-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword |OT| Home of Punkin' Chunkin' Champion 2011
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
RPGCrazied
Member
Smellycat said:Make that 60 hours till Gamestop opens
My GS is doing a midnight opening on Saturday. I so want to go, but thats way past my bedtime. lol
+ and extra 4 days for aussies D:
I was just playing some Galaxy 2 and DKCWii. As brilliant as SS looks in terms of art style and the whole paint effect, the graphics from a technical standpoint still look better in those games imo. They're so smooth and vibrant, and avoid the whole "this is a Wii game" reminder by not having obvious aliasing and such. 60fps helps too, I guess.
I must say though that my TV does a great job at hiding the restrictions of Wii. It's a 2007 model, 42" and the resolution is 1366 x 768. I assume the lower resolution compared to full-HD televisions works in the Wii's favour?
I was just playing some Galaxy 2 and DKCWii. As brilliant as SS looks in terms of art style and the whole paint effect, the graphics from a technical standpoint still look better in those games imo. They're so smooth and vibrant, and avoid the whole "this is a Wii game" reminder by not having obvious aliasing and such. 60fps helps too, I guess.
I must say though that my TV does a great job at hiding the restrictions of Wii. It's a 2007 model, 42" and the resolution is 1366 x 768. I assume the lower resolution compared to full-HD televisions works in the Wii's favour?
I don't feel like responding to everyone one of your quotes so I'll respond to this one with a post on why exactly Skyward Sword is different, or at least, what I mean by different.oatmeal said:
When I say Skyward Sword is different, I don't mean that it's different in the sense that you still have a main goal in mind. You still collect *insert items here* throughout the entire game, you still go through a pre-dungeon area to get to a dungeon, you still get items in these dungeons and you still solve puzzles in them. When I say Skyward Sword is different, I'm talking about the actual design of the game itself.
There are design decisions they didn't change, like a lot of you guys have been saying. You still have the constant nagging helper from the previous 3D Zelda games, the progression of item upgrades and whatnot is the same, and yes like Twilight Princess everytime you restart the game a message appears for every item you get. These elements aren't what I'm talking about when I'm referring to changes to the actual formula.
First and foremost, Zelda is a game. It isn't a strong narrative, and if you guys haven't figured it out yet, there isn't much story in the entire game. That's because Skyward Sword focuses completely on gameplay rather than narrative, but there is narrative structure in the sense that you're going from point A to point B to get a certain item.
Because it's a game, arbitrary things like, "You still roam dungeons to collect an item" isn't even a definition of what is the same not. You can sum up anything in it's simplest form, and yet have nothing to say on what it actually is or not. If you say Skyward Sword follows a Zelda formula, then I'd agree. But that's a sequel. Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 follows a Mario formula too, so why do people consider it so different from previous games in the series compared to people saying Skyward Sword is more of the same? The answer is simple: Mario Galaxy takes 2D Mario design philosophies, amps them up to their strengths, and is overall a well polished and well-designed game (with some bad design choices like some of the motion control segments). The reason why Skyward Sword isn't treated in the same respect is because the game is so early at release at the moment and not many people have truly played it yet, and I'll describe exactly why I think the comparison between the two games is apt, and why Skyward Sword is different from the usual Ocarina of Time mold.
1. Skyward Sword is a reiteration of 2D Zelda in 3D
Ocarina of Time was the first 3D iteration, and tried it's hardest to transfer all the greatness from A Link to the Past in 3D. For the time, it was very successful, but the compensation was that the entire overworld was empty, and now we have these areas with big, open wide spaces like Lake Hylia. Let's make a solid comparison here. Mind you, both of these are lake areas in the game, with relatively the same amount of content each:
To the left is a humongous lake with like one Heart Piece in it or something with barely any enemies around, and some fishing mini-game that takes forever to swim to. To the right you have a condensed, series of levels connected by doors (or transition points), with a heart piece in a chest, a crapload of enemies aiming to kill you, where every new area introduces something thematically new and different with faster swimming controls and mechanics.
Not only is this comparison apt for the two areas, but the dungeon-like design of each of the areas is apt for every area in Skyward Sword. Now, how is this similar to the 2D games? Well let's look at Lake Hylia in A Link to the Past.
