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

So I've been seeing some complaints about it feeling linear. Honest question here, why is that new? As far as I know - All 3D Zelda games since Ocarina (including Ocarina) are pretty linear. Isn't it kind of expected at this point?
 
DennisK4 said:
What do the reviews say about the difficulty of the game?

Recent Zeldas have been far too easy and the games suffer as a result.
Click to expand...
You probably won't be happy. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Twilight Princess was 1. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Skyward Sword was 0.
 
Green Scar said:
Cy1bi.gif
Click to expand...

Thank god there are still some reasonable people within the Zelda community.
 
Feep said:
You probably won't be happy. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Twilight Princess was 1. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Skyward Sword was 0.
Click to expand...
OK it's official, I just suck at this game then.
 
solblade00 said:
So I've been seeing some complaints about it feeling linear. Honest question here, why is that new? As far as I know - All 3D Zelda games since Ocarina (including Ocarina) are pretty linear. Isn't it kind of expected at this point?
Click to expand...

But you can choose to do one dungeon instead of another dungeon in Ocarina, that makes it non-linear!
 
Feep said:
You probably won't be happy. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Twilight Princess was 1. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Skyward Sword was 0.
Click to expand...
But is that more a product of having played many Zelda games before and perhaps knowing the thought process of developers when they design said puzzles? For me, that's why I can solve most of them so quickly in Zelda games. I know the way the dungeons work and what to generallyl ook for.
 
royalan said:
I'm sorry, but can someone please explain to me why the Edge review is so highly regarded other than the fact that they awarded SS a 10? Because, in my opinion, it's one of the most annoyingly-written reviews of the bunch.

The eye-rolls started at "Freed from the shackles of buttons, Nintendo’s monster designers concoct a giddying bestiary of revamped favourites and startling debuts." (...seriously?) and didn't stop for the rest of the review. Granted, I like my reviews to be written with a little more flourish than "I didn't like this; I did like that." But with that said a few of the perfect score reviews seemed to be smothered in fanboy language.

I think I'm drawn more to the 4-star/8+ reviews for this reason. SS is getting generally favorable reviews, but the 8+ reviews seem to be a little more down-to-earth.

I'm playing SS regardless, but I prefer reading:

Skyward Sword is a great game and we recommend it, but it's very linear and there's a lot of backtracking involved. We don't like it when other games do this so Zelda isn't going to get a pass, either. Points deducted.

Versus,

Skyward Sword is a giddying trip into a Hyrule borne anew. Vibrant quests require you return to older areas and Skyloft is kinda sparse but GRANDEUR! FLOURISHING COLOR! SWEEPING OPULENT BEAUTY! Zelda makes it all feel like new!"
Click to expand...
Well that's you. If linearity and backtracking is a reason to deduct points I want to know exactly why other than the fact. Because linearity and backtracking aren't inherently negative. If the linearity does discourage exploration then you have my attention. If the backtracking is tedious and done in a superfluous manner then you also have my attention. There has to be a reason. The way I see it, neither of the paraphrased comments convey much about the game.
 
Feep said:
You probably won't be happy. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Twilight Princess was 1. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Skyward Sword was 0.
Click to expand...

I might suck at Zelda games, but I've been stuck a couple of times already (mostly for not finding shit). Combat wise this is MUCH harder than Twilight Princess, although that's not saying much.
 
Feep said:
You probably won't be happy. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Twilight Princess was 1. The number of puzzles in which I stuck for more than five minutes in Skyward Sword was 0.
Click to expand...
But some of us might get stuck on the
3 eye door
for an hour.
 
TSA said:
Ghirahim mostly sits around and talks in this game. He does a few "bad things" as you've seen (some mentioned in passing that you don't see, either), but he's more of a menace than a terrifying villain. He lacks the presence that Zant had in Twilight Princess. Zant invaded Hyrule, had his minions kill people, forced Zelda to make a difficult decision and then still subjected the kingdom to the possibility of eternal darkness and despair, almost kills Midna and throws you aside like a rag doll - among several other things. Yes, he commits character suicide in the end, but up until that point, Zant was what I wanted in a Zelda villain. He seemed even more imposing than Ganon.
Click to expand...

The most fearsome and creepy enemy in a Zelda game was Majora. Ganon is the classic one, but lost most of his terrifying character he originally had in OoT.

Zant was an idiot. Just a puppet. No more. No less. You said Zant invaded Hyrule as one critical part of TP: let me say instead that it was pathetic. We just saw Zant entering in the Royal chamber with no combat at all and menace Zelda to kill everyone. Something every villain is supposed to do. You said he reduced Midna as we know, but I really fail to see how this can be considered as particularly terrible. I didn't see the hate and the crazy of Majora behind anyway. I think it's a matter of tastes.

This time, Nintendo decided to put a comical, crazy-like character. However, let me ask you: isn't it rather what you personally want from a villain instead of a objective weakness of the game?

A villain is not always the bloodthirsty character (Zant anyway wasn't at all). A Zelda game isn't even supposed to have so strong elements of terror in the end. Some villain actually is more fearsome when it's out of control and whose reactions become unpredictables. But again, I haven't played the game. You did. I just want you to see things from a different point of view.
 
Can someone explain the linearity for me? Are you ever told you can't return to another area and you MUST go here next, or is there one goal area to progress but you can still explore other areas?
 
solblade00 said:
So I've been seeing some complaints about it feeling linear. Honest question here, why is that new? As far as I know - All 3D Zelda games since Ocarina (including Ocarina) are pretty linear. Isn't it kind of expected at this point?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by linear?

I don't consider Wind Waker or Majora's Mask anywhere near 'linear', even if they have a story and dungeons that are completed in a certain order. Come to think of it, OoT and TP are also hardly 'linear', since there is a lot of stuff to do outside of going to the next cutscene.
 
It’s great to see all the positive reviews for it. I’ve seen some of the negative aspects of it, and none really bother me except what has been said about the much smaller overworld (or is it underworld)? It’s only three distinct areas and I am hearing conflicting reports that they are densely filled with things to do/find or not much to do/find at all. Also don’t like hearing there are only a total of
7
dungeons.

But, still looking forward to the game overall and will of course make my judgement at that time.
 
Cygnus X-1 said:
The most fearsome and creepy enemy in a Zelda game was Majora. Ganon is the classic one, but lost most of his terrifying character he originally had in OoT.

Zant was an idiot. Just a puppet. No more. No less. You said Zant invaded Hyrule as one critical part of TP: let me say instead that it was pathetic. We just saw Zant entering in the Royal chamber with no combat at all and menace Zelda to kill everyone. Something every villain is supposed to do. You said he reduced Midna as we know, but I really fail to see how this can be considered as particularly terrible. I didn't see the hate and the crazy of Majora behind anyway. I think it's a matter of tastes.

This time, Nintendo decided to put a comical, crazy-like character. However, let me ask you: isn't it rather what you personally want from a villain instead of a objective weakness of the game?

A villain is not always the bloodthirsty character (Zant anyway wasn't at all). A Zelda game isn't even supposed to have so strong elements of terror in the end. Some villain actually is more fearsome when it's out of control and whose reactions become unpredictables. But again, I haven't played the game. You did. I just want you to see things from a different point of view.
Click to expand...

You don't find out Zant is a puppet until later, at which point I was like "you just killed what could have been an awesome villain". Majora/Skull Kid was a good villain because you saw him actually hurting everyone, and you were cleaning up his mess. You then find out he was just being controlled by the Mask, but unlike Zant, I felt sympathy for him.

Again, my problem is that I am told to fear Ghirahim, even by his own words, but he doesn't achieve that. I don't think that a villain inherently has to be blood thirsty, I said I don't like villains who are super evil just for the sake of being evil with no real depth to their character. Ghirahim could have been a great character, he had potential, but I think Nintendo just didn't pull it off.

To answer your question, it's actually a bit of both, but mostly because I feel he was not well developed rather than not meeting my expectations. I loved Kefka, and I love The Joker. They both weren't what I expected from a villain, either. I hated Kefka initially, but as I saw the story unfold, I was convinced he was absolutely awesome. Character development.
 
Magicpaint said:
Well that's you. If linearity and backtracking is a reason to deduct points I want to know exactly why other than the fact. Because linearity and backtracking aren't inherently negative. If the linearity does discourage exploration then you have my attention. If the backtracking is tedious and done in a superfluous manner then you also have my attention. There has to be a reason. The way I see it, neither of the paraphrased comments convey much about the game.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that linearity and backtracking are inherently bad things. I've yet to play the game, so I can't detail why. I'm just stating my observation that a lot of the reviews that are giving SS great-but-not-perfect scores seem to be showing a more consistent judgement on why they dislike certain elements as opposed to lauded reviewers like Edge - who express a lot of similar concerns but then buries them by waxing poetic on their general love for the series.

Not saying that SS doesn't deserve praise, but that Edge review reads like an English Comp paper.
 
Willy105 said:
What do you mean by linear?

I don't consider Wind Waker or Majora's Mask anywhere near 'linear', even if they have a story and dungeons that are completed in a certain order. Come to think of it, OoT and TP are also hardly 'linear', since there is a lot of stuff to do outside of going to the next cutscene.
Click to expand...


That's what I'm talking about. I recognize that you can do other things besides the main quest - so I don't understand the complaints about it being linear. It's basically the same as every other Zelda in that regard right?
 
cajunator said:
The problem with that is it is only a superficial commonality with Zelda. The enemy designs, characters, Zelda music, quirky items, and other elements are just not there. If you open a treasure chest you wont hear the little jingle, because that will be seen as non-immersive and unwanted in Skyrims world. Games like Skyrim I'm sure are fun for people who like them, but for me, I see trends developing that I really fear might ruin gaming for me. the move to more dark, realistic games is starting to lose the point. At first it was easy to avoid, but then more and more developers moved on to making those sorts of games, and started to leave out the cute and charming little things that used to make me happy as a gamer. It seems my fears are being realized. I don't think its an irrational fear because it is actually happening. There are fewer and fewer games that appeal to me. Developers that "got it" are starting to die off and be replaced with developers who really dont. Platformers are disappearing and relegated to download only releases outside of the Nintendo consoles. These are trends that I saw coming and really REALLY hated but they are becoming the new mainstream. All I can do is hold on to the few games that still appeal to my taste in gaming and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

Right there with you.
 
TSA said:
Ghirahim mostly sits around and talks in this game. He does a few "bad things" as you've seen (some mentioned in passing that you don't see, either), but he's more of a menace than a terrifying villain. He lacks the presence that Zant had in Twilight Princess. Zant invaded Hyrule, had his minions kill people, forced Zelda to make a difficult decision and then still subjected the kingdom to the possibility of eternal darkness and despair, almost kills Midna and throws you aside like a rag doll - among several other things. Yes, he commits character suicide in the end, but up until that point, Zant was what I wanted in a Zelda villain. He seemed even more imposing than Ganon.

And to be fair, the crux of that "he doesn't do anything" point was mostly taken from another reviewer who I was talking with (but I do agree with their stance). I mainly found Ghirahim a weak character because he was just so shallow. I could suspend disbelief mostly that he was wreaking havoc around the land and, in the past possibly, was a feared demon as mentioned in the prologue (it says he and others murdered without hesitation). The problem is I'm still being told what he has done most of the time. I want to experience/see more of this stuff. I mean, I laughed at some of the stuff he says and his body language at time. Wait till you see what he says later on...what a weird batch of dialogue that was.
Click to expand...
I had pointed this out before; he certainly is a 'weird' character, and more whimsical than being an evil villain. But still I guess his course of action are directed toward being a villian. The closest character I can resemble him with, is Joker. He is not Kefka, but it doesn't mean all the villain characters need to be him to be good antagonist characters.

FUCKING SPOILERS AAARRGGHHHH!
Click to expand...
Yeah, FUCKING spoilers :(( I learned about that one.
 
Haha, hype is going through the roof.

Oh man... can't believe it's been five years since the release of Twilight Princess. Well, I got my Wii eight days later because I had to wait for the second shipment but whatever. Glorious day. A new console and Zelda to boot. Good times.
 
TSA said:
You don't find out Zant is a puppet until later, at which point I was like "you just killed what could have been an awesome villain". Majora/Skull Kid was a good villain because you saw him actually hurting everyone, and you were cleaning up his mess. You then find out he was just being controlled by the Mask, but unlike Zant, I felt sympathy for him.

Again, my problem is that I am told to fear Ghirahim, even by his own words, but he doesn't achieve that. I don't think that a villain inherently has to be blood thirsty, I said I don't like villains who are super evil just for the sake of being evil with no real depth to their character. Ghirahim could have been a great character, he had potential, but I think Nintendo just didn't pull it off.

To answer your question, it's actually a bit of both, but mostly because I feel he was not well developed rather than not meeting my expectations. I loved Kefka, and I love The Joker. They both weren't what I expected from a villain, either. I hated Kefka initially, but as I saw the story unfold, I was convinced he was absolutely awesome. Character development.
Click to expand...

Well, now it seems that not only one character was good eventually, right? ;)
 
So lots of reviews commenting on the ease of the experience. The 'upgrade' system feeling about as meaningful as the invincibility armor in TP. This is exactly what I had feared and is really damaging my interest in the game. :/
 
royalan said:
I think I'm drawn more to the 4-star/8+ reviews for this reason. SS is getting generally favorable reviews, but the 8+ reviews seem to be a little more down-to-earth.
Click to expand...


Yes im sure the near perfect 10s of Skyrim and mw3 are more down to earth too...
 
wrowa said:
He also hyped up Twilight Princess to be the best thing ever in his review. Saying that it " is the new standard not only in The Legend of Zelda, but the standard in Nintendo's franchises." He emphasises how the story kicks ass and is a revolution of Zelda storylines. He says the game is full of minigames and sidequets. And he loves the soundtrack and the sound quality.

You see what I'm trying to say? Twilight Princess is widely regarded as one of the weaker Zelda's today; he is not only calling it the best game of the franchise, but he also praises it for things that are commonly referred to as the biggest weakpoints of the game. Aka a weak story with forgettable characters, the lack of sidequests and minigames, bad sound-quality etc.

And this is the person who's opinion on SS stands above all? Even though his previous reviews missed the point for most people? Not even to mention that TSA was always negative about SS, long before release.

This might sound like a personal vendetta against TSA, but this really isn't what I was trying to write. I respect him and I don't want to offend him on a personal level in any way, I'm just a little puzzled.
Click to expand...

Twilight Princess was good though.

So you say that "most" people don't agree with what I said. I don't know how you quantify "most", but okay. Did you poll the world? Twilight Princess is the second highest rated Zelda game (GCN version) apparently, behind Ocarina of Time. So, the critics didn't label it the weakest Zelda game. Did GAF say it is? The supposed Zelda community? I'm just challenging your assertion here, don't take it personally.

I also beg to differ about the story being one of the weaker points of Twilight Princess. It won numerous awards for its writing, and I don't remember much dissent that it was a bad story (again, I don't know everyone or haven't seen anyone, so would need more evidence to show it was widely regarded as a weak point). The side quests - I praise the stuff you do outside of the dungeon in that review because back then my definition of side quest in Zelda was anything not associated with the dungeons. Example would be defending the carriage when crossing Hyrule. I know they've done that before, but I loved something like that. However, to be fair, I would not label that stuff as side quests nowadays.

See, I wasn't that great of a writer back then, so, I would honestly say things I wrote like 5 years ago I wouldn't put too much stake in because I was still trying to get a grasp on how to do the whole review/criticism thing well. I re-read some of my own stuff and get a little embarrassed.
 
royalan said:
I'm not suggesting that linearity and backtracking are inherently bad things. I've yet to play the game, so I can't detail why. I'm just stating my observation that a lot of the reviews that are giving SS great-but-not-perfect scores seem to be showing a more consistent judgement on why they dislike certain elements as opposed to lauded reviews like Edge - who expresses a lot of similar concerns but then buries them by waxing poetic on their general love for the series.

Not saying that SS doesn't deserve praise, but that Edge review reads like an English Comp paper.
Click to expand...
Well one reviewer's significant con might be another's minor niggle. I think the EDGE review brushes those aside because the critic thinks they're not worth expatiating on further, but it's mentioned, therefore still provides the information to the reader. The balance of the EDGE text reads like a 10 yet tells me a lot of what I need to know about the game - good and bad. Same with the other reviews. It's just seems like a fairly divisive game on how these issues impact the overall experience.
 
solblade00 said:
So I've been seeing some complaints about it feeling linear. Honest question here, why is that new? As far as I know - All 3D Zelda games since Ocarina (including Ocarina) are pretty linear. Isn't it kind of expected at this point?
Click to expand...

Not when Skyward Sword has been repeatedly proclaimed as a 'paradigm shift' for the franchise. Sad to hear this news myself.
 
walking fiend said:
I had pointed this out before; he certainly is a 'weird' character, and more whimsical than being an evil villain. But still I guess his course of action are directed toward being a villian. The closest character I can resemble him with, is Joker. He is not Kefka, but it doesn't mean all the villain characters need to be him to be good antagonist characters.
Click to expand...


Well, I mean, you might love him in the end and further disagree with what I felt. I actually do want more people to chime in who like Ghirahim because I want to get some more insight into why he clicked with some people.
 
Cygnus X-1 said:
Well, now it seems that not only one character was good eventually, right? ;)
Click to expand...
Well, I mean, you might love him in the end and further disagree with what I felt. I actually do want more people to chime in who like Ghirahim because I want to get some more insight into why he clicked with some people.
Click to expand...

Wait, you used Kefka and Joker as example villains while I was writing my reply, using exactly those two to make my point? That's some very serious shit...

I didn't read your second reply to Cygnus while I was writing that.

I can see myself agree with what you say if it turns up to be true. I don't like Ghirahim to end up as a villain that has no threat to you. But neither I want him to end up as a villain that you hate. I want him to be an antagonist.

So you say that "most" people don't agree with what I said. I don't know how you quantify "most", but okay. Did you poll the world?
Click to expand...
well, I wanted to ask you the same when you said 'most' people 'hated' Temple of the Ocean King.
 
there is ENTIRELY TOO MUCH handholding, talking and generally too much interruption in the first segment of the game. just let me plaaaaay. don't re-iterate everything and beat me over the head with the tiniest of inane details about every mechanic or mission. every few steps i'm being told something or i get some WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE hint about really obvious introductory puzzles.
 
Magicpaint said:
Well one reviewer's significant con might be another's minor niggle.
Click to expand...

This is why it's important to read the content of the reviews and understand what the reviewer is getting at and then decide if that is an issue for you. For example, sailing around in Wind Waker was one of my favorite aspects of the game. Obviously for others it was one of the worst.
 
Brandon F said:
Not when Skyward Sword has been repeatedly proclaimed as a 'paradigm shift' for the franchise. Sad to hear this news myself.
Click to expand...
"Paradigm shift" is going "open world"? What the hell is nonlinear gaming anyway? Pretty much most of the "open world games" are still just linear experiences in terms of missions.
 
jarosh said:
there is ENTIRELY TOO MUCH handholding, talking and generally too much interruption in the first segment of the game. just let me plaaaaay. don't re-iterate everything and beat me over the head with the tiniest of inane details about every mechanic or mission. every few steps i'm being told something or i get some WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE hint about really obvious introductory puzzles.
Click to expand...

Gotta remember though that there are kids for whom this will be their first Zelda game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IGN's Legion Go 2 Review: A very expensive display upgrade 7/10
Review 
28
247
Magic Carpet replied
Silent Hill f Review Embargo Broken - Dualshockers 9.5/10 (Review summary inside)
2 3
144
2K
PlayStaytion replied
TOTK is easily a 10/10 with the Switch 2 upgrade
2 3 4
156
4K
Jack Videogames replied
Hades 2 | Review Thread
Review  2 3 4
178
924
HYDE replied
Infinity Nikki Review - IGN (9/10) > Stellar blade: IGN 7/10
NSFW  2 3
123
11K
tTHANOSs replied
Top Bottom