Skyward Sword review thread [Newest Reviews - Cubed3 10/10, GC: A, AusGamers: 7/10]

UltimateIke said:
But he's a Minish...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

If that happens, I would run around my apartment cursing my lungs out. In a good way.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?

Personally, I think Skyward Sword looks to strike a pretty good balance between the new and old. I just don't think splitting up the overworld into smaller segments is necessarily one of the better decisions, or even an especially new one for that matter. I mean WW, PH, and ST all done that to varying degrees already. In fact, all of the 3D Zelda games feature somewhat compartmentalized overworlds compared to some of the 2D games like the original LoZ, LttP, or LA. For me personally the disappointment in a segmented map isn't in that it's something crazy out there and foreign to the series, as much as that it's something that I believe has been overdone in recent years. Now, I take it as a positive sign that the world is dense with activity and varied, and that it blurs the line between dungeon and overworld. Those are all admirable reinterpretations of series conventions imo. Failing to weave disparate areas of the map together, not so much.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Minish Cap and Skyward Sword have the same director...maybe he threw in a few extra connections?
 
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 are
probably
not going to contradict themselves on this point. It's too important a detail. So, yeah, I wouldn't worry about that.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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".
 
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 are
probably
not going to contradict themselves on this point. It's too important a detail. So, yeah, I wouldn't worry about that.
Click to expand...

It's already been confirmed that he isn't in the game.
 
They do say the game is gonna touch on the reason why he shows up in Ocarina of Time, though. Can't wait for that.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I agree on MM, my favorite 3D Zelda. It's world was not only fleshed out, but had it's own atmosphere and the best NPC interaction/quests in Zelda. I'd love to see another Zelda layered in a similar way.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
EDIT: Oh, and please refrain from drawing such implications from my arguments like "Shut up and be happy".
Click to expand...
Your indignation doesn't really resonate with me when you opened with something like:

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.
Click to expand...
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:
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".
Click to expand...
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.

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?

I'm not worried about the game. From what I've seen there are probably plenty of dungeons.
 
Damn, I woke up this morning and saw that this thread had 4 new pages and I thought that more reviews must have gone live...
 
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).
Click to expand...
Italian, just ordered from Amazon.it for 58.45.
Thanks anyway.

EDIT:
Also horee shit at the review.
 
This is a game made for Christmas Day, released an agonising six weeks before.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

You had a condescending attitude in your reply to me in the Metroid thread, and here you have it again. I'm really not interested in engaging in discussion of any kind with you.

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?
Click to expand...

All those factors are exactly what makes the query important, as it elaborates on the question beyond "how many dungeons?", and asks exactly how the dungeon system works.
 
EDGE said:
A new user-led upgrade system, on the other hand, strikes Skyward Sword’s 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.
Click to expand...

The way this is worded makes it seem like there are tougher challenges that reveal themselves after you beat the game (second quest?). Maybe it just means the enemies are much stronger and require upgrades to your items.
 
UltimateIke said:
6PC5i.jpg
Click to expand...

m0YAz.gif
 
A new user-led upgrade system, on the other hand, strikes Skyward Sword’s 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
Click to expand...

:O
 
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.
Click to expand...

This is objectivity folks
 
God, the wait for this is unbearable. I beat Arkham City way too fast. =/ Gotta pace Nier out better.

Still, though, preorder on the LE is being placed TODAY. I've resigned myself to the fact that I can't resist that silly Wiimote.

Also, even though that review seemed to lay it on thick at a few points, it certainly fed the hypemonster within me. I can't believe I still have to wait this long.
 
BY2K said:
:O
Click to expand...
Maybe silver arrows make a return? I wonder if Light, Fire and Ice arrows make a return?

I'm slightly dissapointed that the upgrades aren't really neccesary and you can complete the game without them. However, I could say the same about Majora's Mask. Most of the masks you get are fun but not neccesary. I imagine that there will be sidequests and hidden treasure that can only be completed/obtained with the upgrades or at least I hope so.
 
mystic hymns stir memories in Link’s otherworldly aide
Click to expand...

so does this mean that you gain access to the silent realm with the harp? Maybe that's what those 12 beacons of light are for in that other trailer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Infinity Nikki Review - IGN (9/10) > Stellar blade: IGN 7/10
NSFW  2 3
123
10K
tTHANOSs replied
Secret Level IGN Review: 5/10
Review  2 3
137
13K
Luc2010 replied
Splatoon 10 year anniversary.
News 
23
347
Starhowl replied
Doom: The Dark Ages Review Embargo Lifts May 9, at 7 am/10 am PDT/EDT, 3 pm/4 pm BST/CEST
12
232
Efren is G.O.A.T. replied
FBC: Firebreak | Review Thread
Review 
49
171
lughnasadh123 replied
Top Bottom