You have a decently sized lake, that is easy to traverse. Enemies are all over the place, and the levels are condensed into tight structures with transition points connecting them. This condensed level design is 2D Zelda, and has defined 2D Zelda as differentiated from 3D Zelda for years. A Link to the Past isn't even the best example of this, Link's Awakening and the other handheld Zelda titles are even more-so followers of this philosophy.
2D Zelda is focused more on bringing a series of challenges towards the player rather than any real sense of open exploration, sans the original game of course. Ocarina of Time is about having this huge open world, but at the cost of having a lack of content that feels as accessible and interesting as A Link to the Past.
This is what Skyward Sword brings back, but reinvents it. Now, we have similar level design to the 2D Zelda games, but in actual 3D. It's not a fake copy of it, it's legit and brings every strength of that level design and unites it with traditional 3D Zelda gameplay. The level design in Skyward Sword is simply way more condensed than any of the 3D Zelda games, and being linear tends to be more of the strength of it's level design rather than a fault imo.
You could argue Majora's Mask is condensed, but that's more of a condensed version of Ocarina of Time rather than a reiteration of the 2D Zelda games arguably. The overworld in Majora's Mask still feels Ocarina of Time-esque and so does the challenges you encounter before the dungeons.
2. There isn't a single old puzzle in Skyward Sword
Every 2D Zelda has had puzzles that were similar to each other, and every 3D Zelda has had puzzles that were similar to each other. Skyward Sword, at most, has switch hitting, but the results are always drastically different from the usual Zelda. Every puzzle in Skyward Sword is brand new to the series, making the dungeon design especially stand out as it's own unique thing.
Even the old puzzles, like switch hitting, see new life by the introduction of a SINGLE item (this thing). A single item can change up old habits considerably, and Skyward Sword does this in spades.
3. Combat and enemy encounters are drastically different
No matter how much you downplay the combat, it is a huge part of the game and is required you to use it in full to get through the game. Every enemy in the entire game requires you to pay attention to it, and approach it in different ways. The same goes for bosses.
Warning SPOILER:
Everyone of the three fights with Ghirahim are a prime example of this.
The enemies may become fodder after you figure out their movements, but the fact that you have to figure them out puts them far ahead of any enemy in any 3D Zelda game yet when all you have to do there is kill them without really thinking. Enemies becoming fodder is just a sign you're good at the game!
?. Skyward Sword is the refinement of 3D Zelda controls
Just an extra one because this actually isn't really innovation but I wanted to list it cause I'm still comparing it to Super Mario Galaxy in a lot of ways. Similar to Super Mario Galaxy, this game takes what is established in the gameplay of the previous games and improves on it in every way possible. Motion control feels like a genuine evolution of combat of the series, and the actual control of Link is smooth and fantastic. Every item plays smoothly, swimming is the best in the series yet, and most action/reaction in the game is seamless due to Link having everything in his disposal in real time. The controls are undoubtedly fantastic and the best in the series yet, that can only be improved by the future of Nintendo's ventures into motion controls and other unique control methods.
_________________
These three elements are what defines 3D Zelda. Overworld design, dungeon/puzzle design, and combat design. All three are drastically different in Skyward Sword and that's a straight up fact. No, the narrative structure of going from one place to another isn't different, but narrative structure doesn't define core gameplay. And if it does, for you, then I feel sad for you as a gamer. I'm done with this argument for now but I hope I've made my point clear enough.
And I will say that none of that is valid without pictures that you have the game.Big One said:I don't feel like responding to everyone one of your quotes so I'll respond to this one with a post on why exactly Skyward Sword is different, or at least, what I mean by different.
When I say Skyward Sword is different, I don't mean that it's different in the sense that you still have a main goal in mind. You still collect *insert items here* throughout the entire game, you still go through a pre-dungeon area to get to a dungeon, you still get items in these dungeons and you still solve puzzles in them. When I say Skyward Sword is different, I'm talking about the actual design of the game itself.
There are design decisions they didn't change, like a lot of you guys have been saying. You still have the constant nagging helper from the previous 3D Zelda games, the progression of item upgrades and whatnot is the same, and yes like Twilight Princess everytime you restart the game a message appears for every item you get. These elements aren't what I'm talking about when I'm referring to changes to the actual formula.
