Yes, but he turns into an amorphous black monster, and kind of resembles Ghiranim.UltimateIke said:But he's a Minish...
I'm just tossing the idea out there. I don't really expect that it's right.
Yes, but he turns into an amorphous black monster, and kind of resembles Ghiranim.UltimateIke said:But he's a Minish...
Kard8p3 said:oh I don't doubt that now. While I do hope he isn't a ganon clone it wont be that big of a deal to me if he is. As long as Ghirahim gets his due then I'm fine with whatever happens.
Why wait when it's already here.Mr. Saturn said:Can't wait for all the fanfics and fanart of Zelda and her bird.
BY2K said:I don't know, after Malladus, I think we're ready for a different kind of final boss.
Would be awesome if the final FINAL boss battle was against Ghirahim.
Kard8p3 said:I do agree it would be great to have a different kind of final boss. Honestly though I could see them pulling a Spirit Tracks and have Ghirahim and his master merge into one. Even though I don't think it will happen I think it would be cool if Ghirahim is trying to revive his master just to kill him and take his power. Whatever the case may be I'm sure the final boss will be amazing.
It's natural and perfectly fair for people to draw parallels between various iterations of a franchise. After all, it's the common threads that run between the games that make them part of a cohesive series to begin with. Reinterpreting elements from past games is just as important as creating entirely new ones. The idea that a game must either be faithful to traditional sensibilities or create entirely new ones is a false dichotomy. The best sequels manage to do both in equal measure, encompassing familiarity and novelty all at the same time. I would add that by most indications SS seems poised to walk that line admirably for the most part.EatChildren said:I just want to say, people need to stop drawing parallels to other Zelda games if they really want to see the franchise evolve and offer something new. All I seem to hear is "Is the ground connected?", "What size is the sky world?" and "How many dungeons?". Elements of the franchise, but irrelevant unless explained in the context of the game it is.
Give than that Skyward Sword takes place in a setting new for the franchise, has a new overworld system, and is changing up the dungeon dynamics, they're all rather pointless and irrelevant questions. If Skyward Sword is different, then it will need to be judged by it's own standards. Maybe the sky world is small, but how much content is there? Maybe there aren't many dungeons, but how many intermission quests are there? So on, and so forth.
Trying to rate Skyward Sword up against the elements of all the previous games is, in my opinion, defeating the point of what people have been requesting all this time; something new and different.
Maybe this game also depicts the War of the Bound Chest? Maybe one amorphous black monster is connected to the other? What if the the monsters sealed away had an influence on Vaati's form(s) in the future? He releases them after all.Crunched said:Yes, but he turns into an amorphous black monster, and kind of resembles Ghiranim.
I'm just tossing the idea out there. I don't really expect that it's right.
GrotesqueBeauty said:It's natural and perfectly fair for people to draw parallels between various iterations of a franchise. After all, it's the common threads that run between the games that make them part of a cohesive series to begin with. Reinterpreting elements from past games is just as important as creating entirely new ones. The idea that a game must either be faithful to traditional sensibilities or create entirely new ones is a false dichotomy. The best sequels manage to do both in equal measure, encompassing familiarity and novelty all at the same time. I would add that by most indications SS seems poised to walk that line admirably for the most part.
Imo it's wrongheaded to conflate opinions in a group with as diverse tastes as Zelda fans. Making the broad generalization that people have been asking for change and therefore should be placated by these specific changes is reductive and fails to acknowledge diversity of opinion among fans. It all depends on the particular nature of the changes, doesn't it? You can't just say "Well, it's a good thing this Zelda is an online Majong simulator. Everyone was asking for changes, and turning the series into a themed gambling game is real a game changer! Shut up and be happy you!" I mean, you said yourself that people should judge SS on its own standard. Isn't the layout of the overworld then one of the merits on which it can be judged? And going by your own metric, if someone believes in earnest that having a less compartmentalized overworld is the superior choice for this sort of game are they any less within their right to believe than than you are for believing otherwise?
Luigiv said:Important Fact:
It's impossible for Gannon to be in this game. OoT was his origin story and SS is set hundreds of years before OoT.
