Warning! Anti-Spoiler: Have We Assumed Too Much?

[Ariel]

:O Oh, hi, didn't see you there. You know, I've gotten to thinkin' and such. (Ok, that's enough of that schtick)

Have we taken what we've been shown about Skyward Sword way too literally? I've heard many-a-heated discussions/arguments about what people have thought of the trailer shown at E3. It's too happy-go-lucky, it's not dark/mature enough, I don't like the enemies, atmosphere and the cheap gimmicks (I'm looking at you weird eye-door thing, and evidently, you're staring right back at me.)

I submit to you, reader people, that what was shown in that trailer gives us only the faintest indication of what's to come in Skyward Sword. It's my opinion that the SS trailer served only as a small sandbox to reveal the physics and general controller interface of the game. Oh, and the art-style too.

I've heard people speculate about the size of the game and general gameplay density with support stemming from the trailer. Stuff like "yeah, I remember somebody pulled out the map and I saw that the area was merely a fragment of the overworld, therefore it must be a large game." That demo was a small enclosed space (note: enclosed) and had fixed defined boundaries that could not be crossed. Then someone speculated that it must've been a dungeon, citing the amount of hearts Link had and the amount of items. There were no keys in the demo, no bosses, no secrets, no plot devices, and no story. I'm almost certain that Miyamoto himself even stated that the area was merely constructed for E3. I believe that that is obvious, and begs no further evidence (not an impossibility, but seriously).

Now this fact comes with it several ramifications. Atmosphere, overworld size, music, gameplay mechanic implementations (weird eye door thing), story and scenery are completely contingent. That is, they can easily change and be changed, not set in stone. So many discrepancies can be eradicated outright straight away, much to the favor of many, and unfortunately to the bane of others. Here's a short, probably incomplete list of things that can easily be done away with before the release:

* Link's appearance (however: subtle changes only)
* Happy, fun, super rainbow, thousand smiles, unicorn farting atmosphere (the game can use it's Impressionism for darkness too - google "Starry Night" - darker, yeah )
* Them giant mushrooms, different Nintendo game, Nintendo.
* Rolly-eye-door thing (among other gimmicks).
* Enemy design (though their brazenly obvious expressions are a must due to game mechanics)
* Story (yes, the "Death Mountain" in the background can easily go away, although I reckon they'll keep it)
* Overworld size/density (it can be less and more dense - but I presume roughly the same)
* HUD (thankfully)
* Other (enemy damage, energy meter mechanics, other environmental details, rupee/heart design)

These are some things that'll probably remain the same, sorry SS haters:

* Most of Link and the enemies' designs.
* Sword mechanics (stabbing fruit and it sticking to your sword, cutting greenery and stuff at specific angles.
* Impressionistic sky, trees, rocks and water (deal with it)
* Game physics and general feel of the controller (i.e sensitivity and such).
* Items and weapons (they may slightly tweak them though, but unlikely).
* AI (though we know next to nothing about that).
* Everythin we've heard outside of the trailer (story et al.)

My point: Let's adopt a more scientific approach to our Skyward Sword speculations and assume very little. This way the hype train won't go off the rails, crash and maim our poor game and it's expectations (that's good metaphor, which is sad nonetheless), and WE'LL ENJOY THE GAME A LOT BETTER AND GET A RICHER, NEW AND SURPRISING EXPERIENCE.

What else have we assumed too much of and what else would be considered a sure thing? Discuss.

 

[Djinn]

I do agree that people have over analyzed a very tiny amount of gameplay as seen at E3. The story, graphic, control, and timeline placement are overwhelming at times. I thik we have seen a lot more cutscene and not enough gameplay. So speculation is all that we really have. But it is fun to speculate. Here is a game that we have slightly less than basic info on and as all theorists do, we love to fill in the cracks here and there with out imaginations based on observation.

But I think I have seen more conversation saying things like "I hope they do not screw up" or "Please don't ruin it." As some people were not so happy with Twilight Princess after years of hype. And they do not want to be let down again.

However, I was not too happy with the look of the bokoblins seen in the trailer. They looked a little too much like theme park costume mascots.

 

[Ariel]

Don't get me wrong: speculation is great and all. But when misused and when emotions mix as well as arrogant attitudes then people get boisterous about their opinions and become dismissive, or they take the other road where they exclaim unsupported (insert expletive). Just wanted to calm the masses slightly when they jump the gun and cry foul over what they see happening to their beloved series. Nintendo, like a heavily intoxicated stripper, moves in mysterious ways and I think that basically any time we purport un-supported facts about Zelda games we are often on the receiving end of some short fall (but in the end, luckily, we lap it all up anyways). Have fun with that simile, it may serve your restless mind well.