This Game's a Joke, Right?

[raykay]

Hi all,
i've just registered to tell you my feelings about this.
I am/was a huge Zelda fan, have played all the games in the 90s for gameboy, SNES and of course Ocarina of time for N64. I loved Ocarina of time, due to its adventurous feeling, lovely graphics and gameplay. I also played Wind waker on Gamecube which was slightly more boring than ocarina because of the long distances and less content in the game. Since then i havened owned a nintendo system so i couldnt really play the other games (apart from some weekend sessions at friends/family).

well but i never really forgot how beautiful ocarina of time was (and partly wind waker) and about the great time i had with this game. Then i heard from the anniversary of Zelda, and read that probably the "best Zelda ever" is going to be released soon and i decided to give it a try and bought a wii and the game on release date.

Since then ive played around 5 hours and just yesterday finished the first temple (which was very short somehow).

And i am asking you this: What the hell is this sh**?? Is that really zelda?? it hasnt made any progress in tha last 20 years?

_The graphics is worse then in Ocarina of time?! really?! Why?
_The areas i have explored are a total joke, in the sky there is like 3 or 4 islands so small you can barely land on them..
_The "sky city" itself has like, dont know 20 NPCs? What kind of life is that when they are living just in that town for centuries havent seen anything of the earth land and still are just 20 people?
_The areas on the earth (have just finished wood area and a bit of vulcano) are really small and very straight forward, i mean even the "worlds" in Super Mario 64 (where you have to jump through a painting) had more freedom of exploring and were almost as big as one of the (only!) three areas in this game?! Furthermore there is like no life on the earth, there are occasionally some enemies (who hold up their swords very awkwardly by the way, just to have a reason for the annoying motion playing?) but nothing else? No cities, no villages nothing? are there even quests down there, except going to the temple? Why is this damn whole in the sky then not directly above the temple?
_Quests? Are there any? Have done exactly... one! since ive started the game. Wont spoiler here, because that might be the only quest in the game( something about a girl).. Main story line is more like a long manga or comic book for me rather than a quest line, there are no real quests in it just go here and there. Im playing skyrim too since 2 weeks and its like the complete opposite you can go to talk to anyone in the vast amount of towns and villages and almost everyone has something to say or do.


I think the most annoying thing is really that you have nothing to explore, the sky world has really so few content it feels like it was orginally planned to be a screen saver in the nintendo offices. And the earth areas are just bad. just really bad. you never have the option to go either this way or that.. i hope this gets better during the game, though.

Last thing im really confused of, since when do you repair shield and upgrade swords with butterflies and bugs? Wth?!

So what do you think?!

P.s. sorry for my bad english, german guy

 

[robotgirl]

You know what? You make a few valid points.
I lament somewhat that the series has very underpopulated worlds. Castle town from Twilight Princess was probably the most convincing town I've seen in the series so far due to the number of inhabitants, but I'd associate that more with a village than an urban area. And don't get me started on the lack of fauna that isn't a monster :/

But that probably relates to the other issue of the 'worse graphics', which comes down to the Wii's limitations. They got as much out of the Wii as they could, but from my slightly cynical perspective, Nintendo sort of let themselves down in terms of their consoles to begin with. They just don't have the power of their rival gen consoles, when they really should to begin with, and then everyone would be happy c:

In addition, the story itself presents an interesting challenge. They really used 'a Get Out of Jail Free' card in some ways, because the reasons for the lack of life related to the backstory. Some may see it as lazy, but it depends on the player's perspective. It's still supposed to have a primitive, compact edge to it. There's no people, no towns and a number of trademark tribes missing for a reason.

Realistically, I'm also a bit confused by the population of Skyloft. One side of the coin is that they've been living in the sky for ages, so of course they should have more people living there. The other says that their population is limited due to the small size and resources available...(some might say that lack of genetic variation and the subsequent inbreeding would kill off a chunk of their population. But that's a bit disgusting to think about!)

I think that regardless, you should just keep playing to see what you eventually think.
Yes, the game might look odd in places.
Yes, there's less quests because they wanted to eliminate the 'filler' between dungeons.
Yes, you're meant to use the collectables to upgrade your gadgets.

