Why do people hate Skyward Sword so much?

[DemonKingDemise]

I just don't get why this game is so hated. It's much better than I thought it would be. The motion controls can do a little touching up on...but nothing serious, really.

So far, these are the complaints I heard.

Graphics

Music

Overworld

Difficulty

I will admit, the graphics aren't as good as TPs, but they were much better than they originally appeared. There's more detail overall than we were originally exposed to.

As for music, I'm not seeing the issue. I cannot fathom a reason as to why people thought Orchestra would make things sound so much better. What I saw was exactly what I expected the whole time: More or less the same quality of music.

Overworld is perhaps the most confusing to me. It was certainly better than Ocarina of Time's which was completely barren. I realize it wasn't on par with Twilight Princess, which had a good deal of enemies, but then again...you just warped in Twilight Princess mostly, so who cares?

Majora's Mask was almost as barren as Ocarina of Time. To me, this overworld felt like everything Wind Waker wanted to be. The music was grand and adventurous, rather than obnoxious. The scenery was grand and unique, rather than the same color and nothing in eye sight. Not to mention there was islands everywhere the eye could see. I remember waiting forever to spot an island in Wind Waker. Here, I can spot 10 off the bat with ease. The controls were more engaging than than sailing (push 1 button and leave the room) and the only thing the horse has over it is if you're doing horse combat in Twilight Princess. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are easily inferior here.

But that's something this has in common with Majora's Mask's overworld. Sure, Majora's Mask was barren, but you got through the overworld quickly anyway, so nobody cares. Flying was so fast and you could get to your destination so quickly that I fail to see why anyone would care so much here either.

Difficulty is what irritates me the most. I hate it when I see someone baaawwwing over Skyward Sword's difficulty when they have been moaning for the past decade for a hard Zelda game...

C'mon guys, make up your mind. What do you want? Easy or hard?

Skyward Sword may not be the best game, but for me, it's up there, and I fail to see why so many hate it.

 

[Sertith]

Every single Zelda game since like A Link to the Past has gotten hate from one branch or another of the Zelda fandom. Don't let yourself get all worked up over it.

 

[m3g4_F0Z]

As for music, I'm not seeing the issue. I cannot fathom a reason as to why people thought Orchestra would make things sound so much better. What I saw was exactly what I expected the whole time: More or less the same quality of music.

Because THIS is what an orchestra did for Super Mario:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z2kxFCQ_mQ

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Czms00U2w

As well as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsAFpdAgh6A

I don't think it's unfair to expect something similar from Zelda, and Skyward Sword didn't deliver that.

Overworld is perhaps the most confusing to me. It was certainly better than Ocarina of Time's which was completely barren. I realize it wasn't on par with Twilight Princess, which had a good deal of enemies, but then again...you just warped in Twilight Princess mostly, so who cares?

Why shouldn't it be on par with Twilight Princess? That was 5 years ago, why are we going backwards?

Majora's Mask was almost as barren as Ocarina of Time. To me, this overworld felt like everything Wind Waker wanted to be. The music was grand and adventurous, rather than obnoxious. The scenery was grand and unique, rather than the same color and nothing in eye sight. Not to mention there was islands everywhere the eye could see. I remember waiting forever to spot an island in Wind Waker. Here, I can spot 10 off the bat with ease. The controls were more engaging than than sailing (push 1 button and leave the room) and the only thing the horse has over it is if you're doing horse combat in Twilight Princess. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are easily inferior here.

Majora's Mask was barren? Hardly. 4 distinct areas as well as the outskirts of Clock Town, Dodongos, Bombchus, Chus, all of this without loading. And in comparison Skyward Sword gives us... a big empty space with a bunch of rocks strewn about. There weren't "islands" everywhere the eye could see, they're just rocks. Have you actually flown out to explore them? There is nothing of interest on them. And to bring up the TWW comparison, TWW had some pretty in-depth islands. There was a rather unnecessary 10 minutes of sailing between them, but yeah, there's stuff on them. Skyward Sword has Skyloft, a pub, and a mini-game. You're also missing the point. Ocarina and Majora's Mask HAVE overworlds. Skyward Sword has a glorified hub, and that's it. No towns, barely any NPC's, minimal secrets. You can run around Termina Field all you want without needing to transition to the sky then back to the ground or any other gimmicks. Just a load when you enter a new area. Skyward Sword does not have a cohesive "ground" overworld, which is standard for practically every game in the series. I'm not sure you understand what people like about Majora's Mask if you think the overworld is "easily inferior."

