games shortcomings on gameplay and things to do. Fair enough the Goddess raised Skyloft and only Skyloft into the sky, thats the story thats what we get, one island, but by the same token Nintendo could have made that island bigger, instead of an island make it a province instead of just an island, that would have sorted the barren sky thing out..

I admit, i head about there being three separated regions in SS before playing it and i guessed through common sense that some if not all of the island in the sky would fall back to the surface, but then i also thought; if the regions are separated then perhaps Skyloft falls and unites the provinces of the surface... I knew at least a little bit of Skyloft would remain in the air to have the City in the sky dungeon in TP later in the timeline, but then when i played SS and finally saw Skyloft (because i avoided videos etc as much as i could) i was kind of disappointed that Skyloft was such a small hub.

But yeah.. point still stand that Nintendo could have made this bigger without needing to change any of the story, in fact they'd just need to change words. 'Hylia raised an island into the sky/ Hylia raised a province... but Nintend just didnt... and figured an island is enough.
Well, they wouldn't need to call it a province to make it bigger. Islands could be big and a floating province would still be a floating island.

That said, I don't see much how this is a problem within the story. Perhaps the land ruled over by Hylia was still only populated by small tribes? This is reasonable considering that's all you ever see in a Zelda game anyway, including the surface-dwelling races in Skyward Sword. Zelda just doesn't do huge populations, and from a gameplay perspective it would have been unusual to have so many NPCs; many of them would have been useless. Zelda games just don't have huge populations. Most games don't, really.

There are excuses for it in the narrative, though. There was a war. Perhaps many of the humans were killed. Perhaps Hylia didn't have much time to raise everyone up. Again, maybe there was only that many to begin with, or perhaps the population's declined? You can even say they live on other islands in the sky that we don't actually see in the game world; clearly people lived on other islands anyway, as indicated by Beetle and the owner of the Lumpy Pumpkin.

It just seems like a small point that doesn't really disrupt the plot at all and is easily explained...
 
Well, they wouldn't need to call it a province to make it bigger. Islands could be big and a floating province would still be a floating island.

That said, I don't see much how this is a problem within the story. Perhaps the land ruled over by Hylia was still only populated by small tribes? This is reasonable considering that's all you ever see in a Zelda game anyway, including the surface-dwelling races in Skyward Sword. Zelda just doesn't do huge populations, and from a gameplay perspective it would have been unusual to have so many NPCs; many of them would have been useless. Zelda games just don't have huge populations. Most games don't, really.

There are excuses for it in the narrative, though. There was a war. Perhaps many of the humans were killed. Perhaps Hylia didn't have much time to raise everyone up. Again, maybe there was only that many to begin with, or perhaps the population's declined? You can even say they live on other islands in the sky that we don't actually see in the game world; clearly people lived on other islands anyway, as indicated by Beetle and the owner of the Lumpy Pumpkin.

It just seems like a small point that doesn't really disrupt the plot at all and is easily explained...



Thanks =] just me wanting more again i guess, like wind waker gave me =]
 
S

Suusje1034

Guest
I thought they could have made the dungeons harder... They were way to easy for me. And while most dungeons in TP took me at least 2 and a half hours the first time, the one's of SS took me no longer then 1 hour. That was kind of disappointing.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
SS is NOT my favorite Zelda game. BUT I must say, I thought the plot was differen't. You never actually 'saved' Zelda until she goes to sleep, and even then you weren't saving her from a evil man until later. Then you were just wanting her to awake from her slumber, you were saving her from her long sleep. Another thing is Zelda being the goddess meant to protect the triforce? That took me by surprise.

And I don't know why everyone is complaining about Zelda not fighting! What's she supposed to do? wake up without her soul and go help link fight? She ha been the tough girl long enough, let her sleep through this one. After all, its not like she was cowering in the corner, I'm sure if she could she would help Link with his battle.