But, the characters are well developed, the story gets intriguing, and there are a number of twists that you probably don't see coming. Keep playing, and then tell us what you think c:

 

[Cyg]

Did you just join this forum just to insult Skyward Sword? Did you even look at what was good about the game? The motion controls are awesome, the dungeons are genius - AND ARE ACTUALLY IN CONTEXT. If OoT was better, then why are it's dungeons random "temples" in an overworld where they don't even fit! At least in SS, the temples match the environment around it and makes sense for them to be there. As to the graphics, you are confusing graphics with art style. SS's graphics are way better than OoT - there's much more polygons, higher resolution textures, etc. As for the art style - it's a good art style because it stands out from the rest of the games today and will not age. Look how old OoT looks today, it looks terrible because it tried to be realistic. As for WW, which used an art style similar to SS, it looks like it was made today and hasn't aged at all. Also, you said SS hasn't changed from OoT, yet you insult all the changes it has made (potion mixing, shield breaking). So has it made changes or not? For the size - what do you want - an endless field where there is nothing to do like in TP, or a place where there are actual things to do. For the NPC's - do you want a few number of NPC's that actually have a story to tell to you and have individual attitudes, or do you want a large number of NPC's that can't talk to you like in TP? You said there wasn't any changes made from OoT to SS - how many actual NPC's were there in OoT compared to SS?

You, sir, are hypocritical. You insult SS for having things that improved since OoT, yet you say that SS has made no changes to OoT. If you're gonna insult a game - INSULT IT FOR ONE THING AND NOT FOR TWO OPPOSITE THINGS!

From what I feel you are like, maybe you're better off playing some of the stupid games like Assassins Creed.

 

[Links Brother]

I am speechless.....
I don't know how it's possible not to like Skyward Sword, it's has great graphics, great story, great 1:1 gameplay. What more could you ask for!! Sorry but I just don't get it.

 

[Con-man]

I totally agree, you'd think in 20 years the game would have improved a lot more than just new controls. I'm gonna face the reality, Nintendo has betrayed us for the casuals.

You , sir, are a GINORMUS TROLL WHO COMPARES VIOLENT RATED M GAMES TO ZELDA!!!!!!! YOU'RE NO ZELDA FAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May I remind my fellow Zelda fans that when Oot first came out it was the cutting edge in gaming, the best graphics, the best story line, the largest overworld. Skyward sword is stuck in the past. Many of you think Zelda should stay the sameforever, but then what's the point of releasing new games?

 

[athenian200]

Hi all,
i've just registered to tell you my feelings about this.

Okay, fair enough. You're entitled to do that, I guess.

I am/was a huge Zelda fan, have played all the games in the 90s for gameboy, SNES and of course Ocarina of time for N64. I loved Ocarina of time, due to its adventurous feeling, lovely graphics and gameplay. I also played Wind waker on Gamecube which was slightly more boring than ocarina because of the long distances and less content in the game. Since then i havened owned a nintendo system so i couldnt really play the other games (apart from some weekend sessions at friends/family).

I disagree about Wind Waker being boring, but please continue.

well but i never really forgot how beautiful ocarina of time was (and partly wind waker) and about the great time i had with this game. Then i heard from the anniversary of Zelda, and read that probably the "best Zelda ever" is going to be released soon and i decided to give it a try and bought a wii and the game on release date.

Ocarina of Time was a great game, indeed. Also, whether you think SS is the best game ever or not is too subjective to even debate. People like different things.

Since then ive played around 5 hours and just yesterday finished the first temple (which was very short somehow).

And i am asking you this: What the hell is this sh**?? Is that really zelda?? it hasnt made any progress in tha last 20 years?

I really don't see why you think the temple was too short. It seemed about the same length as dungeons in OoT or TP. Also, what do you mean by "progress"? Of course it hasn't changed completely, or it wouldn't be Zelda anymore. It does have a lot of subtle innovations if you look at it closely, though. There are new ideas/concepts to be found in this game. The Beetle? The Motion Controls for the sword? Balancing on a rope? Shield damage/upgrades?

_The graphics is worse then in Ocarina of time?! really?! Why?

What are you talking about? The graphics are better. Perhaps you simply prefer the graphical style of the N64, but the textures are more detailed, and the NPCs have a higher polygon count. Also, I would argue that this game strikes a perfect balance between the cel-shaded graphics of WW, and the realistic graphics of TP. If anything, it's much closer to OoT's style than either of those games.

_The areas i have explored are a total joke, in the sky there is like 3 or 4 islands so small you can barely land on them..

The areas in the sky aren't meant to be explored per se, they're just little islands where treasure chests appear, and you can maybe get a quest/mini-game or two. Nothing more. The meat of the game is in Skyloft and the world below. Some of them are pretty cool though, IMO.

_The "sky city" itself has like, dont know 20 NPCs? What kind of life is that when they are living just in that town for centuries havent seen anything of the earth land and still are just 20 people?

