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.
And now everything is locked up and these fucking Molemen keep popping up and stopping me from doing what I'm doing! They ask if I am here for treasure, I say NO, yet he tells me anyways...why give me the option to say no?
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.
Interesting explanation. I'll have to wait and see and form my own opinion but I'm glad you explained why you thought so. You also didn't even mention the upgrade system, Stamina meter, new art style and Zelda in the sky on a bird aspect.
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.
Yeah one dissapointing aspect that I read is that the upgrade system is very limited. I was hoping we could upgrade the stamina meter or Pegasus boots make a return.
His opinion is perfectly valid, but I wouldn't exactly say its right. He has interesting comparisons but I still think a direct comparison to the 2D games is a bit of a leap. Nice analysis though.
His opinion is perfectly valid, but I wouldn't exactly say its right. He has interesting comparisons but I still think a direct comparison to the 2D games is a bit of a leap. Nice analysis though.
Is he talking about the already infamous first dungeon back tracking? I have to wonder who on the team actually thought it was a good idea. From what I understand from the beginning of the third area the game gets really great until this quest. It seems if they just cut that completely out and you were just given what you needed immediately then the game would be better for it.
I rolled, but I never liked the concept of it. Rolling should never make you go faster, under any circumstances. Dashing is both aesthetically and logically pleasing.
Is he talking about the already infamous first dungeon back tracking? I have to wonder who on the team actually thought it was a good idea. From what I understand from the beginning of the third area the game gets really great until this quest. It seems if they just cut that completely out and you were just given what you needed immediately then the game would be better for it.
Yup, backwalking is super fast in OOT. Getting to Hyrule Castle before nightfall was mind blowing. Unfortunately, they slowed it down in all the games after that =(
Inserted a Gecko Code for infinite stamina last night. Might be considered cheating but it made the game a lot faster and more playable for me.
DISCLAIMER : I love this Zelda, may become my favourite in the series...
BUT : I tough M+ worked real good, and was very surprised by how it was implemented, UNTIL I met Girahim. I even got a game over because it won't respond perfectly. Indeed, M+ was perfect till I had to react quickly. When moving to fast, it tended to think I was swinging when just moving the angle of the attack, and so on.
I was kinda pissed off, because I think that, especially in a Zelda game, controls should be 100% accurate. I love this game, love how M+ is done but, even if it's 1% of the time I think it's unnaceptable to mis-hit because of movement detection.
Perhaps I'm old fashionned, but controls responsiveness is the BASIS of good gameplay, and good games more generally.
So, I think this Zelda may be perfect for the wii, but has proven to me that motion controls is in NO way the future of gaming.
The Wii U controller looks way less "damaging" for gameplay than motion controls, IMO.
DISCLAIMER : I love this Zelda, may become my favourite in the series...
BUT : I tough M+ worked real good, and was very surprised by how it was implemented, UNTIL I met Girahim. I even got a game over because it won't respond perfectly. Indeed, M+ was perfect till I had to react quickly. When moving to fast, it tended to think I was swinging when just moving the angle of the attack, and so on.
I was kinda pissed off, because I think that, especially in a Zelda game, controls should be 100% accurate. I love this game, love how M+ is done but, even if it's 1% of the time I think it's unnaceptable to mis-hit because of movement detection.
Perhaps I'm old fashionned, but controls responsiveness is the BASIS of good gameplay, and good games more generally.
So, I think this Zelda may be perfect for the wii, but has proven to me that motion controls is in NO way the future of gaming.
The Wii U controller looks way less "damaging" for gameplay than motion controls, IMO.
DISCLAIMER : I love this Zelda, may become my favourite in the series...
BUT : I tough M+ worked real good, and was very surprised by how it was implemented, UNTIL I met Girahim. I even got a game over because it won't respond perfectly. Indeed, M+ was perfect till I had to react quickly. When moving to fast, it tended to think I was swinging when just moving the angle of the attack, and so on.
I was kinda pissed off, because I think that, especially in a Zelda game, controls should be 100% accurate. I love this game, love how M+ is done but, even if it's 1% of the time I think it's unnaceptable to mis-hit because of movement detection.
Perhaps I'm old fashionned, but controls responsiveness is the BASIS of good gameplay, and good games more generally.
So, I think this Zelda may be perfect for the wii, but has proven to me that motion controls is in NO way the future of gaming.
The Wii U controller looks way less "damaging" for gameplay than motion controls, IMO.
DISCLAIMER : I love this Zelda, may become my favourite in the series...
BUT : I tough M+ worked real good, and was very surprised by how it was implemented, UNTIL I met Girahim. I even got a game over because it won't respond perfectly. Indeed, M+ was perfect till I had to react quickly. When moving to fast, it tended to think I was swinging when just moving the angle of the attack, and so on.