This is 2011. There are incredible games like Batman Arkham City coming out, and yet Nintendo is moving BACKWARDS from what came out 5 years ago. Smaller worlds, less NPC's, less-ambitious art design (look, enough. forest, fire, desert. We get it). Why? How can this be acceptable, from the company that only 4 years ago made Super Mario Galaxy, one of the best games in a decade? Why are they squandering their second-biggest series by having players repeatedly trudge through forest, fire, and desert areas with no compelling overworld and a lack of notable NPC's? We know the series isn't supposed to be Elder Scrolls. That's not what we're asking for. People want each game to be an improvement, and not merely a step sideways, or 1 step forward, 1 step back.

 

[CakeMan42]

Because some people don't like having fun

 

[ZeldaDude123]

As for music, I'm not seeing the issue. I cannot fathom a reason as to why people thought Orchestra would make things sound so much better. What I saw was exactly what I expected the whole time: More or less the same quality of music.

Because THIS is what an orchestra did for Super Mario:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z2kxFCQ_mQ

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Czms00U2w

As well as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsAFpdAgh6A

I don't think it's unfair to expect something similar from Zelda, and Skyward Sword didn't deliver that.

Overworld is perhaps the most confusing to me. It was certainly better than Ocarina of Time's which was completely barren. I realize it wasn't on par with Twilight Princess, which had a good deal of enemies, but then again...you just warped in Twilight Princess mostly, so who cares?

Why shouldn't it be on par with Twilight Princess? That was 5 years ago, why are we going backwards?

Majora's Mask was almost as barren as Ocarina of Time. To me, this overworld felt like everything Wind Waker wanted to be. The music was grand and adventurous, rather than obnoxious. The scenery was grand and unique, rather than the same color and nothing in eye sight. Not to mention there was islands everywhere the eye could see. I remember waiting forever to spot an island in Wind Waker. Here, I can spot 10 off the bat with ease. The controls were more engaging than than sailing (push 1 button and leave the room) and the only thing the horse has over it is if you're doing horse combat in Twilight Princess. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are easily inferior here.

Majora's Mask was barren? Hardly. 4 distinct areas as well as the outskirts of Clock Town, Dodongos, Bombchus, Chus, all of this without loading. And in comparison Skyward Sword gives us... a big empty space with a bunch of rocks strewn about. There weren't "islands" everywhere the eye could see, they're just rocks. Have you actually flown out to explore them? There is nothing of interest on them. And to bring up the TWW comparison, TWW had some pretty in-depth islands. There was a rather unnecessary 10 minutes of sailing between them, but yeah, there's stuff on them. Skyward Sword has Skyloft, a pub, and a mini-game. You're also missing the point. Ocarina and Majora's Mask HAVE overworlds. Skyward Sword has a glorified hub, and that's it. No towns, barely any NPC's, minimal secrets. You can run around Termina Field all you want without needing to transition to the sky then back to the ground or any other gimmicks. Just a load when you enter a new area. Skyward Sword does not have a cohesive "ground" overworld, which is standard for practically every game in the series. I'm not sure you understand what people like about Majora's Mask if you think the overworld is "easily inferior."

This is 2011. There are incredible games like Batman Arkham City coming out, and yet Nintendo is moving BACKWARDS from what came out 5 years ago. Smaller worlds, less NPC's, less-ambitious art design (look, enough. forest, fire, desert. We get it). Why? How can this be acceptable, from the company that only 4 years ago made Super Mario Galaxy, one of the best games in a decade? Why are they squandering their second-biggest series by having players repeatedly trudge through forest, fire, and desert areas with no compelling overworld and a lack of notable NPC's? We know the series isn't supposed to be Elder Scrolls. That's not what we're asking for. People want each game to be an improvement, and not merely a step sideways, or 1 step forward, 1 step back.

Actually it takes about 9.5 minutes to go from the northwestern corner to the southeastern corner of the ocean in wind waker. So 10 minutes in between islands is not really true. More like 2-4 on average with the ocasional 5-6.

 

[Zelda_Knight]

Nobody hates Skyward Sword. Everyone loves it, and everyone loves all the other Zelda games for it is in every way impossible for anyone to dislike, let alone hate, a Zelda game. But I agree on the difficulty part, though. every time Nintendo gives us a difficult Zelda game, all anyone ever hears is " It's too hard, Nintendo, make it easier!! " And yet when Nintendo gives us an easy Zelda game, all anyone ever hears is " It's too easy, Nintendo, Make it harder!! " I hate situations like that because you just can't win either way.

 

[DemonKingDemise]

Every single Zelda game since like A Link to the Past has gotten hate from one branch or another of the Zelda fandom. Don't let yourself get all worked up over it.

It's been going on for two decades now and I'm getting sick of it really. First thing people wanna do when a new Zelda game comes out is hate it. =/

Because THIS is what an orchestra did for Super Mario:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z2kxFCQ_mQ

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Czms00U2w

As well as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsAFpdAgh6A

I don't think it's unfair to expect something similar from Zelda, and Skyward Sword didn't deliver that.

Is that the best you could come up with? Because Skyward Sword easily tops that. Heck, with a few exceptions (like PH) every Zelda game does.

Why shouldn't it be on par with Twilight Princess? That was 5 years ago, why are we going backwards?

Was Wind Waker's overworld better than its predecessor's? No. Did Majora's Mask improve Ocarina of Time's combat? No. Did Twilight Princess have vastly superior music to the other games? No. Newer=/=better.

Majora's Mask was barren? Hardly. 4 distinct areas as well as the outskirts of Clock Town, Dodongos, Bombchus, Chus, all of this without loading. And in comparison Skyward Sword gives us... a big empty space with a bunch of rocks strewn about. There weren't "islands" everywhere the eye could see, they're just rocks. Have you actually flown out to explore them? There is nothing of interest on them. And to bring up the TWW comparison, TWW had some pretty in-depth islands. There was a rather unnecessary 10 minutes of sailing between them, but yeah, there's stuff on them. Skyward Sword has Skyloft, a pub, and a mini-game. You're also missing the point. Ocarina and Majora's Mask HAVE overworlds. Skyward Sword has a glorified hub, and that's it. No towns, barely any NPC's, minimal secrets. You can run around Termina Field all you want without needing to transition to the sky then back to the ground or any other gimmicks. Just a load when you enter a new area. Skyward Sword does not have a cohesive "ground" overworld, which is standard for practically every game in the series. I'm not sure you understand what people like about Majora's Mask if you think the overworld is "easily inferior."

But what was there to do, exactly? There were...2...yeah sounds about right...2 tiny sidequests in the area if I remember right. But what was there to do in the overworld other than kill that bird 50 times? Really, you set out, and 20 seconds later, you made it to your destination. 10 seconds later if you had a horse.

And yeah, I have flown to them. I visit them all the time. There are islands with chests that I take mark off, islands with places I couldn't explore that I got back to, mini game islands, and even the rocks I visited often for the speed boost or (if I was less lucky) had enemies on it.

And what in depth islands? You talking about dragon roost or what? That's hardly a majority. That was more equivalent to the surface than anything else. The majority of islands were a 1-time visit thing. You go there once...and then never again. A good deal of them were more boring than even the rocks of Skyward Sword (which I would at least revisit).

I found myself revisiting many of Skyward Sword's islands. Bamboo Island, Lumpy Pumpking, Fun Fun Island, Bug Paradise Island, etc. And yes, even the rocks. Sure, there were a few 1-time islands, but these weren't such a large majority compared to Wind Waker.

What people like about Majora's Mask was it's originality in utilizing the 3 day system. The difficulty of the game in comparison to the others, the NPCs, and the sidequests. I never hear people wowing over the overworld though. And wait, now you're ticked off that the overworld isn't "ground"?

Anyway, weren't a lot of you whining and moaning that Twilight Princess had way too many NPCs and did nothing with them? Yeah, I remember that. I remember the comparison to Majora's Mask too. Didn't have a lot of NPCs in Clock Town, but they were each treated with care and had their own personalities.

Wind Waker took the lazy route and just jotted down the personalities but didn't make them play that much (if any) role.

Skyward Sword did both. Fi gave you and overview of the NPCs, but you didn't need her help to figure out their personality. They each had a name and many of them had their own sidequest or involvement in the game in some way. In fact, I figured out their personalities fine without Fi because, at first, I didn't know she could do that. I thought she was like Navi and Tatl.

This is 2011. There are incredible games like Batman Arkham City coming out, and yet Nintendo is moving BACKWARDS from what came out 5 years ago. Smaller worlds, less NPC's, less-ambitious art design (look, enough. forest, fire, desert. We get it). Why? How can this be acceptable, from the company that only 4 years ago made Super Mario Galaxy, one of the best games in a decade? Why are they squandering their second-biggest series by having players repeatedly trudge through forest, fire, and desert areas with no compelling overworld and a lack of notable NPC's? We know the series isn't supposed to be Elder Scrolls. That's not what we're asking for. People want each game to be an improvement, and not merely a step sideways, or 1 step forward, 1 step back.[/color]

So wait, first I hear "Omg TP and tWW have such large empty worlds!" to "Omg the world's too small". =/

That didn't seem to bother you with Majora's Mask, did it?

So wait, first we have Twilight Princess that has too many NPCs "that they didn't do anything with" and now we have Skyward Sword with "not enough NPCs"

And what is wrong with Fire, Forest, Desert? I didn't hear people complain over Fire, Forest, Water, or Swamp, Mountain, Ocean, Canyon. Heck, the desert in exchange for water is actually a change.

What NPC is Skyloft wasn't notable?

 

[m3g4_F0Z]

Is that the best you could come up with? Because Skyward Sword easily tops that. Heck, with a few exceptions (like PH) every Zelda game does.

Wow, how incredibly insightful. I'll make sure to take this into account when I'm done sifting through the vast amount of superior Zelda soundtracks you have provided.

Was Wind Waker's overworld better than its predecessor's? No. Did Majora's Mask improve Ocarina of Time's combat? No. Did Twilight Princess have vastly superior music to the other games? No. Newer=/=better.

What are you talking about? That's not what I said. That's not even what I implied. I'm saying Nintendo needs to BUILD on previous games, rather than going sideways. Like it or not, Twilight Princess built on Ocarina of Time in a couple ways, mainly a huge field and smoother combat (also an upgrade from TWW's combat, at least in terms of moveset size). Did Skyward Sword build on that, make improvements to what went wrong? No, it ignored it. I don't think Nintendo subscribes to the BioWare school of sequels (if there was the slightest problem, remove it entirely), but they seem to just innocently sidestep the issue and build a different mechanic instead. They did this with TWW and both DS games.

But what was there to do, exactly? There were...2...yeah sounds about right...2 tiny sidequests in the area if I remember right. But what was there to do in the overworld other than kill that bird 50 times? Really, you set out, and 20 seconds later, you made it to your destination. 10 seconds later if you had a horse.

And yeah, I have flown to them. I visit them all the time. There are islands with chests that I take mark off, islands with places I couldn't explore that I got back to, mini game islands, and even the rocks I visited often for the speed boost or (if I was less lucky) had enemies on it.

And what in depth islands? You talking about dragon roost or what? That's hardly a majority. That was more equivalent to the surface than anything else. The majority of islands were a 1-time visit thing. You go there once...and then never again. A good deal of them were more boring than even the rocks of Skyward Sword (which I would at least revisit).

I found myself revisiting many of Skyward Sword's islands. Bamboo Island, Lumpy Pumpking, Fun Fun Island, Bug Paradise Island, etc. And yes, even the rocks. Sure, there were a few 1-time islands, but these weren't such a large majority compared to Wind Waker.

This seems pretty heavily based in opinion. I didn't like having a bunch of rocks with treasure chests dropped on them instead of a real overworld, and I do not think they were superior to finding a new island. But I guess you do, so there's nothing I can say to that.

What people like about Majora's Mask was it's originality in utilizing the 3 day system. The difficulty of the game in comparison to the others, the NPCs, and the sidequests. I never hear people wowing over the overworld though. And wait, now you're ticked off that the overworld isn't "ground"?

I'm saying people like Majora's Mask or OoT not because the overworlds are "big" or anything, but because they have personality. Everyone knows OoT is barren, and everyone knows what I'm going to say next, that in 1998, this was a big deal, that a console game could have such a huge, open space. Even if the postman was the only NPC in it. But you travel to any area, and you might find something. There's a hut and a lab on a raft in Majora's Mask, the lab at Lake Hylia and the fishing hole, each game's Zora's Domain. Both Goron Cities and all that. That's what I mean by people liking it. I'm not talking about how many damn rocks they have in the sky, I'm talking about what they actually have going on in the game. Skyward Sword has Skyloft. That place is fine. But what about the rest of the world? We have Kikwis (stupid. if the surface is too dangerous for humans, how the hell do these guys exist), the Mogwas (not bad, but ultimately pointless considering we already have Gorons) and robots (I actually kind of like the robots). Again, sideways, not forward.

Anyway, weren't a lot of you whining and moaning that Twilight Princess had way too many NPCs and did nothing with them? Yeah, I remember that. I remember the comparison to Majora's Mask too. Didn't have a lot of NPCs in Clock Town, but they were each treated with care and had their own personalities.

Wind Waker took the lazy route and just jotted down the personalities but didn't make them play that much (if any) role.

Skyward Sword did both. Fi gave you and overview of the NPCs, but you didn't need her help to figure out their personality. They each had a name and many of them had their own sidequest or involvement in the game in some way. In fact, I figured out their personalities fine without Fi because, at first, I didn't know she could do that. I thought she was like Navi and Tatl.

Some of them did. Gaebora, the instructors, enough of them that I can give credit to the game. But it's not exactly impressing me. Why can't Nintendo do more with this? Why is that?

So wait, first I hear "Omg TP and tWW have such large empty worlds!" to "Omg the world's too small". =/

That didn't seem to bother you with Majora's Mask, did it?

So wait, first we have Twilight Princess that has too many NPCs "that they didn't do anything with" and now we have Skyward Sword with "not enough NPCs"

And what is wrong with Fire, Forest, Desert? I didn't hear people complain over Fire, Forest, Water, or Swamp, Mountain, Ocean, Canyon. Heck, the desert in exchange for water is actually a change.

And again you're taking everything at face value. Skyward Sword makes its world seem small, whatever it may be statistically, because it separates itself. Hyrule Field is essentially thrown into the sky, and areas like Death Mountain are instead turned into vague areas like "Faron Woods." By separating the sky (the field) and the areas, it makes those areas seem smaller. You would expect a whole, forest-themed overworld area, right? Well no, it's basically a more cohesive Faron Woods from Twilight Princess. Even though it's part of the overworld, similar to other Zelda games, we expect it to be an actual forest-themed section of the overworld with towns or NPC's. Again, I don't think that's unfair to expect from a 2011 video game.

What I'm saying is that Skyward Sword shouldn't be shying away from and cutting back what didn't work so well in Twilight Princess, it should be expanding upon it. Don't remove Castle Town, make it more compelling. Don't remove the big empty field, make it more interesting. Instead we get, as I've said, a step sideways. An improvement in ways, but not an innovation or evolution.

There's quite a bit wrong with Fire, Forest, Desert. Compare to another Nintendo game, albeit made by Retro, from 2002, Metroid Prime. It has simple themes. Tallon Overworld, Magmoor Caverns, Phendrana Drifts, that's practically Forest, Fire, Snow. But they don't limit themselves to that. Phendrana Drifts soon has Chozo ruins, then a research base full of Space Pirates. There's an underwater section and icy caves. All of it cohesive and in one area. Now we go 9 years later, and what happens? You're in the forest area. There's a temple, and more forest. Want to see something else? Have to go up to the sky. Now there's a volcano. Want something other than volcano? That's really too bad. I guess you can have a cave. Why, in 2011, is Nintendo still limiting Zelda to such basic themes? That's what I want to know. And I'm not even going to say it's not fair to compare to Metroid Prime, a game that practically every developer could take something useful from, because this is Nintendo. They should be the best at what they do, the forefront of video gaming, and yet they're falling behind. I don't see any problem with me or anyone else expecting better from Nintendo than forest, fire, desert.

Sure, the Sand Sea was nice, as well as the Timeshift stones. Pretty much everything in the desert was leagues ahead of the rest of the game, but this post is long enough.

Basically: 1. Every Zelda (at least since TWW, that was about when I joined this site) gets a good amount of hate and criticism when it comes out.
2. I was hoping for better, especially because the director of The Minish Cap was on this game.

 

[Shelomith]

I for one did not hate Skyward Sword, although it will take another playthrough for me to rank it on my personal scale.

The graphics were beautiful and only three things really bothered me visually: Fi's face, Link's lips, and Groose's eyes.

When it comes to the game's music, my ears could still not distinguish between the MIDI of the past and the full orchestra used in SS. I did at times find myself thinking that the composers should have done more with their full orchestra. None of the songs gave me the "Wow! This is epic" factor that tracks in tWW, TP, MM, or even ST gave me. The only songs that might stick with me are the Ballad of the Goddess and the music playing at the Lanayru Sand Sea.

I will admit that the sky as the overworld was disappointing. Not only were there four things to do outside of Skyloft up there, it felt like it took forever to get anywhere. I didn't mind how the areas below were structured, but there's that space in the middle that goes unexplored. What's there? A Sheikah settlement? This inquiring mind would like to know.

