Skyward Sword Worst Zelda Game Since DS Games?

[Random Person]

Ooh, an SS "like/dislike" thread. Haven't seen one of these in a while.

The question is do I think SS is overrated and the answer is yes. The question in the title asks do I think its the worst Zelda game since the DS games. I'm loved ST and am playing PH right now and am actually having a better time than I did in SS, so I'd have to say that while I don't think the DS titles are bad, I do think SS is a bad Zelda game. Again we come to the point where I say I don't dislike SS, but rather I dislike what it did to the series. SS is great when you look at it by itself, but like Spirit of Rutela said, if it didn't have the title "Legend of Zelda" I feel confident people would call it a Zelda ripoff. A Zelda game should not have the atmosphere of a Zelda ripoff. And I can already hear people telling me... "You'd call any game that was like Zelda but wasn't Zelda a ripoff." Well, actually I played Shadow of the Collosus and I felt that it had similar aspects to Zelda. I called that "Zelda with only bosses." A ripoff isn't just something that is similar to another concept, but its something else that tries to deliver what that content did, but does a lack luster job. I feel SS did a lackluster job. While SS does get criticism, the reason I believe it is over hyped is because the reasons I generally hear that it is a great game are either, imo, over exaggerated or something I simply don't agree make a good game, or good Zelda game.

I obviously have more to say, but the point is you are not alone. I honestly believe the Zelda series would be better had Nintendo decided to scrap project Skyward Sword.

 

[Koosholts]

I don't see how Skyward Sword has the easiest combat. It automatically requires more thought than in previous games due to precision swinging being a major part of the scheme.

I waggle, and I beat the game -- twice now. Explain this paradox? Sure, I guess it would be easier to use precise swings with the Wii Mote+, but I'm impatient when I'm faced with repetitive enemies half-way through the game, so I just waggle. When I'm playing, Skyward Sword can just be as hack-and-slash as any other 3D Zelda; their combat-schemes are equally simplistic (not saying that's a bad thing).

Enemies before rarely had any defense, meaning hitting them was practically a guarantee. The same can't be said for Skyward Sword.

Skyward Sword gave the enemies a better ability to defend themselves, but crappy AI made it so that they never took advantage of it (at least not in a way that made it difficult for me to kill them).

 

[DarkestLink]

Which is called strategy, enemy depth, and advanced enemy AI, something not seen in past games.

I don't see the real strategy in basically telling your enemy to open their defenses and killing them when they were humble enough to follow suit. The only thing SS really had going for it was how fast it is.

Enemies before rarely had any defense, meaning hitting them was practically a guarantee. The same can't be said for Skyward Sword.

True. The enemies in SS had defense...problem was really their offense. Other enemies would charge at me and strike without a second thought. SS enemies, particularly the more common ones, would stand their with their mouths gaping open and refused to strike and chose to defend, even if there was nothing to defend themselves from. I'd have to disarm myself and stand still for several seconds before they finally took the hint and attacked.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

I honestly believe the Zelda series would be better had Nintendo decided to scrap project Skyward Sword.

Wow, so you honestly believe the Zelda franchise has nothing to gain from Skyward Sword? That SS's story and the way it tied in to the rest of the series was soooooo bad that we'd be better off without it? That the refinements in combat, items, etc. are not to be used at all in subsequent Zelda games? If so... man, I have pity for you.

And just so that it's clear: I haven't given a damn about continuity for quite some time now. Way before SS ever came out I tried my hardest to connect all the games together in a way that would make a lick of sense, but I came to the conclusion that that would NEVER happen. The Zelda timeline is a Gordian knot with no solution. It's called the LEGEND of Zelda, not the HISTORY of Zelda. Judge a game based on its own merits, not on how it ties in to other Zelda games chronologically speaking, because that's an exercise in futility.

 

[Random Person]

I honestly believe the Zelda series would be better had Nintendo decided to scrap project Skyward Sword.

Wow, so you honestly believe the Zelda franchise has nothing to gain from Skyward Sword?

Two different things.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

Two different things.

Hmm, I'm not following you. Care to elaborate?

 

[Random Person]

Hmm, I'm not following you. Care to elaborate?