That's far more NPCs than we had in OoT. TP may have had more, but you couldn't talk to 90% of them, so what was the point? This game has far more characters to interact with than past Zelda games. Would you rather have a lot of filler people we can't speak to? I don't understand your objection.

_The areas on the earth (have just finished wood area and a bit of vulcano) are really small and very straight forward, i mean even the "worlds" in Super Mario 64 (where you have to jump through a painting) had more freedom of exploring and were almost as big as one of the (only!) three areas in this game?! Furthermore there is like no life on the earth, there are occasionally some enemies (who hold up their swords very awkwardly by the way, just to have a reason for the annoying motion playing?) but nothing else? No cities, no villages nothing? are there even quests down there, except going to the temple? Why is this damn whole in the sky then not directly above the temple?

.
I don't think you've explored the worlds thoroughly enough to share an informed opinion yet. A lot of areas are not accessible just yet, and the worlds are bigger than you think. There are also several ledges and areas that you don't even need to reach, but which are hidden out of the way of the normal progression. Maybe you just haven't seen them because you weren't looking hard enough? The worlds are definitely bigger than Super Mario 64, ESPECIALLY if you take into account the fact that enemies and puzzles are more tightly packed together in this game, and the scope of indoor areas.

_Quests? Are there any? Have done exactly... one! since ive started the game. Wont spoiler here, because that might be the only quest in the game( something about a girl).. Main story line is more like a long manga or comic book for me rather than a quest line, there are no real quests in it just go here and there. Im playing skyrim too since 2 weeks and its like the complete opposite you can go to talk to anyone in the vast amount of towns and villages and almost everyone has something to say or do.

I will concede that I would have liked to see more towns and villages in the game aside from Skyloft, but you're totally wrong about the quests. It's not that easy to notice all the quests that are available, but there are SEVERAL in the game. I counted at least 8 on my first playthrough, and I was barely looking. Based on the stuff I didn't investigate, there are probably a lot more, too.

I think the most annoying thing is really that you have nothing to explore, the sky world has really so few content it feels like it was orginally planned to be a screen saver in the nintendo offices. And the earth areas are just bad. just really bad. you never have the option to go either this way or that.. i hope this gets better during the game, though.

I really didn't think it was obvious at all which way you were supposed to go in the worlds below. Maybe you should stop using dowsing for a while, and see just how easy it is to find your way through the vast worlds without it. Because you really are failing to notice a lot of the complexity in the maps. I think dowsing may have made the game seem more linear than it is. There's quite a bit to explore if you step off the beaten path, once again.

Last thing im really confused of, since when do you repair shield and upgrade swords with butterflies and bugs? Wth?

You're confused, the bugs are used to improve POTIONS. You upgrade shields using things like Eldin Ore and such, which actually does make sense. Even the shield upgrades that use horns and feathers make sense, because that could be partly decorative, or even magical. Especially in the case of the sacred shield.

So what do you think?!

I think that you're entitled to your opinion, but that Zelda may not be the series for you. Perhaps you should stick to Skyrim and similar RPGs. You really don't seem to "get" what it's about, or enjoy it very much.

P.s. sorry for my bad english, german guy

That's okay, don't worry about it. But I still disagree with you.

 

[JakeProtagonist]

I totally agree, you'd think in 20 years the game would have improved a lot more than just new controls. I'm gonna face the reality, Nintendo has betrayed us for the casuals.



May I remind my fellow Zelda fans that when Oot first came out it was the cutting edge in gaming, the best graphics, the best story line, the largest overworld. Skyward sword is stuck in the past. Many of you think Zelda should stay the sameforever, but then what's the point of releasing new games?

If you change A Game as much as the spoiled gamers nowadays ask for, It wouldnt be Legend of Zelda anymore. All they had to work with was the Wii but they used it to is FULL extent of capabilities. Thus, producing an amazing game! What more could they improve? The controls make the gameplay fun as anything, and the story is the best its ever been! The characters may be less, but at least All of them have life to them unlike most on OOT. Your entitled yo your opinion and all, but It seems like you guys just dont want to accept that it could be better than any other Zelda, so you call it bad and look for every excuse in the book for it to be bad. Either that or your just some of those "Spoiled Gamers" That are NEVER satisfied.

 

[Con-man]

If you change A Game as much as the spoiled gamers nowadays ask for, It wouldnt be Legend of Zelda anymore. All they had to work with was the Wii but they used it to is FULL extent of capabilities. Thus, producing an amazing game! What more could they improve? The controls make the gameplay fun as anything, and the story is the best its ever been! The characters may be less, but at least All of them have life to them unlike most on OOT. Your entitled yo your opinion and all, but It seems like you guys just dont want to accept that it could be better than any other Zelda, so you call it bad and look for every excuse in the book for it to be bad. Either that or your just some of those "Spoiled Gamers" That are NEVER satisfied.