Whilst the Zelda team is fairly 'lax on the timelime, they arenot going to contradict themselves on this point. It's too important a detail. So, yeah, I wouldn't worry about that.probably
Yeah figured as much, though wasn't 100% sure on that point.Kard8p3 said:It's already been confirmed that he isn't in the game.
Not being as fleshed out as TWW? I certainly hope not. Not like TWW was that fleshed out to begin with. Most of TWW felt rushed. From Jabun giving you the last pearl instead of a full fledge dungeon to the game artificially extending its length with the triforce quest. The game needed more dungeons and they could've made better use of the ocean setting. It was pretty silly that you couldn't dive or catch fish in the game despite there being fishmen, shark like creatures, and a few other sea creatures. The way they design most of the island felt lazy as well. Most of them were a bunch of little platforms that felt artificial. I also didn't care for the towns in TWW because they felt like small neighborhoods. There were only 2 of them and they were half the size of MM's towns. I even preferred TP's town even though the npc interaction was less fleshed out because it had a more believable architecture, markets, people running around, street musicians, etc.TheExplodingHead said:Sucks to hear about the easy difficulty throughout, one of the things I hoped would definitely change. But now there's talk of there being only a few select locales and just not being as fleshed out as WW's overworld. Guess we'll have to wait on a few more confirmations but I'm now cautiously optimistic about it being the "best Zelda ever" from my perspective.
GeneralIroh said:Not being as fleshed out as TWW? I certainly hope not. Not like TWW was that fleshed out to begin with. Most of TWW felt rushed. From Jabun giving you the last pearl instead of a full fledge dungeon to the game artificially extending its length with the triforce quest. The game needed more dungeons and they could've made better use of the ocean setting. It was pretty silly that you couldn't dive or catch fish in the game despite there being fishmen, shark like creatures, and a few other sea creatures. The way they design most of the island felt lazy as well. Most of them were a bunch of little platforms that felt artificial. I also didn't care for the towns in TWW because they felt like small neighborhoods. There were only 2 of them and they were half the size of MM's towns. I even preferred TP's town even though the npc interaction was less fleshed out because it had a more believable architecture, markets, people running around, street musicians, etc.
The benchmark they should've used was MM.
TWW was clearly unfinished. It has great potential and it'd be great to see a remastered version some time in the future with additional/cut content. May be waiting a while for that, but with rereleases of aLttP and OoT I'm not ruling out the possibility.GeneralIroh said:Not being as fleshed out as TWW? I certainly hope not. Not like TWW was that fleshed out to begin with. Most of TWW felt rushed. From Jabun giving you the last pearl instead of a full fledge dungeon to the game artificially extending its length with the triforce quest. The game needed more dungeons and they could've made better use of the ocean setting. It was pretty silly that you couldn't dive or catch fish in the game despite there being fishmen, shark like creatures, and a few other sea creatures. The way they design most of the island felt lazy as well. Most of them were a bunch of little platforms that felt artificial. I also didn't care for the towns in TWW because they felt like small neighborhoods. There were only 2 of them and they were half the size of MM's towns. I even preferred TP's town even though the npc interaction was less fleshed out because it had a more believable architecture, markets, people running around, street musicians, etc.
The benchmark they should've used was MM.
Arbitrary to whom though? Everyone had their own concept of what's desirable or not in a Zelda game. And again, "As far as we're aware" deigns to speak collectively for others.EatChildren said:You missed my point. It's the arbitrary checklist style questions (eg: How many dungeons?) that conflicted with the changes being explored by Skyward Sword, changes that are not about taking away an element that defines the series, but reworking it's integrating into the overall formula. If Nintendo's means of changing Zelda involved literally reshaping it into a whole new game, devoid of the staples that define it, then yes these questions would be valid. But as far as we're aware, they're not.
There is such a thing as making an educated deduction. While there's something to be said for remaining open minded, fans who have played a broad swath of games in the series have trudged through various world maps with areas that range from deeply interconnected to completely disparate. Why exactly are they supposed to suspend their opinions on the matter at your beck and call? If not having played the entire game is the reason, then it's folly to make positive assumptions or give the benefit of the doubt to the game as well. And what exactly is the point of talking about the game beyond hyping it if it's taboo to make a critical analysis based on our current understanding of it? I mean, if we're not to assume anything based on pre-release media, than how exactly does one reasonably filter between what they want to play or not?EatChildren said:And no, judging the overworld layout before you have played the game makes little sense, given how the overworld looks on paper gives no indication as to how the overworld plays in the context of the greater experience.