First and foremost, Zelda is a game. It isn't a strong narrative, and if you guys haven't figured it out yet, there isn't much story in the entire game. That's because Skyward Sword focuses completely on gameplay rather than narrative, but there is narrative structure in the sense that you're going from point A to point B to get a certain item.
Because it's a game, arbitrary things like, "You still roam dungeons to collect an item" isn't even a definition of what is the same not. You can sum up anything in it's simplest form, and yet have nothing to say on what it actually is or not. If you say Skyward Sword follows a Zelda formula, then I'd agree. But that's a sequel. Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 follows a Mario formula too, so why do people consider it so different from previous games in the series compared to people saying Skyward Sword is more of the same? The answer is simple: Mario Galaxy takes 2D Mario design philosophies, amps them up to their strengths, and is overall a well polished and well-designed game (with some bad design choices like some of the motion control segments). The reason why Skyward Sword isn't treated in the same respect is because the game is so early at release at the moment and not many people have truly played it yet, and I'll describe exactly why I think the comparison between the two games is apt, and why Skyward Sword is different from the usual Ocarina of Time mold.
1. Skyward Sword is a reiteration of 2D Zelda in 3D
Ocarina of Time was the first 3D iteration, and tried it's hardest to transfer all the greatness from A Link to the Past in 3D. For the time, it was very successful, but the compensation was that the entire overworld was empty, and now we have these areas with big, open wide spaces like Lake Hylia. Let's make a solid comparison here. Mind you, both of these are lake areas in the game, with relatively the same amount of content each:
To the left is a humongous lake with like one Heart Piece in it or something with barely any enemies around, and some fishing mini-game that takes forever to swim to. To the right you have a condensed, series of levels connected by doors (or transition points), with a heart piece in a chest, a crapload of enemies aiming to kill you, where every new area introduces something thematically new and different with faster swimming controls and mechanics.
Not only is this comparison apt for the two areas, but the dungeon-like design of each of the areas is apt for every area in Skyward Sword. Now, how is this similar to the 2D games? Well let's look at Lake Hylia in A Link to the Past.
You have a decently sized lake, that is easy to traverse. Enemies are all over the place, and the levels are condensed into tight structures with transition points connecting them. This condensed level design is 2D Zelda, and has defined 2D Zelda as differentiated from 3D Zelda for years. A Link to the Past isn't even the best example of this, Link's Awakening and the other handheld Zelda titles are even more-so followers of this philosophy.
2D Zelda is focused more on bringing a series of challenges towards the player rather than any real sense of open exploration, sans the original game of course. Ocarina of Time is about having this huge open world, but at the cost of having a lack of content that feels as accessible and interesting as A Link to the Past.
This is what Skyward Sword brings back, but reinvents it. Now, we have similar level design to the 2D Zelda games, but in actual 3D. It's not a fake copy of it, it's legit and brings every strength of that level design and unites it with traditional 3D Zelda gameplay. The level design in Skyward Sword is simply way more condensed than any of the 3D Zelda games, and being linear tends to be more of the strength of it's level design rather than a fault imo.
You could argue Majora's Mask is condensed, but that's more of a condensed version of Ocarina of Time rather than a reiteration of the 2D Zelda games arguably. The overworld in Majora's Mask still feels Ocarina of Time-esque and so does the challenges you encounter before the dungeons.
2. There isn't a single old puzzle in Skyward Sword
Every 2D Zelda has had puzzles that were similar to each other, and every 3D Zelda has had puzzles that were similar to each other. Skyward Sword, at most, has switch hitting, but the results are always drastically different from the usual Zelda. Every puzzle in Skyward Sword is brand new to the series, making the dungeon design especially stand out as it's own unique thing.
Even the old puzzles, like switch hitting, see new life by the introduction of a SINGLE item (this thing). A single item can change up old habits considerably, and Skyward Sword does this in spades.
3. Combat and enemy encounters are drastically different
No matter how much you downplay the combat, it is a huge part of the game and is required you to use it in full to get through the game. Every enemy in the entire game requires you to pay attention to it, and approach it in different ways. The same goes for bosses.