Are you kidding me? Do you what games I own? I'm freaking poor, I have Cod 2(I got from a friend), Twilight princess, and some old n64 games, that's it. I made this account over a year ago for the purpose of getting hyped about SS. I noticed you used the phrase "The characters may be less, but at least All of them have life to them." BULLS***, THIS IS ZELDA, I don't want to have to say "well, at least we got this."

I was the biggest Zelda fanboy in the world, until I realized how much we're being cheated. ADMIT IT, Nintendo is focusing on casual gamers, they're not the hardcore gaming power house they once were.

If you change A Game as much as the spoiled gamers nowadays ask for, It wouldnt be Legend of Zelda anymore.

Oh, so adding good graphics and quality to a game over time would ruin Zelda? Why do they even release new Zelda games if they'll never change!

 

[raykay]

Hi,
had no intention in insulting the game or offensing anyone. Why do you react so harsh? Dont even know what troll is?!
Thats just my opinion of the game but it seems like i am the only one feeling this way

 

[Xinnamin]

Okay guys, really, I'm all for debating two sides of a heated coin, but let's REFRAIN from insulting anyone in the process.

 

[Con-man]

Okay guys, really, I'm all for debating two sides of a heated coin, but let's REFRAIN from insulting anyone in the process.

Wait, who did the insulting? I'm pretty sure this is just a clean debate.

 

[Xinnamin]

Wait, who did the insulting? I'm pretty sure this is just a clean debate.

They have been trashed, but a few others are coming close. Now let's not get off topic shall we ;3

 

[Crash]

I agree with Jake. If I wanted a different game or a game with different content, (and anyone who knows me even a little has seen this SEVERAL times, it's a pet peeve of mine) then I'd play a different game than Zelda. However... I do like Zelda and it's style, formula, and gameplay, and every new game has it's own puzzles, items, and ideas that work together in harmony with the game's theme. I can agree that Zelda focused more on the casual gamer for it's past two consoles, but this game is not for the casual gamer... I'm a pretty good gamer myself and especially when it comes to Zelda, I've played it so long that the puzzles are second nature to me, this game however... has given me a pretty decent challenge. I've been on the brink of death more times in the few hours I've played it then the other games combined! I actually have to think, calm down, and attack accordingly. Admittedly, the puzzles aren't too hard, but like I said, my minds engineered to Zelda so it's second nature for me and the only times I've gotten stuck have been my fault and were major facepalm "D'OH" moments.

I'd rather have a town filled with people that had personality and a history that you could figure out then a bunch of people walking around that you talk to once and just repeat one line, maybe two or three throughout the entire game... There are plenty of small islands in the sky that I've landed on already and have found that they're not quite accessible yet but that they'll definitely have a use. I've already done at least three quests and there will definitely be more just from the walking around and figuring that I've done.

The load of content in this game is rather extensive for the short time I've been playing. I've hardly even have had to use dowsing and I just let myself explore and I get further in the game as well as discover the little things around the map. It's as great as I've expected and even more so.

 

[Ventus]

_The graphics is worse then in Ocarina of time?! really?! Why?
_The areas i have explored are a total joke, in the sky there is like 3 or 4 islands so small you can barely land on them..
_The "sky city" itself has like, dont know 20 NPCs? What kind of life is that when they are living just in that town for centuries havent seen anything of the earth land and still are just 20 people?
_The areas on the earth (have just finished wood area and a bit of vulcano) are really small and very straight forward, i mean even the "worlds" in Super Mario 64 (where you have to jump through a painting) had more freedom of exploring and were almost as big as one of the (only!) three areas in this game?! Furthermore there is like no life on the earth, there are occasionally some enemies (who hold up their swords very awkwardly by the way, just to have a reason for the annoying motion playing?) but nothing else? No cities, no villages nothing? are there even quests down there, except going to the temple? Why is this damn whole in the sky then not directly above the temple?
_Quests? Are there any? Have done exactly... one! since ive started the game. Wont spoiler here, because that might be the only quest in the game( something about a girl).. Main story line is more like a long manga or comic book for me rather than a quest line, there are no real quests in it just go here and there. Im playing skyrim too since 2 weeks and its like the complete opposite you can go to talk to anyone in the vast amount of towns and villages and almost everyone has something to say or do.