I almost agreed with on on the characters when I read the title, but that was 'cause I didn't like most the characters. I liked them a little, but they felt cheesy. You have the wimp who want to be like you, the amazing knight who someone has a crush on, you do these side quests that have NO depth at all! Just compare the Anju and Kefei quest to the pipit and whatsherface quest, which one had more depth? which one made you almost cry? which one made you feel that there was a reason to do this? the engaged couple, who are so in love that they continue to love each other even after one is turned into a child, or the one that are two knight-school students?(replace the KN with a H and get rid of the T)

But I don't care if these people don't come down and help me fight. I don't need them. But I think Batreaux should have more character development after you turn him into a human then "I can walk around now! yay! :D" He could of come down and helped us fight... He did have wings after all...

Its weird with the AI with you, I never wait for the enemy to attack, I just swing my sword fast enough that I can attack what they aren't guarding. Rarely will I wait for the enemy to attack.

But I do agree with the final boss being easy(although I did have to try 3 times) and pretty much everything else but again, the story was different! The only thing that was the same was the fact that you were saving Zelda... Even though most of the time you were just chasing after her or waking her up.
 
L

Linkthetriforce

Guest
I think they could have made it more intresting.I just didn't feel close to this Zelda.
 
H

haleyofhyrule

Guest
I thought the plot was alright, the gameplay was good. But something seemed to be missing from this game and I can't put my finger on it. I just wish they did more with the sky and maybe explained a little more about how SS connected to OOC... I dunno, that's what I thought
 
S

Sgt_Balthazar

Guest
Something they could have done differently is not put in those dang Silent Realms >.> I always panic when the guardians wake up (besides when you walk out of the circle thing). I also hate that they put guardians right by the tears that are the most difficult/annoying to get.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Playing the game through again in Hero Mode has really made me hate the text situation in this game. Now that I have already read all the text at least one time it really sucks not being able to skip it or at least make it scroll at a reasonable rate. At least they let you skip cut scenes if you want.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
I thought they could have made the dungeons harder... They were way to easy for me. And while most dungeons in TP took me at least 2 and a half hours the first time, the one's of SS took me no longer then 1 hour. That was kind of disappointing.
The dungeons in SS I would say were more streamlined and...concise(? is that the word?) whereas dungeons of other games had a couple of 'joke' rooms in that the reward wasn't anything you really needed (for example, completing a room of a dungeon in Ocarina of Time may give you a chest with a Recovery Heart in it). That streamlining the game casued the dungeons to feel, seem and actualize the easy difficulty in my opinion.

And I don't know why everyone is complaining about Zelda not fighting! What's she supposed to do?

I almost agreed with on on the characters when I read the title, but that was 'cause I didn't like most the characters. I liked them a little, but they felt cheesy. You have the wimp who want to be like you, the amazing knight who someone has a crush on, you do these side quests that have NO depth at all! Just compare the Anju and Kafei quest to the pipit and whatsherface quest, which one had more depth? which one made you almost cry? which one made you feel that there was a reason to do this? t
I dunno. She should do something. She sits behind other characters as always. She has her guard dog Impa, she has her dopey boyfriend Link who doubles as her slave...Zelda is always useless in every single installment she is in (besides TWW and ST). She has got to learn how to fight. I remember the Twilight Princess trailers and saw her wield a sword...except she didn't actually use it. Same in SS; I saw her with a harp and something told me she was going to be useless, but I still had hope. CRUSHED, she's a damsel.

I would say some of the sidequests in SS had a little bit of depth. Not to MM's extent, but more than Ocarina of Time definitely. I wish they were fleshed out and would've taken place in more places than the silly hubworld of Skyloft though.

Something they could have done differently is not put in those dang Silent Realms >.> I always panic when the guardians wake up (besides when you walk out of the circle thing). I also hate that they put guardians right by the tears that are the most difficult/annoying to get.
Panic...that is actually a plus for Zelda in my opinion. The Silent Realms added an extra level of gameplay to sugarcoat the otherwise bad tasting chicken that was Skyward Sword. Maybe a bit more diversity as far as scenery goes (literally all we get is rehashes of the four areas we ever truly visit) and different guardians. Perhaps even an expanded Realm where we get to do combat against Dark Link-esque enemies? That'd be a way to better the Realms.

As to the Guardians next to the tears. Well, you just gotta get the hang of rolling and you'll be able to dodge any and all of their attacks. Also, for a quick stamina refill, just step into the magic water. Yes, it causes the Guardians to wake, but you get a free stamina refill at no extra cost (besides adrenaline pumping music and...well, a chase scene).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom