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

You know, usually I wouldn't get worked up about something like this; regardless of his motivation to give a review or to get clicks, it's still his opinion and he's doing what he's getting paid to do.

But when the same reviewer is known for making comments like this...

ViewtifulJC said:
"Other M is a strong departure from previous Metroid games, with fantastic combat and exciting bosses that make this another great entry in the series, 8.5/10"

- McShea

... while simultaneously praising Other M's control scheme, I literally cannot fathom how Skyward Sword's controls can be worse without being absolutely unplayable. He can have his opinion, but am I crazy for not being able to get behind it or even comprehend it?
 
Biggest-Geek-Ever said:
I don't know how one can hate and/or strongly dislike Metroid Prime, unless you have a hyper intolerance to back tracking. IT'S JUST SO GOOD!
Agreed. Probably the best game last gen...that or KOTOR.
 
Ugh, where is that huge image of that skit from Courage the Cowardly Dog that someone photoshop'd to talk about change (or no change) in Zelda. It was perfect.
 
TruePrime said:
Overall I'm saying is his review is poorly written when it comes to telling the reader exactly how he feels.

Taking out the issue of IR which the game doesn't use.

He says how the game is a retread, but in the very next sentence is an exciting adventure.

Well if he found it exciting then he should be reviewing from that angle and not worrying about people who might not be into Zelda as much as before.

I also take issue with how he handles spoilers, though the writer himself has already commented on this specifically.
Okay, I think I understand you better now. I actually think it wasn't poorly written. That doesn't mean I thought it was a good review. For me, he was informative and told the reviewers what he thought didn't work well. I think he doesn't really put his feelings in the review because that sentiment was given in the beginning and the end of the review. There are mechanics that are fresh and work really well but there are some glaring issues that he has with the game and most come from formulaic structures. I just think he didn't explicitly say them, instead implicitly had it over-arcing the entire review.

I think retreads can be exciting so, I can't really say much about that.
 
Just finished reading.

I disagree with a few of the points made in that GS review, but by and large, we agreed on a lot of the negative content: empty overworld, constant recalibration, pretty severe retreads in bosses and areas. 7.5 is harsh if you consider the AAA 7-10 scale, certainly, but we have to ween people off of that somehow.

We never will
 
Lunar15 said:
Has Zelda ever truly been "non-linear"? The order of temples is pretty clearly defined, and the game forces you along a path, at least for the main part of the game. The only open ended parts are the sidequests, which seem to be intact for this game. Sure, in A Link to the Past you could do a lot of exploring by looking around the world, but rarely could you do much before getting the next item from a dungeon. Ocarina of Time and Majora's mask were even more linear in that respect, in terms of getting to dungeons it's a straight forward affair each time, with almost nothing in-between them (outside of sidequests)


Ocarina of Time is actually pretty open. You can easily do Water before Fire, and can do Spirit second iirc (though I believe you need Fire arrows to fully explore it, ie, Gold Skulls, etc).

Child link is pretty fixed, and Shadow has to be done after most of the others.
 
Ani loves Mirrors Edge.

That makes him good people.

Also, yes the main game is more than a little iffy, but the perfection in the game comes from the time trials.
 
TruePrime said:
I enjoyed my time with Other M and actually having Samus have a real character even if it did have some issues far more then I did playing Prime 1 or 2.
Sometimes being a real character is worse than being a non-character.
 
MechaX said:
You know, usually I wouldn't get worked up about something like this; regardless of his motivation to give a review or to get clicks, it's still his opinion and he's doing what he's getting paid to do.

But when the same reviewer is known for making comments like this...



... while simultaneously praising Other M's control scheme, I literally cannot fathom how Skyward Sword's controls can be worse without being absolutely unplayable. He can have his opinion, but am I crazy for not being able to get behind it or even comprehend it?
Outside of the First Person segments Other M controlled very easily, I can't imagine how anyone actually had hard time with.

Shit the dodge is one of the most overpowered moves in gaming because it's so easy to do.
 
Lunar15 said:
Has Zelda ever truly been "non-linear"? The order of temples is pretty clearly defined, and the game forces you along a path, at least for the main part of the game. The only open ended parts are the sidequests, which seem to be intact for this game. Sure, in A Link to the Past you could do a lot of exploring by looking around the world, but rarely could you do much before getting the next item from a dungeon. Ocarina of Time and Majora's mask were even more linear in that respect, in terms of getting to dungeons it's a straight forward affair each time, with almost nothing in-between them (outside of sidequests)
Zelda 1 really is the only fully non linear game.
 
Gamespot often makes things interesting. Reading the review, a 7.5 almost seems generous.

Remember that this is Tom McShea's opinion. One guy. If you think that the fact that he writes for Gamespot suddenly makes his review more credible, then I suppose it's actually meaningful to you. For me, after seeing so many reviews and so many extremely positive ones that aren't so bogged down by the same criticisms, I just can't be concerned anymore. It's possible that I'll side with the guy, but that just doesn't seem likely. Opinions of SS seem to vary depending on how meta people decide to be. The more conscious they are of this game's place in the industry, the heavier certain (perceived?) flaws seem to weigh.

I'm going to be going from Arkham City to this. It'll be an interesting transition.
 
MechaX said:
... while simultaneously praising Other M's control scheme, I literally cannot fathom how Skyward Sword's controls can be worse without being absolutely unplayable. He can have his opinion, but am I crazy for not being able to get behind it or even comprehend it?

He complains about the infrared aiming controls of Skyward Sword.

The only problem with that is, the game doesn't have that kind of controls. It's all gyro, no infrared at all.

Make of that what you want.
 
MechaX said:
You know, usually I wouldn't get worked up about something like this; regardless of his motivation to give a review or to get clicks, it's still his opinion and he's doing what he's getting paid to do.

But when the same reviewer is known for making comments like this...



... while simultaneously praising Other M's control scheme, I literally cannot fathom how Skyward Sword's controls can be worse without being absolutely unplayable. He can have his opinion, but am I crazy for not being able to get behind it or even comprehend it?
The man dislikes motion controls in general. It's something that seeped into his review.

Okay, and seriously, this trolling for hits shit, or the score doesn't align with other reviewers crap really needs to stop. Just because they give it a score that is a bit of a departure from other people doesn't mean anything. He made a legitimate argument of why it warranted a 7.5. Have problems? Listen to podcast tomorrow because he'll probably talk about it on there.
 
Feep said:
Just finished reading.

I disagree with a few of the points made in that GS review, but by and large, we agreed on a lot of the negative content: empty overworld, constant recalibration, pretty severe retreads in bosses and areas. 7.5 is harsh if you consider the AAA 7-10 scale, certainly, but we have to ween people off of that somehow.

We never will

Those would be valid reasons worthy of a 7.5.
 
Haha considering how much new SS is bringing to the table in terms of visual style and controls, a 7.5 is not bad at all as the lowest score. Don't bitch. Read the review. Deal with it.
 
Mistle said:
I don't know how serious you are lol, but I honestly wish reviewers wore score on a full 1-10 scale. 5 would be average. It just makes a lot more sense.
There's a lot more room to play with to show just how good/great/amazing a game is or vice-versa.
the 8-10 scale reviewers use right now doesnt give them room to play with, but even worse they still describe 8s as great, which is usually bullshit. it my experience 8 is a rental if youre a fan of the genre, 9 is good, maybe worth a buy, and 9.5 and up are great games with 10s being very exceptional games.

mgs4 was an 11 on this stupidass scale.
 
Lunar15 said:
Has Zelda ever truly been "non-linear"? The order of temples is pretty clearly defined, and the game forces you along a path, at least for the main part of the game. The only open ended parts are the sidequests, which seem to be intact for this game. Sure, in A Link to the Past you could do a lot of exploring by looking around the world, but rarely could you do much before getting the next item from a dungeon. Ocarina of Time and Majora's mask were even more linear in that respect, in terms of getting to dungeons it's a straight forward affair each time, with almost nothing in-between them (outside of sidequests)
The first one in particular was. You could basically go anywhere in the overworld from the start (whether you survived long or could do much was another matter), the labyrinths could be completed out of order, key items could be collected from labyrinths you couldn't yet beat and so forth.
 
Feep said:
Just finished reading.

I disagree with a few of the points made in that GS review, but by and large, we agreed on a lot of the negative content: empty overworld, constant recalibration, pretty severe retreads in bosses and areas.

You know, I've been meaning to ask you about this: What do you mean by "overworld"? Yes, I've heard that the sky is indeed pretty empty, but should we really be comparing the sky to hyrule field or the great sea? Now, I haven't played the game, but I was under the impression that the sky played out more like a giant extention of the central town itself, and the 3 areas underneath are what really constitutes as the "Overworld", albeit in a more Majora's Mask/Link to the Past type of way.
 
TheGreatMightyPoo said:
I'm just angry that a regular poster here is a game reviewer.

Next thing you know, fucking Anihawk will be scoring games for real.

There's quite a few game reviewers on gaf. I mean there are multiple ones in the thread itself like Feep. I technically qualify (though I've only officially written one review so far). Wish I had the chance to review SS.
 
Branduil said:
Sometimes being a real character is worse than being a non-character.

That just reminds me of that "Samus a three-dimensional character now, how is this a bad thing!? 3 dimensions > 1 dimension!"

You know who else was a three-dimensional character? Jar-Jar Binks
 
Lunar15 said:
Has Zelda ever truly been "non-linear"? The order of temples is pretty clearly defined, and the game forces you along a path, at least for the main part of the game. The only open ended parts are the sidequests, which seem to be intact for this game. Sure, in A Link to the Past you could do a lot of exploring by looking around the world, but rarely could you do much before getting the next item from a dungeon. Ocarina of Time and Majora's mask were even more linear in that respect, in terms of getting to dungeons it's a straight forward affair each time, with almost nothing in-between them (outside of sidequests)

Correct, there has not been a non-linear Zelda. They just give you the illusion of non-linear.
 
Feep said:
Just finished reading.

I disagree with a few of the points made in that GS review, but by and large, we agreed on a lot of the negative content: empty overworld, constant recalibration, pretty severe retreads in bosses and areas. 7.5 is harsh if you consider the AAA 7-10 scale, certainly, but we have to ween people off of that somehow.

We never will
true, but it would appear more legitimate if the weening began with something less high profile. otherwise it appears to be clickbait.
 
Branduil said:
How can people still hate on Metroid Prime after Metroid: Other M happened?
i came to the conclusion of metroid prime after i played other m. i gave metroid prime a replay, which usually never happens, even to games i like.
 
7.5 might be a bit low but I do have a few annoyances with the game.

The musical instrument is poor/ not fun
The flying isn't much fun either
The animations when picking up bugs or minerals reset after each reboot. Just like the rupee bug in TP
The swimming handles poorly
Motionplus flaws are very obvious

But, awesome game despite all this. It's just a much harder Zelda with clever design and puzzles. Lots to do with your rupees and fun characters. I love it :)
 
Socreges said:
...what is he fighting?
I just posted that for fighting against what other reviewers were giving the game. In all honesty, I wasn't being serious plus I hadn't even read the review when I had posted that. Everything afterwards was post-read.
 
Gamespot said:
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword finds itself in an unenviable predicament. In the 25 years since its inception, the franchise has picked up a few bad habits. Chief among these are a predictable structure and fetch quests that force you to trudge through hours of ho-hum content before you reach the good parts. However, changing these aspects would require a complete overhaul of the tried-and-true formula, and it could ruffle the feathers of those who seek familiarity. What's a gamemaker to do? In the case of Skyward Sword, Nintendo has kept the elements that have hung like an acidic cloud over past iterations while crafting a new control system to keep it from feeling like the same old game. Unfortunately, the combination is not successful. Inconsistent controls continually torment poor Link, and the predictable structure does little to distract you from these faults. Thankfully, other staples, such as exquisite dungeon design and enticing collectibles, are also present, and the clever storytelling keeps you invested. Ultimately, Skyward Sword commits many of the same mistakes that its predecessors have made, but it still provides enough engrossing content to keep you hooked.

This dude speaks as the past 4-5 iterations of Zelda were all bad, which makes no sense at all. The criticism arose quite from Twilight Princess forward, but till The Wind Waker, hardly one could talk about "bad habits" and "bad controls". He talks about mistakes made in the past: which ones please? Make concrete examples please!

Gamespot said:
The control issues don't end with the combat, either. When Nintendo released the first 3D adventure in the series in 1998, Ocarina of Time set a number of standards (such as Z targeting) that are still used in a variety of games today. But that was 13 years ago, and many ideas that worked back then feel downright clunky now.
For instance, your camera control is very limited. You can tap Z to center your view or lock on to an enemy, but this is a poor solution because you can't freely scan the environment without switching to a first-person perspective.

First-person? Are you serious?

There are times when you square off against giant foes but your view is almost completely blocked, placing you in a frustrating situation that could have been avoided. Automatically jumping when you run toward a ledge is also included in Skyward Sword, and combined with the troubled camera, you may find yourself accidentally jumping off of a cliff or taking inadvisable angles.
It's a shame that you spend so much time fighting the controls in Skyward Sword because the content is quite enjoyable. Dungeon design is particularly impressive.

From what I read till now, the problems that arose are fully due to Wii Motion Plus. Innovation and past iteration of the franchise have nothing to do with that. I'm just reading what you wrote.

Gamespot said:
Recent entries in the series got into the predictable habit of introducing a new item in each dungeon that you would subsequently use to solve most of the puzzles and defeat the boss. Thankfully, that's no longer the case in Skyward Sword, and the experience is much better for it. Now, you need to dip into your bag of tools to figure out the best way to advance. You may need to use your beetle to scout the environment or roll a bomb into a hole, and the unpredictability of the obstacles forces you to carefully consider each scenario. Though you rarely die in combat, there are more than a few situations where you might find yourself stumped. You can solicit advice from Fi, the companion who travels with you, and this advice is usually vague enough to point you in the right direction without spelling out exactly what needs to be done.

This also contradict what you said in the first part of your review. I'm still just reading.

Gamespot said:
Predictability crops up in the quest structure as well. You repeat the pattern of fetch quest, dungeon, fetch quest, dungeon so many times that it starts to feel like you're just going through the motions.

If this is true, Nintendo better be damned. This was one of the bad things of Twilight Princess.

Thankfully, there are a few diversions that add a hint of variety to the been-there-done-that trappings. The silent realm forces you to tear through previously explored areas with a slight twist. You must collect scattered tear drops without being seen, but you have to use different techniques from what you would normally use because you don't have any weapons. Granted, by the fourth time this situation crops up, what was once fresh begins to feel a bit stale, but it's a nice detour from the meat-and-potatoes progression that the rest of the game encompasses.

Repetition exists not only in what you do but also in where you go. There are three main areas in Skyward Sword (a desert, a volcano, a grassy plane), and you visit each of these on three separate occasions. Your objectives do change, but you often have to walk through the same environments you've already visited. Considering that revisiting the same area was one of the most maligned aspects of Phantom Hourglass, it's odd that Nintendo would once again reuse places to pad the length of this adventure. And in no place is this more troubling than in the final few hours of the game, where your last trip to the volcano world thrusts you into an unusual mission that plays unlike the rest of the game. The levels are meandering and illogical, and the artificial intelligence is laughably bad. Not only does this section feel out of place--it just isn't fun on its own terms.

This feels idiotic and of course it is going to be boring.

When you're not questing through dungeons, you can take part in plenty of side missions. Your main mode of travel in Skyward Sword is on the back of a bird. You're free to travel anywhere in the sky your heart desires, and the stirring music does a great job of making you feel like a soaring adventurer. Quests are usually handed out by the needy citizens of Skyloft, and these encompass a great deal of different activities. Some of them, such as carrying pumpkins for a tavern owner, are quite lame, but most of them are fun in their own right. One quest lets you decide the proper use for a love letter, while another sees Link in the role of unassuming steroid pusher. Both scenarios trigger side stories that are not only funny but will entice you to finish them just to see how they turn out. Still, the overworld is not without its faults. First, flying through the air is a slow process, and once you test the limits of your bird's diving ability early on, there's little to demand your attention on the long flights. Second, although there are many islands in the sky, few of them contain anything worthwhile. It's a far cry from the rich world of The Wind Waker where you were never sure what you would encounter next.

This confirm what already read before.

A few of the new elements introduced in Skyward Sword are positive additions to the series. An upgrade system lets you use collectibles you scrounge up in your quest to improve your tools. For example, you can turn your slingshot into a scattershot that fires three pellets at once or improve the healing powers of your potions. This is a great addition to the franchise because it gives you a purpose for collecting things, with a tangible result when you acquire enough goods. Link is also more agile than in past games. He can now sprint through worlds and shimmy up short walls, and this allows the labyrinthine design to be more robust. A stamina meter ensures you can't abuse this, and there are clever situations where you must run precisely, lest you run out of breath and fail your mission. There's also a motion-controlled segment onboard a minecart, and though it only lasts a few minutes, it's a thrilling detour from the main actions. These elements are worthwhile additions to the franchise, but it's a shame that there aren't more of these features to really set Skyward Sword apart from previous games.

The good elements do outweigh the bad in Skyward Sword, creating another engrossing experience in this venerable franchise. Strong visual design meshes the cartoony world of Wind Waker with the more realistic approach offered by Twilight Princess, and the riveting orchestral soundtrack brings back many classic tracks while offering a few tasty new ones. However, the formula is beginning to show its age. There just aren't enough new ideas to separate Skyward Sword from its predecessors, and the few additions come with mixed results. Even with many bright spots, Skyward Sword still feels like a nostalgic retread. Those yearning for something new will be disappointed, but anyone thirsty for another exciting adventure will find plenty to enjoy here.

Well, fair enough. I think the big weak point of your review regards the controls, whose criticism is not very consistent. Especially the rant regarding the fact that it's a problem that keeps being present since the past iterations of the franchise. This is bullshits, since till Twilight Princess controls were excellent. If something now is wrong, well, it's a problem that arose now and has nothing to do with the past.

I'm more inclined to take agree with your logic in the second part, in which you say that the structure of the game is quite broken and that the quest itself is very boring, despite a great storyline. This is due to the fact, according to you that one has to pass through the same places in a rather cheap way. Further, the sense of exploration is completely due to the predictability of the game. That's very bad indeed. Still, I haven't play it, but I have no reason to doubt you for now. Sigh, and here I thought that Skyward Sword would have been not as boring as Twilight Princess.
 
Cygnus X-1 said:
This dude speaks as the past 4-5 iterations of Zelda were all bad, which makes no sense at all. The criticism arose quite from Twilight Princess forward, but till The Wind Waker, hardly one could talk about "bad habits" and "bad controls". He talks about mistakes made in the past: which ones please? Make concrete examples please!



First-person? Are you serious?



From what I read till now, the problems that arose are fully due to Wii Motion Plus. Innovation and past iteration of the franchise have nothing to do with that. I'm just reading what you wrote.



This also contradict what you said in the first part of your review. I'm still just reading.



If this is true, Nintendo better be damned. This was one of the bad things of Twilight Princess.



This feels idiotic and of course it is going to be boring.



This confirm what already read before.



Well, fair enough. I think the big weak point of your review regards the controls, whose criticism is not very consistent. Especially the rant regarding the fact that it's a problem that keeps being present since the past iterations of the franchise. This is bullshits, since till Twilight Princess controls were excellent. If something now is wrong, well, it's a problem that arose now and has nothing to do with the past.

I'm more inclined to take agree with your logic in the second part, in which you say that the structure of the game is quite broken and that the quest itself is very boring, despite a great storyline. This is due to the fact, according to you that one has to pass through the same places in a rather cheap way. Further, the sense of exploration is completely due to the predictability of the game. That's very bad indeed. Still, I haven't play it, but I have no reason to doubt you for now. Sigh, and here I thought that Skyward Sword would have been not as boring as Twilight Princess.
Might want to just message that to him.
 
Lunar15 said:
You know, I've been meaning to ask you about this: What do you mean by "overworld"? Yes, I've heard that the sky is indeed pretty empty, but should we really be comparing the sky to hyrule field or the great sea? Now, I haven't played the game, but I was under the impression that the sky played out more like a giant extention of the central town itself, and the 3 areas underneath are what really constitutes as the "Overworld", albeit in a more Majora's Mask/Link to the Past type of way.
The three areas are most certainly not any type of overworld. They are exceedingly linear, with only one way to progress at any given time. No sense of exploration there.
 
TruePrime said:
Outside of the First Person segments Other M controlled very easily, I can't imagine how anyone actually had hard time with.

Shit the dodge is one of the most overpowered moves in gaming because it's so easy to do.

He specifically praised the transition to the First Person Segments as "fluid," and I would have a hard time calling that transition fluid, to be honest. The lack of analog combined with frequent diagonal movement is really just painful. And the dodge move... well, not so much a control detail, but that dodge move breaks the gameplay for a few reasons that I won't get into here.

But if he just dislikes motion controls in general, well, that pretty much explains the big chunk of the issue here. But whether or not having some one who dislikes motion control schemes to review games revolving around such control scheme is a good idea or not in terms of making an effective critique is something else entirely (personally, I think that kinda sets up a game to fail without offering really good criticism as opposed to hearing particular quirks/failings from someone who has embraced motion controls, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion).
 
AniHawk said:
mirror's edge is an extremely ambitious take on the platformer while keeping all of what makes the genre great. i still can't believe it was made in this day and age, and by ea no less.

i don't hate mp or dkcr. i dislike them, sometimes strongly. the only game that still gets me riled up is jak ii. my rating scale goes from jak ii to 10, with 0 being a step above because it is at least nothing.


not to derail the thread too much off topic as im sure this has been discussed before:
no doubt ME was ambitious. and it had sheer moments of brilliance. i was so disappointed though by so many flawed design choices. the platforming is great, the feeling of matrix-like persecution is unrivaled in gaming, and yet... there are a few key things that hold it back from perfection. it is probably because I can imagine how much greater it could potentially be that I cannot be in love with its current incarnation.

on topic... things seem to be settling down.
 
kayos90 said:
I just posted that for fighting against what other reviewers were giving the game. In all honesty, I wasn't being serious plus I hadn't even read the review when I had posted that. Everything afterwards was post-read.
Huh. Do you actually want this to be a great game?
 
BramVD said:
7.5 might be a bit low but I do have a few annoyances with the game.

The musical instrument is poor/ not fun
The flying isn't much fun either
The animations when picking up bugs or minerals reset after each reboot. Just like the rupee bug in TP
The swimming handles poorly
Motionplus flaws are very obvious

But, awesome game despite all this. It's just a much harder Zelda with clever design and puzzles. Lots to do with your rupees and fun characters. I love it :)
I can list several more severe issues for a lot of 9.0+ games, they don't get 7.5 for these type of minor issues.
 