I was kinda pissed off, because I think that, especially in a Zelda game, controls should be 100% accurate. I love this game, love how M+ is done but, even if it's 1% of the time I think it's unnaceptable to mis-hit because of movement detection.
Perhaps I'm old fashionned, but controls responsiveness is the BASIS of good gameplay, and good games more generally.
So, I think this Zelda may be perfect for the wii, but has proven to me that motion controls is in NO way the future of gaming.
The Wii U controller looks way less "damaging" for gameplay than motion controls, IMO.
I play two sessions of 6hours and never have to do something about the motion plus.
Is it the recenter option you have to do or recalibrate if the sword am error?
So for now that's not a problem at all. The power of gold remote maybe...
I understood the trick was to trick him, really, but still, many hits were undetected. Dunno why, since, all of the previous fitghts were awesome. But still, you have to force yourself adapting to the destection, not moving too fast when preparing a slash, and so on. I was so unsure of what happened I questioned some friends about it. All had the exact same problem on this fight.
Again, I'm not hating on the game or the device, I love it. But it clearly has its flaws.
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.
The drastically different level design that returns to condensed 2D roots is one of the comparisons I could make, as is the fact that everything featured in the game is more or less brand new to the franchise.
And going through the motions of how the game operates is very much similar to how it's been.
Big One said:
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.
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.
If it doesn't focus on narrative why is everything broken up by some random NPC/Helper stopping me to explain. If it was really just a game, no narrative, it'd be a lot more exploration, and a lot less 'stuff' getting in the way.
Look to the Super Metroid/Metroid Prime for games that are more about gameplay and less about story.
Rather, I have to dowse until I find the location of the magic water, and when I get to the room that I had to dowse to find, I still get Fi giving me the probability of the water being there. Thanks Fi.
Big One said:
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?
Because it took the platformer and turned it on its head? It changed the way we look at platformers, using gravitational fields and odd shaped planetoids rather than a flat plane.
It still used the construct of a Mario game (Objective-based stars), but designed an entirely new template for the levels.
Big One said:
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.
I agree with you that it's early and barely anyone has played it, but haven't you noticed that there's a collection of us that are saying the same thing? Just as the reviews showed, there will be a lot of 8's as well as perfect scores.
So wouldn't it make sense that when everyone is playing it, it would still be split? Doesn't that say that perhaps there's more to it than just 'nitpicking'?
Big One said:
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.
Uhhh you're really trying to compare that area in LTTP to SS's area depicted? Really?
I just went through that area you just showed and so I know that this is bullshit.
That entire area in SS is split into rooms with one entrance and exit. There are a couple that have an extra bombable wall, but it's pretty straight forward. Sure, there are enemies that are 'trying to kill you' (not really, the blow fish are the only ones that get in your way and only barely) but that's about it for density.
Take a look at that area in LTTP.
I see an Island with a heart piece (it's not pictured), a warp, a cave with fairies (as well as the portal to level 5 in the dark world), a fortune teller, a store, bombable wall with rupees (I believe), and four exits.
That is not at all the same as SS. The mere fact that you say it is shows how little you know about LTTP's overworld.
Big One said:
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.
1. It has one main town that has very little to do. (LTTP only had one, so maybe that's where your coming from?) OoT had two, more if you include Goron City/Gerudo Valley/Zoras Waterfall MM had three (Zora, Goron and Clocktown four if you include the Deku city) TWW had two with Outset and Windfall, three if you include the town embedded into Dragon Roost TP had at least three with Ordon Village, Hyrule Castle Town and Kakariko, more if you include the ghost town and Goron City.
Seems like SS has less content in its overworld than any of the other 3D titles.
2. It has a completely barren overworld that everyone will just try and pass through as fast as possible to get to the next drop point. Just like Ocarina and TP.
3. Each area below is ever expanding, which is really cool, but it still has a lot of unused space that is there to make them look bigger. The forest has the big tree in the middle and some branching paths around the edges but not much else.
If anything, this game goes back to games like Oracle of Seasons/Ages where you have puzzles to go back and forth through time/seasons to make your way to the dungeon. And considering the director of this game, that it takes similar cues from the handheld games isn't surprising.
Big One said:
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..
Surely you can tell me why Majora's Mask, which has the deepest side quests and longest 'pre dungeon' requirements is more like Ocarina of Time than it is LTTP. Because from where I'm standing, MM is pretty close to how SS operates.
Big One said:
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.
I agree that it has some great stuff, especially in the Desert Temple but you can't say "There isn't a SINGLE old puzzle" and immediately say there are switch puzzles.
From the three dungeons I've played (and I just arrived at the fourth), there aren't actually that many puzzles at all. There's the boss key 3D puzzle, and the Desert Temple has some awesome stuff which was a lot of fun to figure out.
I hear they only get better, so that's good. But you're being disingenuous when you write 'not a single puzzle' when we all know that's true. It kind of discredits the bold header, no?
Big One said:
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.