Warning SPOILER:Without the controls of the game, it would simply be impossible to replicate Ghirahim in any other game in the series in any form without downright gimping him. The same could be said for all of the other bosses in the game too.Everyone of the three fights with Ghirahim are a prime example of this.
The enemies may become fodder after you figure out their movements, but the fact that you have to figure them out puts them far ahead of any enemy in any 3D Zelda game yet when all you have to do there is kill them without really thinking. Enemies becoming fodder is just a sign you're good at the game!
?. Skyward Sword is the refinement of 3D Zelda controls
Just an extra one because this actually isn't really innovation but I wanted to list it cause I'm still comparing it to Super Mario Galaxy in a lot of ways. Similar to Super Mario Galaxy, this game takes what is established in the gameplay of the previous games and improves on it in every way possible. Motion control feels like a genuine evolution of combat of the series, and the actual control of Link is smooth and fantastic. Every item plays smoothly, swimming is the best in the series yet, and most action/reaction in the game is seamless due to Link having everything in his disposal in real time. The controls are undoubtedly fantastic and the best in the series yet, that can only be improved by the future of Nintendo's ventures into motion controls and other unique control methods.
_________________
These three elements are what defines 3D Zelda. Overworld design, dungeon/puzzle design, and combat design. All three are drastically different in Skyward Sword and that's a straight up fact. No, the narrative structure of going from one place to another isn't different, but narrative structure doesn't define core gameplay. And if it does, for you, then I feel sad for you as a gamer. I'm done with this argument for now but I hope I've made my point clear enough.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
lol..I agree with most of what the Big One is saying kinda but that was funny lolkayos90 said:
butter_stick
Banned
There's no massive difference between the process to get to, say, the Spirit Temple in Ocarina and a dungeon in SS. A lot more effort has gone in to making the journey to the dungeon more interesting, but it's not a revolution that hasn't been done in Zelda before. It's an expansion on the good things that came before it.
And there's still a lot of area with empty space in SS. It's only condensed in the sense there's no Hyrule Field equivalent creating a linking point between the areas. In general your paths are more linear, and as such there's less environment to walk around in, but somewhere like the main desert area is huge with relatively few landmarks.
And there's still a lot of area with empty space in SS. It's only condensed in the sense there's no Hyrule Field equivalent creating a linking point between the areas. In general your paths are more linear, and as such there's less environment to walk around in, but somewhere like the main desert area is huge with relatively few landmarks.
butter_stick
Banned
I'm not saying it as a negative. But Big One posted a photo of Lake Hylia, which also needs to be a big area so water draining away makes sense, as an example of Ocarina having huge areas with nothing in them.guek said:
I've been MIA for the last two days since I received the game. So far I've sunked about 20 hours into it.
Some quick thoughts.
The intro was really fast. About 40 minutes according to Fi. The road leading up to the first dungeon was another 40 minutes so total was about an hour and a half before I reached the first dungeon. That's actually faster than Majora's Mask and way faster than Twilight Princess.
I breezed through the first two dungeons pretty easily. They both were rather short. But that was to be expected for intro dungeons.
But the path leading up to the third dungeon was actually like a dungeon itself. I had to constantly solve puzzles in order to advance. That took a good three hours or so. I'm not kidding when I say that this is the most I have ever had to do in order to traverse through the world to get to a dungeon.
Then when I made it into the third dungeon, the puzzles were familiar but quickly ramped up in difficulty. It ranks up there as one of the best Zelda dungeons. Really imaginative and well thought out. Plus, the enemies were actually tough and demanded my full attention. And I died about four or five times. Which is a lot considering I died zero times in Twilight Princess.
I've played well beyond the third dungeon but I won't offer anymore impressions on the latter half of the games as not to spoil anyone.
For those who enjoy Zelda, this is the most refined and streamlined version yet. You're in for a treat. Link moves super fast, all of the items are constantly in used (outside of the dungeons), and the level and dungeon design is just absolutely brilliant.
Some quick thoughts.
The intro was really fast. About 40 minutes according to Fi. The road leading up to the first dungeon was another 40 minutes so total was about an hour and a half before I reached the first dungeon. That's actually faster than Majora's Mask and way faster than Twilight Princess.
I breezed through the first two dungeons pretty easily. They both were rather short. But that was to be expected for intro dungeons.
But the path leading up to the third dungeon was actually like a dungeon itself. I had to constantly solve puzzles in order to advance. That took a good three hours or so. I'm not kidding when I say that this is the most I have ever had to do in order to traverse through the world to get to a dungeon.
Then when I made it into the third dungeon, the puzzles were familiar but quickly ramped up in difficulty. It ranks up there as one of the best Zelda dungeons. Really imaginative and well thought out. Plus, the enemies were actually tough and demanded my full attention. And I died about four or five times. Which is a lot considering I died zero times in Twilight Princess.
I've played well beyond the third dungeon but I won't offer anymore impressions on the latter half of the games as not to spoil anyone.
For those who enjoy Zelda, this is the most refined and streamlined version yet. You're in for a treat. Link moves super fast, all of the items are constantly in used (outside of the dungeons), and the level and dungeon design is just absolutely brilliant.
butter_stick
Banned
Dungeon 3 is amazing.
Dungeon 5 too.
The build up to both those dungeons are exactly what I want in SS. 4 went off the boil quite a bit (though once in the dungeon it was still great).
Dungeon 5 too.
The build up to both those dungeons are exactly what I want in SS. 4 went off the boil quite a bit (though once in the dungeon it was still great).
brandonh83
Banned
Bit-Bit said:
When I read stuff like this all I see is "best Zelda ever"
And BigOne, thank you for elaborating on what I was trying to say about the world layout in Skyward. Zelda doesn't need to have a sandbox world or big empty open areas. Skyward's level design is very reminiscent of 2D Zeldas only realized in 3D. This is a very super positive point for me.
butter_stick
Banned
I don't see how it's any more like the 2D games than Ocarina was. The 2D games had you seemlessly going from area to area, with each distinct section of the map gradually becoming more accessible as new tools were available to you. SS basically takes you from the main map and puts you in another map, where similar scenarios play out over the game.brandonh83 said:
When it's good it's great, I just don't see the 2D comparisons personally.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Big One said:
Zelda of the Forever!
butter_stick
Banned
Re; "Link moves super fast";
Curse whoever at Nintendo put the stamina bar in the game. I constantly feel like I'm moving slowly because I can't maintain my top speed. It becomes a battle of wits in dungeons where I risk sprinting all the way to a door and hope I reach it before Link gets all tired and stops moving.
I like the sprint, and I like jumping up to switches, but rolling is a Zelda tradition, man. Don't take away my rolling.
Curse whoever at Nintendo put the stamina bar in the game. I constantly feel like I'm moving slowly because I can't maintain my top speed. It becomes a battle of wits in dungeons where I risk sprinting all the way to a door and hope I reach it before Link gets all tired and stops moving.
I like the sprint, and I like jumping up to switches, but rolling is a Zelda tradition, man. Don't take away my rolling.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
butter_stick said:
Eh, if anything I think it would be interesting if they also fully implemented the stamina bar into sword fighting... like Demon's Souls.
IIRC only the spin attack and the finishing stab move requires stamina... if stamina is also required to commit standard attacks/evasive jump then it would force players to play more tactically.
Eh... I am satisfied enough with what we have though
milkyjay20
Member
butter_stick said:
sprinting is more of a zelda tradition than rolling
pegasus boots and allAndroid18a
Member
Was there a real tactic to that first Girahim fight? Any attempts to take my time always resulted in no damage at all, it was only when I went into waggle-fest I managed to hit him. Like with the bokoblins, the places I think I can attack are the places he always blocks/catches my sword. Am I missing something?
butter_stick
Banned
You can't roll constantly. Max you can do is 5-6 rolls in a row.SYNTAX182 said:
I think the stamina thing is odd because, as pointed out, your sword attacks don't contribute to it outside special moves. It's basically just a rolling murder and a very simple puzzle solution (here's a hill, guess what?)
milkyjay20
Member
zoukka said:
aaaaaaaaactually, it was in MM. you should use this as an excuse to play MM again.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Android18a said:
See.... you move the Wii remote slightly right -----> and keep that position as if you want to make a right to left slash. But in that slightly right position, you make a left to right slash instead!
So it's like ----> and then hooold, go closer to him, and instead swinging right to left as usual swing ------------------------->
It's working from the other side as well. The trick is to trick him
Once your sword hits him swing a couple more times to maximize your attacks. Works for me
EmCeeGramr
Member
Android18a said:
Apparently (haven't played it yet) you need to watch where his hand is (it follows your sword) and then quickly move your sword to the other side and slash before he has a chance to adjust.
butter_stick
Banned
I still have no idea what to do during that Lord Thingy fight, so I'm dreading the inevitable rematch.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Fuck rolling. I never rolled unless it was required. Even in time-strict puzzles I just ran at the usual speed.
Fuck rolling.
Fuck rolling.
Android18a
Member
Yeah I mean I managed to get past him. The next 2 bosses gave me no trouble at all, if anything the first 3 bosses were in the wrong order for me Oh well, we'll see how it goes next time.
I'm sure to replay this game again almost immediately so i'll bear these tactics in mind.
Also, the gold remote is nice, but I'd actually have preferred it without the crest I in white on there, I think.
Oh well, we'll see how it goes next time. I'm sure to replay this game again almost immediately so i'll bear these tactics in mind.
Also, the gold remote is nice, but I'd actually have preferred it without the crest I in white on there, I think.
Bravo sir.Big One said:I don't feel like responding to everyone one of your quotes so I'll respond to this one with a post on why exactly Skyward Sword is different, or at least, what I mean by different.
When I say Skyward Sword is different, I don't mean that it's different in the sense that you still have a main goal in mind. You still collect *insert items here* throughout the entire game, you still go through a pre-dungeon area to get to a dungeon, you still get items in these dungeons and you still solve puzzles in them. When I say Skyward Sword is different, I'm talking about the actual design of the game itself.
There are design decisions they didn't change, like a lot of you guys have been saying. You still have the constant nagging helper from the previous 3D Zelda games, the progression of item upgrades and whatnot is the same, and yes like Twilight Princess everytime you restart the game a message appears for every item you get. These elements aren't what I'm talking about when I'm referring to changes to the actual formula.
First and foremost, Zelda is a game. It isn't a strong narrative, and if you guys haven't figured it out yet, there isn't much story in the entire game. That's because Skyward Sword focuses completely on gameplay rather than narrative, but there is narrative structure in the sense that you're going from point A to point B to get a certain item.
Because it's a game, arbitrary things like, "You still roam dungeons to collect an item" isn't even a definition of what is the same not. You can sum up anything in it's simplest form, and yet have nothing to say on what it actually is or not. If you say Skyward Sword follows a Zelda formula, then I'd agree. But that's a sequel. Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 follows a Mario formula too, so why do people consider it so different from previous games in the series compared to people saying Skyward Sword is more of the same? The answer is simple: Mario Galaxy takes 2D Mario design philosophies, amps them up to their strengths, and is overall a well polished and well-designed game (with some bad design choices like some of the motion control segments). The reason why Skyward Sword isn't treated in the same respect is because the game is so early at release at the moment and not many people have truly played it yet, and I'll describe exactly why I think the comparison between the two games is apt, and why Skyward Sword is different from the usual Ocarina of Time mold.
1. Skyward Sword is a reiteration of 2D Zelda in 3D
Ocarina of Time was the first 3D iteration, and tried it's hardest to transfer all the greatness from A Link to the Past in 3D. For the time, it was very successful, but the compensation was that the entire overworld was empty, and now we have these areas with big, open wide spaces like Lake Hylia. Let's make a solid comparison here. Mind you, both of these are lake areas in the game, with relatively the same amount of content each:
To the left is a humongous lake with like one Heart Piece in it or something with barely any enemies around, and some fishing mini-game that takes forever to swim to. To the right you have a condensed, series of levels connected by doors (or transition points), with a heart piece in a chest, a crapload of enemies aiming to kill you, where every new area introduces something thematically new and different with faster swimming controls and mechanics.
Not only is this comparison apt for the two areas, but the dungeon-like design of each of the areas is apt for every area in Skyward Sword. Now, how is this similar to the 2D games? Well let's look at Lake Hylia in A Link to the Past.
You have a decently sized lake, that is easy to traverse. Enemies are all over the place, and the levels are condensed into tight structures with transition points connecting them. This condensed level design is 2D Zelda, and has defined 2D Zelda as differentiated from 3D Zelda for years. A Link to the Past isn't even the best example of this, Link's Awakening and the other handheld Zelda titles are even more-so followers of this philosophy.