-The graphics aren't worse than OoT. They definitely aren't the same, but they're not as bad.
-I agree that the Sky was a total joke; sparsely located islands with nothing to do but bomb a caving or dig some hole. Nintendo could do better than this – they did with TWW (slightly).
-Yeah, Skyloft was pretty weak in NPC existence. Said NPCs weren't memorable, unlike the likes of Groose for example. People will tell you up and down "omg this game is OLDER than OoT", but that is no excuse for people to not exist. The game isn't set so far back as near the beginning of human kind. Nintendo can do MUCH better than this.
-There are many more quests than you may think. Granted, said quests aren't the best, but quests they are nonetheless. Nintendo could still do much better though – the reward system (Gratitude Crystals) definitely were NOT the best they could've done, and I'm slightly disappointed.

Are you kidding me? Do you what games I own? I'm freaking poor, I have Cod 2(I got from a friend), Twilight princess, and some old n64 games, that's it. I made this account over a year ago for the purpose of getting hyped about SS. I noticed you used the phrase "The characters may be less, but at least All of them have life to them." BULLS***, THIS IS ZELDA, I don't want to have to say "well, at least we got this."

I wholly agree with you. This is a freakin' ZELDA game, the quality overrider, the TROMBE of gaming. Us players don't go "oh, well this is okay". We expect the best. Look at Ocarina of Time. It used the N64 so extensively, that perhaps the system would've died. That game was filled (actually, is) with so much amazingness that players of the time had their minds completely BLOWN OFF WITH A .44. It's not a joke, Nintendo used to bring some real contenders to the table, and we are always expecting a serious contender out of Zelda.

I was the biggest Zelda fanboy in the world, until I realized how much we're being cheated. ADMIT IT, Nintendo is focusing on casual gamers, they're not the hardcore gaming power house they once were.

Oh, so adding good graphics and quality to a game over time would ruin Zelda? Why do they even release new Zelda games if they'll never change!

Nintendo themselves never was a hardcore gaming powerhouse, that was more the third party support they had back then. OoT isn't hardcore, it is very much a casual game. I do agree that the game can be used in hardcore ways (more suitable to the hacknslash hardcore descriptor), but OoT is casual. Hardcore, look at Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Turok series, etc. Those are third party games licensed by Nintendo to be played on the 64. Zelda isn't hardcore, just saying.

I would say the height of the quality of Zelda was Majora's Mask. That game was populated, and although it lacked dungeons it was the most real of the series to this day. Every other Zelda past MM just has flash with graphics, but the same tired ol' story and lack of things to do. Better graphics, to hell with them because Zelda isn't a Sim. Quality I am all for – we need better gameplay, better questing (actual questing, in relation to MMORPGs I'd say). Nintendo can give it to us, they did with Majora's Mask and they can do it with a future Zelda.

Of course it hasn't changed completely, or it wouldn't be Zelda anymore.

Not true. We can have complete overhauls by way of story, graphics, NPCs etc and it'll still be Zelda. It won't be the same kind of Zelda that fans are accustomed to, but Zelda it'll be nonetheless. For example, take a block of aluminum. Smash it 'til it becomes foil. Is it still aluminum? Yes, but in a different form. Or, if you don't like that, use water. Water evaporates and eventually forms some basis for clouds. The vapor – is it still water? Yes, just not liquid. Ice is still water, but in a solid form. Zelda can do that; new (slightly better?) story and HD graphics with the advent of the Wii U are entirely possible. We got better story with Majora's Mask and slightly better graphics also with MM (they weren't markedly much better than OoT, but if one analyzes what the expansion pack did – draw fog and the like – one could argue MM's gfx were way better than that of OoT's). Zelda can pull off realistic graphics, they did with Twilight Princess and THAT got such a positive reception. So I repeat, Zelda can get a MASSIVE change and still be Zelda.

 

[Ventus]

You're kidding, right? Most Nintendo veterans know that Nintendo hasn't changed much since back then, it's the video game industry that has changed. What was once "hardcore" isn't "hardcore" anymore, the definition of it might as well be meaningless as it is often misused. People used to be called "hardcore" because they can beat a Mario game in fast time, now you have to fight a horde of zombies with an assault rifle to be considered "hardcore" by the majority. Nintendo simply doesn't like this, and have been trying to go into another direction.

That's...not true. Nintendo never was hardcore – just the FPS games we're accustomed to in this day and age were found on Nintendo systems. Quake, Doom, Turok...you name it, back in the ol' days Nintendo may have had it. What you refer to as "hardcore" for beating Mario in a fast time, that is what is known as TASing, Twin Galaxy runs, etc. That's not hardcore, that's dedication. Borne out of Pac-Man, I'd say.

http://www.twingalaxies.com/
http://tasvideos.org/
http://zeldaspeedruns.com/