The Beatle is the best new weapon in the game, it brings a lot of cool stuff and changes the way you think about the game. But you can't say that there aren't the same 'hit the switch' puzzles I've hit many a switch with my slingshot.
Big One said:
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.
No one is downplaying the combat, it's a really cool addition. It is still very waggly, though. As long as you get a first hit in, you can spam hit the enemy until they recover and start blocking again. I do appreciate how enemies swarm you a little better now, rather than wait one by one, but I think TP did that, too.
It's still the same type of encounters (Deku Baba's, Stalfos, etc.), it's just how you control the sword that has changed.
Big One said:
Warning SPOILER:
Everyone of the three fights with Ghirahim are a prime example of this.
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.
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!
Just because it couldn't be done on another game in this particular fashion, doesn't make it better than any other game's system. This part of the game is entirely subjective.
Big One said:
?. 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.
- The Gust Bellows is great, but having to recalibrate every so often makes it not completely 'smooth'.
- The Beatle is great.
- Bow and Arrow (from the demo) can be a little janky. I prefer the IR from TP.
- Swimming is pretty annoying.
So basically, some will think it's the best controls ever some won't.
_________________
Big One said:
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.
- Overworld design is very similar to games like Oracle's and even 3D Dot Heroes (the desert especially). Only instead of keeping everything cohesive, you're forced to fly through a barren sky, hacking the A button as soon as your feathers replenish to go faster.
- Dungeon/Puzzle design has some new ideas, but each game in the series has brought new ideas. They didn't change the whole process of how dungeons break down. I liken it to a puzzle game like Donkey Kong '94, the gameplay is still the same, but the level design changes, new mechanics are added. The Arbiter Grounds were praised because of the spinner gameplay. Nintendo can still change mechanics, but it's still very much Zelda.
And with all of the rumors of 'you don't even know your'e in a dungeon!!!' were all BS there is still the title of the dungeon and the camera flybys of the opening room. Just the same as when you first walked into the Deku Tree.
- Combat design is still based around parry/strike, just as it has been since OoT. Z-Targeting (which is a great system and one that doesn't need changing) and you circle the enemy and wait for your chance to strike. The system has changed, but it's still the same thing, but the mechanics have changed.
My point? Stop telling us that our opinions are wrong, and saying that we're nitpicking. You'll never win because your experience while playing a Zelda game is 100% subjective. It's why there are constant arguments between which Zelda is the best. There are so many amazing games in the series that it's hard to choose. And this one will slot right into those.
And while i appreciate the game and see its strengths, for me, it's weaknesses are too obvious not to notice.
I understood the trick was to trick him, really, but still, many hits were undetected. Dunno why, since, all of the previous fitghts were awesome. But still, you have to force yourself adapting to the destection, not moving too fast when preparing a slash, and so on. I was so unsure of what happened I questioned some friends about it. All had the exact same problem on this fight.
Again, I'm not hating on the game or the device, I love it. But it clearly has its flaws.
You'll excuse the spelling, it's the morning after Beaujolais...those who know will understand.
After 2 days with the game I think I can formulate my opinion of the game...at least the beginning since I have only finished the 1rst dungeon.
It might actually be the best 3D Zelda game.
It's infinitely better than WW.
It's better than TP in everything but the overworld.
It's beautiful, entertaining. The music is A W E S O M E.
the controls are perfect, I actually think I won't be able to play a ARPG with sword combat with anything but that control method.
The beginning is closer to WW in length than boring old TP.
There's 6 hearts but there's a reason for that. I think I nearly died in the 1rst dungeon (for the record, the only time I was in danger in a Zelda game for the last 10 years was during my 3 hearts run of Zelda TP in the ice mansion...and that was because of the mini boss there and because zora suit sucks...).
I can't stress enough how waggle will get you nowhere, you will get your ass kicked again and again if you do. I think you can't even pass the 1rst area of the forest that way.
The net for the insects is incredible, I spend most of my time searching for the critters.
I don't think I've had this much fun in an ARPG since OoT or MM.
We'll see how it holds up for the whole game but so far there's only 1 part I don't like :
frigging overworld!
It's small and it sucks.
Yeah. The way I see it, it's nice to see the discussion that both you and Big One are having, it just shows how both of you love Zelda with your own unique ways. Conflicting opinions, sure, but in the end it really just shows how passionate you guys are about the series... which is again, nice
Kai said:
I'm not getting the mind blown part and I did search it on google - what did they do on purpose?
The music so far is really good for a Zelda game.
I mean do you remember the dungeon music of OoT or WW?
Because I sure don't, the 1rst dungeon is the best 1rst dungeon I've played in a Zelda game since...Link's Awakening?
And I'm not only talking of the music either.
Since OoT I've gotten used to the fact that 80% of the time you'll spend hearing a music that's just not that good.
I was pleasantly surprised when I heard the overworld theme of MM, TP and ST but they're the exceptions.