Your indignation doesn't really resonate with me when you opened with something like:EatChildren said:EDIT: Oh, and please refrain from drawing such implications from my arguments like "Shut up and be happy".
I guess telling people what they "need" to not express somehow isn't equivalent to telling them to shut up? Although I must say, the notion that people are somehow holding back the series from changing because they've formed an opinion on certain aspects of it is cute.EatChildren said:I just want to say, people need to stop drawing parallels to other Zelda games if they really want to see the franchise evolve and offer something new.
Comparisons to other games are perfectly valid. People want change, not completely different. And change isn't unidirectional. Changes can be good or bad. People will determine this based on the game on its own and in comparison to other games. Right now all people have to go on is preview information and the Zelda library. It's speculation but there's nothing wrong with it. As more info comes in opinions will evolve.EatChildren said:You missed my point. It's the arbitrary checklist style questions (eg: How many dungeons?) that conflicted with the changes being explored by Skyward Sword, changes that are not about taking away an element that defines the series, but reworking it's integrating into the overall formula. If Nintendo's means of changing Zelda involved literally reshaping it into a whole new game, devoid of the staples that define it, then yes these questions would be valid. But as far as we're aware, they're not.
And no, judging the overworld layout before you have played the game makes little sense, given how the overworld looks on paper gives no indication as to how the overworld plays in the context of the greater experience.
EDIT: Oh, and please refrain from drawing such implications from my arguments like "Shut up and be happy".
Where if I may ask ?Shiggy said:Finally ordered this shit for 54.99 ... the only fall release I'm buying this year![]()
Celine said:Where if I may ask ?
Sn4ke_911 said:
Sn4ke_911 said:
<3This is a game made for Christmas Day, released an agonising six weeks before.
:OSn4ke_911 said:
Italian, just ordered from Amazon.it for 58.45.Shiggy said:Just a German site...they sent out coupons to customers. If you are in Germany, just send a PM to me (outside of Germany mind the shipping costs).
My feelings exactly. Playing this game by an hour a day will be doing injustice, to us, this is gonna be an experience not to forget any time soon.This is a game made for Christmas Day, released an agonising six weeks before.
GrotesqueBeauty said:I guess telling people what they "need" to not express somehow isn't equivalent to telling them to shut up? Although I must say, the notion that people are somehow holding back the series from changing because they've formed an opinion on certain aspects of it is cute.
RagnarokX said:For your number of dungeons point, the validity of such a question depends on a lot of factors. How many dungeons are there? Are the between-dungeon areas substantive as dungeons? Are the side missions compelling like in MM? What does the individual care about (do they even want anything but dungeons)? Has dungeon quality suffered as a side-effect of the new style?
EDGE said:A new user-led upgrade system, on the other hand, strikes Skyward Swords single dull note. Resembling a My First Monster Hunter, globs of goo and ornamental skulls are swapped for tougher shields, bigger ammo pouches and deadlier arrows. That said, the idea gains traction once the end credits have rolled.
Sn4ke_911 said:
Sn4ke_911 said:
BY2K said:
A new user-led upgrade system, on the other hand, strikes Skyward Swords single dull note. Resembling a My First Monster Hunter, globs of goo and ornamental skulls are swapped for tougher shields,bigger ammo pouches and deadlier arrows
Man, I had to wear sunglasses to read this review.Sn4ke_911 said:
dwu8991 said:The review is not the full review unfortunately.
Comparing this review though to Eurogamer's Uncharted 3 review is the difference between a master piece of a videogame and one that is a cinematic pierce of videogame.
Twilight Princess said:omg you can catch birds/bugs/etc? sold, changing username to skyward sword
wow I haven't seen that .gif for years.Fine Ham Abounds said:
Maybe silver arrows make a return? I wonder if Light, Fire and Ice arrows make a return?BY2K said:
Ifrit said:Just read the EDGE review
It moved
mystic hymns stir memories in Links otherworldly aide