2D Zelda is focused more on bringing a series of challenges towards the player rather than any real sense of open exploration, sans the original game of course. Ocarina of Time is about having this huge open world, but at the cost of having a lack of content that feels as accessible and interesting as A Link to the Past.
This is what Skyward Sword brings back, but reinvents it. Now, we have similar level design to the 2D Zelda games, but in actual 3D. It's not a fake copy of it, it's legit and brings every strength of that level design and unites it with traditional 3D Zelda gameplay. The level design in Skyward Sword is simply way more condensed than any of the 3D Zelda games, and being linear tends to be more of the strength of it's level design rather than a fault imo.
You could argue Majora's Mask is condensed, but that's more of a condensed version of Ocarina of Time rather than a reiteration of the 2D Zelda games arguably. The overworld in Majora's Mask still feels Ocarina of Time-esque and so does the challenges you encounter before the dungeons.
2. There isn't a single old puzzle in Skyward Sword
Every 2D Zelda has had puzzles that were similar to each other, and every 3D Zelda has had puzzles that were similar to each other. Skyward Sword, at most, has switch hitting, but the results are always drastically different from the usual Zelda. Every puzzle in Skyward Sword is brand new to the series, making the dungeon design especially stand out as it's own unique thing.
Even the old puzzles, like switch hitting, see new life by the introduction of a SINGLE item (this thing). A single item can change up old habits considerably, and Skyward Sword does this in spades.
3. Combat and enemy encounters are drastically different
No matter how much you downplay the combat, it is a huge part of the game and is required you to use it in full to get through the game. Every enemy in the entire game requires you to pay attention to it, and approach it in different ways. The same goes for bosses.
Warning SPOILER:Without the controls of the game, it would simply be impossible to replicate Ghirahim in any other game in the series in any form without downright gimping him. The same could be said for all of the other bosses in the game too.Everyone of the three fights with Ghirahim are a prime example of this.
The enemies may become fodder after you figure out their movements, but the fact that you have to figure them out puts them far ahead of any enemy in any 3D Zelda game yet when all you have to do there is kill them without really thinking. Enemies becoming fodder is just a sign you're good at the game!
?. Skyward Sword is the refinement of 3D Zelda controls
Just an extra one because this actually isn't really innovation but I wanted to list it cause I'm still comparing it to Super Mario Galaxy in a lot of ways. Similar to Super Mario Galaxy, this game takes what is established in the gameplay of the previous games and improves on it in every way possible. Motion control feels like a genuine evolution of combat of the series, and the actual control of Link is smooth and fantastic. Every item plays smoothly, swimming is the best in the series yet, and most action/reaction in the game is seamless due to Link having everything in his disposal in real time. The controls are undoubtedly fantastic and the best in the series yet, that can only be improved by the future of Nintendo's ventures into motion controls and other unique control methods.
_________________
These three elements are what defines 3D Zelda. Overworld design, dungeon/puzzle design, and combat design. All three are drastically different in Skyward Sword and that's a straight up fact. No, the narrative structure of going from one place to another isn't different, but narrative structure doesn't define core gameplay. And if it does, for you, then I feel sad for you as a gamer. I'm done with this argument for now but I hope I've made my point clear enough.
milkyjay20
Member
the skyward sword iwata asks tells you the strategy behind ghirahim. i can't remember what it was, but it's pretty neat.
butter_stick
Banned
They say players that select to roll instead of run are true Zelda players!
ShockingAlberto
Member
I like running.butter_stick said:
Not really a fan of stamina.
Though I imagine if they had allowed running all the time, they simple would have done what DQVIII probably did to compensate for (likely at one time) enemies on the map: making shit bigger.
Buddha Beam
Banned
Comparing Skyward Sword to Okami (and it's LttP roots) is doing more to get me hyped for the game than anything else so far. More of that, please!
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
It's like, why do you have a button to shoot in bullet hell games if it is encouraged that you shoot all the fucking time? Shouldn't the button be there so that you don't shoot? Why the fuck do I need to mash a button to continuously roll? That should be the default option.Anth0ny said:
So fuck rolling.