Never did I say that Skyward Sword had nothing to offer the Zelda series. That is, I never said SS was completely negative. I said I feel the Zelda series would be better without it, in that SS had more negatives than it did positives, imo.

 

[Trio the Punch]

Well, it is technically true that Skyward Sword is the worst game in the series since the DS games. It is also true that it is the best in the series since the DS games. It is the only game in the series since the DS games. That being said, I love Skyward Sword (though I am willing to grant that it is somewhat overrated and it was disappointing on some levels) and I am quite fond of both of the DS titles (Spirit Tracks a lot less than Phantom Hourglass). Also, another thing to address, I believe it was said that if The Legend of Zelda wasn't in the title, Skyward Sword would just be a Zelda ripoff... which is true, but only because a ripoff is a game meant to be just like another game or series without actually being part of that series, so the only thing differentiating the two is whether or not the game is in the series it is meant to be like. So, to illustrate, if Super Mario Galaxy 2 had been disassociated from the first game by being called, say, Maximum Egg Force, it would've just been a Super Mario Galaxy ripoff. Just sayin'.

 

[Random Person]

Also, another thing to address, I believe it was said that if The Legend of Zelda wasn't in the title, Skyward Sword would just be a Zelda ripoff... which is true, but only because a ripoff is a game meant to be just like another game or series without actually being part of that series

Well, I don't know about others, but I said...

A ripoff isn't just something that is similar to another concept, but its something else that tries to deliver what that content did, but does a lack luster job.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

Never did I say that Skyward Sword had nothing to offer the Zelda series. That is, I never said SS was completely negative. I said I feel the Zelda series would be better without it, in that SS had more negatives than it did positives, imo.

Ah ok that clears that up. I'm still going to disagree with you, but whatever, to each their own.

 

[Trio the Punch]

I dunno 'bout that RP. First off, I wouldn't say SotC could be considered "Zelda with just bosses" as its borrowing from other series' didn't prevent it from being aggressively unique and incomparable really to any other game... but that's off topic... Moving forward, I don't know that I agree with the assertion that a ripoff is necessarily lack luster or worse than the thing it's ripping off. In fact, sometimes a ripoff can be just as good if not better than what it's ripping off. For instance, Batman was essentially an amalgamated ripoff of both The Shadow and Zorro, and I don't think anyone would argue that that wasn't for the better. I think that's why I tend to define a ripoff purely based on being structured intentionally similar to something else. So, based purely on my own definition, I still say that pretty much any game displaced from its series would appear as simply a ripoff of that series. Also, I apologize for addressing one of your points without reading the post thoroughly first. That was silly of me.

 

[Spirit]

Spirit, reading through your other posts on this subject leads me to believe you just wanted a follow-up to Twilight Princess or Wind Waker, and because you didn't get exactly what you wanted you unfairly hate the game. If you are able to offer up constructive criticism about Skyward Sword as well or are able to see what it did right I'd be more inclined to listen to you, but as it stands now you are leaving no room for discussion in your arguments.

I do sound critical with SS, but it isn't that i wanted WW or TP two, its just that i spent the whole of SS thinking 'is that it?' and 'Where is the rest of it'. The reason for this being is that I've played the Zelda series all my life and I expect every new game to build upon the last one and for the most part the games have done exactly that. MM may not have been longer than OoT but it was far more intricate to play, WW advanced item usage and scale and narrative etc and TP again built off of the other 3D games at the time by adding even more and being even bigger and this was on the Gamecube. People say the Wii was the weakest console on the market and that is true but surely it was more powerful than the Gamecube and it could handle TP because it was ported, given that, it just felt like Skyward Sword had stripped everything away, it didnt build or add anything as i believe a new installment to Zelda should and that is was bugged me. I like what is there it was just that with SS's gameplan of bringing back familiar elements from other games like WW i expected to do all i could there and more. It just doesnt feel right that so many things felt missing when less powerful games on less powerful consoles did much more without the 5 year production gap between the last home console installment, it makes me wonder what they were doing.