As for difficulty, I do feel SS was a step up from TP in that regard. Even the common Bokoblin dudes and Deku Babas took more than flailing around aimlessly to beat, and I just avoided the Deku Scrubs altogether because they kept breaking my sheild. And do not get me started on the Lanayru Mining Facility. It may have been my frustration at my Wiimote's inability to properly calibrate that particular day, but I did not like that place.

Moral of the story: people have different opinions, and sometimes they just can't be pleased.

 

[ChaosLord12]

[image=http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9641/zeldacycle.png]

People will always bitch at something no matter what, that's just how it works.

That being said, while I love SS it does have a lot of flaws, I didn't like how the overworld was just pretty much just 3 big dungeons and how there was almost nothing to do in the Sky outside of Skyloft. The Sky pretty much suffered from TP syndrome, being big and empty.

I know they tried to address TP's overworld problem by making it smaller, but that didn't exactly fix it. It's not that TP was too big, it was too empty.

 

[qsabe]

The Wii controller. I hope they redo it for the new Nintendo game box. Having played my grandsons game for the first two temples, that is the only way I will buy the game for myself. It is a cool game in the same style and similar to Wind Waker, it would be a fun game to play with a real controller.

 

[Sertith]

Every single Zelda game since like A Link to the Past has gotten hate from one branch or another of the Zelda fandom. Don't let yourself get all worked up over it.

It's been going on for two decades now and I'm getting sick of it really. First thing people wanna do when a new Zelda game comes out is hate it. =/

Some people just aren't happy unless they can bitch. Other people want certain things out of the games. Not every Zelda game is the exact same, and so of course there's going to be some people that aren't happy with whatever. In any large fanbase like there, you're going to see that. There is literally no way to please everyone. I'm somewhat happy if I like every other game.

It all comes down to personal opinion, and everyone's got one, and everyone's is different.

 

[jordaniangamer]

I LOVEEE Skyrim Sword!!! It's just that they have not made a 3D Zelda that has surpassed MM and OoT. IMO, SS did better than TP, but I think it is still debatable for TWW.

 

[octorocker]

Why can't they hate it if it's for a good enough reason? I mean, I love SS and think it deserves the scores it got, but there will always be fans who like different things in their Zelda and not see those things in SS. As long as it's legit complaints and not something stupid like "Eh, I hate SS because it uses the Wiimote, lol hurr durr" then I see no problem.

But this is the Zelda cycle. Watch the next Zelda come out and everyone start loving SS all over again.

Btw, I thought TP had a TERRIBLE overworld. If it wasn't for Epona and horse-back riding/combat, I would've just dismissed Hyrule Field entirely. It was big yes, but the enemies were stupid and the environments barren and bland. Except for Snowpeak. Snowpeak was boss.

 

[Deleted member 4122759]

There's actually not much Skyward Sword hate, especially in comparison to what the Wind Waker and Twilight Princess got.

 

[Xiaber]

inb4 Zelda Cycle... oh wait.

I LOVEEE Skyrim Sword!!! It's just that they have not made a 3D Zelda that has surpassed MM and OoT. IMO, SS did better than TP, but I think it is still debatable for TWW.

Riiiggghhhhtttttt...


I still think OoT is overrated. Yes, MM was good, but OoT is just popular for being the first 3D Zelda or first played Zelda.


Changing subject before I start something...

I like Skyward Sword. I'm on the 4th dungeon now and I only have a few complaints. Stamina bar(honestly, what kind of fit, knight-in-training elf can only run for 5 seconds?), the fact you can't swim underwater until halfway through the game("You just got the (item spoiler) [hl=black]water dragon's scale![/hl] This gives you the courage to put your head underwater! Oh, but you still can't breathe underwater, so watch out..."), and... well that's about it for now. I'll probably find other stuff that I'll be persnickety about by the end of the game.

 

[Lugez]

Because SS is a frusterating game. NOT because the game itself is bad though. In my opinion, this is actually a great game. But it's very frusterating because certain design choices held this game back from being an awesome game. For every step forward it took, it took another step back. And those steps back could have been prevented.

Step forward: Motion-based controls. They worked flawlessy for me. This was done extremely well. The engaging controls and gameplay is actually what kept me going in light of a weak story...

Step backward: Weak story. The first 3 dungeons were basically "lol sorry Zelda is in another dungeon." For the first 10-15 hours I felt like I was doing NOTHING of consequence. In OoT, I cared about collecting those stones to open the Door of Time. In MM, I was waking up some guardians and one step closer to stopping Majora! In aLttP, I wanted to collect the pendants so I could claim that damn sword! In LA, it felt good to be one step closer to waking the Wind Fish. SS did not give me the same feeling that these past games did. And what is the deal with "proving my worth?" Why don't you just ****ing help me?