This dude speaks as the past 4-5 iterations of Zelda were all bad, which makes no sense at all. The criticism arose quite from Twilight Princess forward, but till The Wind Waker, hardly one could talk about "bad habits" and "bad controls". He talks about mistakes made in the past: which ones please? Make concrete examples please!

I think the reviewer thinks that the series has bad habits but it is a series of good games, including this one because the good outweigh the bad.
 
7.5 might be a not so excellent score, but there is nothing worse than playing a highly-praised game and end up not enjoying it. Take Spirit Track, for example. The game got nines everywhere, but I thought that game was too easy, boring, the train sucks, and I don't think I'll ever touch that game again.

I am trusting my gut that it won't be the case with Skyward Sword. It seems to be a game I will most likely enjoy and have fun replaying I hope
 
Socreges said:
Huh. Do you actually want this to be a great game?
Honestly, I think I've set the bar for Zelda so high after MM, I doubt there will be a Zelda that tops that. Having said that, I do wish that this game is so great because it's probably the swan song of the Wii.
 
MechaX said:
He specifically praised the transition to the First Person Segments as "fluid," and I would have a hard time calling that transition fluid, to be honest. The lack of analog combined with frequent diagonal movement is really just painful. And the dodge move... well, not so much a control detail, but that dodge move breaks the gameplay for a few reasons that I won't get into here.

But if he just dislikes motion controls in general, well, that pretty much explains the big chunk of the issue here. But whether or not having some one who dislikes motion control schemes to review games revolving around such control scheme is a good idea or not in terms of making an effective critique is something else entirely.
Hmm well I didn't have a problem with the transitions to First Person, my biggest issue was the hunt and peck nature.

I got over the diagonals quickly.

Don't know, control was just never a problem for me in that particular game.
 
The GS score is BS. The review was more like an 8.5 than a 7.5.
I think the reviewer fails to understand the wii audience and the backlash he is getting is fully deserved.
 
Feep said:
The three areas are most certainly not any type of overworld. They are exceedingly linear, with only one way to progress at any given time. No sense of exploration there.

But I feel like that's how it was in Majora's mask. once you got to each area there was a very tiny amount of real exploration. It was all fetch quests and such in that game as well. And even still how much true "exploration" was there in OOT or TP's overworld. Sure, there were a few caves here and there with interesting surprises, but for the most part it was all empty.

I'm pretty curious to see it for myself. I trust your review, however I'm just interested to see if perhaps differing perspectives on the series as whole might have an effect on how we see this game.
 
dwu8991 said:
The GS score is BS. The review was more like an 8.5 than a 7.5.
I think the reviewer fails to understand the wii audience and the backlash he is getting is fully deserved.
I smell a ban coming. Also, the review did not sound like an 8.5 at all.
 
I don't think anyone is doing themselves any favors by asking for a Zelda game that is...not like Zelda. At that point you should just go the whole mile and ask for a new IP in general, one with a similar style (or whatever you like in Zelda).
 
Lunar15 said:
But I feel like that's how it was in Majora's mask. once you got to each area there was a very tiny amount of real exploration. It was all fetch quests and such in that game as well.
But there was a world connecting those areas. In Skyward Sword, it is the sky, and it's positively barren.
 
I think we should definitely get away from the 7-10 scale in the gaming industry. I wish it were more like Rottentomatoes where a 65% is "Fresh" and not basically 80% like it is currently.
 
I'd be all over it if I could just use a regular control scheme and not motion plus. Yes I know that's the whole point of this Zelda but I don't want to waggle for 40 hrs, I love the art style and so far the music is another amazing effort but I dunno if I could handle the waggle sword fighting all game long.

Maybe I'll borrow it from a friend next week and try it.
 
Top Bottom