SS to me isnt a bad game its just not what i'd call a full game, i believe that the gameplay and location elements i mentioned in my previous post that i felt were missing could have been easily added but they weren't i just felt wholly short changed by Skyward Sword because so much felt missing and there was so much repetition.

 

[Justac00lguy]

I dont hate Skyward Sword first of all!

However this doesn't stop me from being extremely disappointed with the final, product :/ I know its my fault that I believe in the hype but who can blame me....it had been 5 years since the last great Zelda game on Wii and I was exited to see what Zelda could offer me! This was the first time as a full Zelda fan I was anticipating a Zelda game, I watched trailers over and over again and used to try and scrape any info I could, even though SS might have disappointed people with its reveal I was still really exited for it!

In fact I rebought a Nintendo Wii just to play...I then started to increase my library of Zelda games by playing the classics as well as OoT, MM, AlTP, LoZ and TWW as well as re playing through my fav Zelda game Twilight Princess! So I spent up to £80 on the Wii as well as other Zelda game's :/ I even bought the Golden WiiMote edition and during the start of Skyward Sword I was blinded by my excitement for the game but as I finished the Earth Temple I started to realise that SS wasn't as good as I thought.

From then on I started to realise the strong lack of exploration, the lack of Dungeons and how repetitive the motion controls were :/ Probably the time when I actually started to realise that this game was one of the worst Zelda's in the series was when we had to revisit past provinces and Dungeons. This just seemed lazy to me and after we forged the Master Sword I wanted some more dungeons especially during the Song quest but NO! Nothing...My last piece of hope was in the final event's in the game, the last dungeon seemed like a great idea but isn't the last dungeon meant to be actually hard? And am so sick of the last dungeon being a memory check of all the other dungeons....This is why I liked Hyrule Castle, completely original! Even Demise was a huge letdown prob one of the quickest bosses in the history of Zelda as well as one of the easiest final bosses.

I haven't even begun to scrape the surface on my frustrations with this game....However I wouldn't say its the worst Zelda game, just the worst 3D game as well as the biggest disappointment!

 

[DarkestLink]

Amazingly, I was somehow very underhyped for SS. I remember groaning thinking "Wow, Miyamoto screwed up" when he was struggling to get the game to work and I thought the game was going to have faulty controls...and it did. But not that badly. Because it was using M+, I figured "Oh great they're going to make stupid enemies that take forever to strike and leave their defenses wide open. And...I was half right. The enemies were pretty slow to attack, but they did actually cover their defenses. So it wasn't as pandering as I thought it would be. Then there was the fact it was a prequel. Zelda fans really do scare the hell out of me. I kept hearing discussions on how this was going to connect the series and tie it all together. At first I shrugged it off, but I don't keep up with news and, after awhile, I was beginning to worry that the fans were right and that perhaps Nintendo really was going to screw this up and try to connect a series caught into a train-wreck of continuity. And though SS had a fairly weak story, it did NOT try that, thank God.

Overall, I was most worried about combat and combat was what I found myself most pleased with ironically.

 

[JuicieJ]

I waggle, and I beat the game -- twice now. Explain this paradox? Sure, I guess it would be easier to use precise swings with the Wii Mote+, but I'm impatient when I'm faced with repetitive enemies half-way through the game, so I just waggle. When I'm playing, Skyward Sword can just be as hack-and-slash as any other 3D Zelda; their combat-schemes are equally simplistic (not saying that's a bad thing).

But how many times were your attacks blocked? Probably more often than you hit the enemies.

Skyward Sword gave the enemies a better ability to defend themselves, but crappy AI made it so that they never took advantage of it (at least not in a way that made it difficult for me to kill them).

Except the AI isn't crappy. Waggling may lead to success, but you'll have your attacks blocked more often than you hit. You also can't tell me that certain enemies that are capable of dodging attacks and that actually notice when bombs and **** are near them have crappy AI, especially when compared to past enemies.

Never did I say that Skyward Sword had nothing to offer the Zelda series. That is, I never said SS was completely negative. I said I feel the Zelda series would be better without it, in that SS had more negatives than it did positives, imo.

I just don't see how you can say that when it refined so many elements and brought back classic ones, even if it didn't come full circle with them.