Step forward: While I was disappointed with the story, I have to say that the dungeons themselves were extremely well designed (my favorites being Lanayru's dungeons). The puzzles were creative and the bosses were fun.

Step backward: The overworld. I think the 3 provinces were way too limiting. After going through them, I had absolutely no desire to go back to explore. I felt there was nothing left there. The sky was also pretty disappointing. I'll give it to them and say it was a great idea, but it wasn't implemented too well.

Step backward: Your companion, Fi, sucked huge donkey balls. Seriously. How do you go from Midna/Tatl/Ezlo...To this?. Yes, she was that bad. Fi made me wish for Navi again. I hope she burns in a fire and never returns.

Step forward: Item upgrades. The idea probably could have been taken further, but it was done well enough. It's about time a Zelda game did something like this and I hope it gets expanded upon even further in future installments.

If I sat down and thought about it I could think of more, but this is how the game felt to me. It was basically a series of "hey, they improved that, cool...But why did this get worse?"

 

[Master_Shortpants]

I just don't get why this game is so hated. It's much better than I thought it would be. The motion controls can do a little touching up on...but nothing serious, really.

So far, these are the complaints I heard.

Graphics

Music

Overworld

Difficulty

Personally:

Loved the graphics. Yes, we all know the Wii isn't exactly a hardware powerhouse. That said, I love love love what Nintendo did with what they had. Thought it was beautiful, even.

Music, again, thought it was great, no complaints really.

Overworld: meh. Wasn't a fan of the overworlds in tWW or TP. I'd rather have no overworld (ala SS) rather than one which takes forever to traverse (WW) or one which limits where you can go and is mostly empty of anything interesting (TP).

Difficulty was perfect IMO. Some of the puzzles had me scratching my head (and I've been playing Zelda for a long time). Bosses were okay too.

TL;DR - I loved the game but can understand why some wouldn't. Game fully exceeded my expectations as someone who was not the biggest fan of TP.

 

[gencid]

Here is my rating based on the complaints you listed, where 1 = bad, 10 = good, 6 = needs improvement:

Graphics - 6: Don't like the blur/pixelation filters. SD sucks.
Music - 6: Orchestrated soundtrack is awesome as long as you have memorable compositions and the game uses 100% of it.
Overworld - 6: Fetch quests were overdone and the worlds aren't connected, but I loved everything else about it.
Difficulty - 6: While SS combat was harder than TP/WW combat, most puzzles were super easy to figure, not to mention that Fi downright spoiled them for you.

I guess I think SS needs improvement on almost all of these areas. I still love the game, but unfortunately it isn't the be all, end all of the Zelda games.

Bonus: I loved the story this time and the art style grew up on me. But I won't miss 1:1 controls and Wii's graphics.

 

[legacyAccount]

I don't think there's any denying there were some really questionable parts in Skyward Sword, especially with regards to padding. Like come on, skip to :52 here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZeldaIGN#p/c/946E23626B249C47/48/i-uksb9ybJ0

[hl=black]"Let's play a game called protect the robot" Are you f***ing serious? WHY DIDNT YOU JUST GO TO WHERE YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE?[/hl]

[hl=black]This and the Faron Flooded section made me want to pull my hair out. I was actually really disappointed with the entire Song of the Hero tangent at the end of the game, especially since I had just experienced a fanboy orgasm after the meeting with Zelda. I did enjoy the desert and volcano sections, but at that point, I just wanted to get to the last dungeon and fight Demise.[/hl] //end rant and spoilers

Anyway, I think the point I'm trying to make here is that Skyward Sword is not a 10/10 game, but it is an extremely good one. People are always going to find fault in games, no matter how perfect they may feel to you.

 

[supernintendocharmrs]

I remember WW going from one of the most hated Zelda games to one of the most loved, and the same was supposed to have happened with MM. The last time I posted here, you generally found people saying that TP is the worst once WW started getting popular. I remember actually saying that when the next game gets released, TP will start to become more appreciated- I'm guessing that time is now?

I always thought TP was one of the best; up there with ALttP and WW. I'm glad SS turned out great and I totally think it earned the 10/10 despite my minor gripes with motion control and the fact that they think their users need things explained multiple times. Even though I predicted SS to become the new TP in terms of how much "fans" hate or are dissappointed with the game, I didn't actually think it would happen. Glad I decided to play the game thoroughly before coming back to the board.

Edit:

Also, it helps that my expectations were pretty low for SS despite the 10 that IGN gave it.

 

[Deleted member 4122501]

Because Zelda fans are tards

 

[jordaniangamer]

^Indeed, I can understand the Zelda cycle. What if one still considers TP to be a lacking Zelda game even after 5 years? Well, it is partly opinionated and partly self-evident on proving where TP stands as a Zelda game.

 

[legacyAccount]

Because motion control is garbage and ruined what was otherwise a great addition to the Zelda franchise.

 

[BearDwk]

I loved the game. Beat it. Now I'm playing it again.

 

[Nin10Gamer]

Oh yeah, this is the part where you spam the Zelda cycle or hater's gonna hate as if they're legitimate defenses of a given Zelda title. If you're going to try and defend a game, give a real argument and if not, then quit acting like this is only exclusive to the Zelda fanbase. Every fanbase has this kind of stuff and not everyone will be pleased with every Zelda title.

 

[Deleted member 4122759]

Bonus: I loved the story this time and the art style grew up on me. But I won't miss 1:1 controls and Wii's graphics.

Am I the only one that thought that the story was a little bit boring? I honestly felt like there wasn't really much going on, story wise.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Nin10Gamer,
I think you made a fairly excellent post in the other thread ("Is anyone thoroughly disappointed with SS?"), pointing out some of the things I've never been too concerned with (voice acting, animation) and other things which I've simply come to accept (linearity, hand-holding, not-so-great exploration). I'd love for the series to go back to its roots (I'm playing and loving 3D Dot Game Heroes right now, despite it also being quite linear) but I just cannot see that happening anytime soon, and I feel the same - sadly - is true of Metroid as well.

For anyone who missed it: http://boards.ign.com/legend_of_zelda/b5188/207807761/p1/?44

 

[checker138]

I agree, the story was nonexistent. It's not like anything in the Zelda universe got explained, they just shifted where the magic occurs. Rather than being a magic sword that repels evil that only Link can touch, we make a sword that does all this, using magic flames and a sword with a AI girl living inside it. Same goes for origins of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf. Nothing was revealed, and the time aspects of the plot make no sense.

 

[DallasJR]

I agree, the story was nonexistent. It's not like anything in the Zelda universe got explained, they just shifted where the magic occurs. Rather than being a magic sword that repels evil that only Link can touch, we make a sword that does all this, using magic flames and a sword with a AI girl living inside it. Same goes for origins of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf. Nothing was revealed, and the time aspects of the plot make no sense.

The story was probably non-existent because you didn't pay attention to it at all. Demise basically said that he is Ganondorf, Vaati, and all the evil that ever will be. He said Link's ancestors will be forced to deal with the incarnations of his evil for eternity, and that him and Zelda would be bound by that curse.

If that doesn't explain the character's origins, I really don't know what else would satisfy you.

 

[lizalfos]

Bonus: I loved the story this time and the art style grew up on me. But I won't miss 1:1 controls and Wii's graphics.

Am I the only one that thought that the story was a little bit boring? I honestly felt like there wasn't really much going on, story wise.

Agreed. The story was terribly paced and horribly lacking. The story given would have worked so much better in a game that was at most 20 hours long.

The story was probably non-existent because you didn't pay attention to it at all. Demise basically said that he is Ganondorf, Vaati, and all the evil that ever will be. He said Link's ancestors will be forced to deal with the incarnations of his evil for eternity, and that him and Zelda would be bound by that curse.

If that doesn't explain the character's origins, I really don't know what else would satisfy you.

That's the end of the story. Not the story itself. That's like saying that the final 5 chapters of any given book are the entire story. It was a good ending to the story that wasn't told. The problem is that it takes like 40 hours to get there. There's nothing really before that. As I said above, though, in a game that's half as long as SS was, it would have been a damn good story. Imagine OoT's minimalistic story stretched out to a 15-20 hour game. The same complaints would likely arise.


As for the OP: I don't think people really hate the game. I think people are just largely disappointed with it. The only Zelda game I hate is ALttP, but that doesn't mean that I don't criticize the other games. It just seems excessive now because A) the game is new, and B) the complaints seem to be mostly the same from everyone.

Furthermore, people are bitching about the difficulty? It was a horribly easy game. Not so much as TWW or TP, granted, but still easy.

 

[checker138]

I agree, the story was nonexistent. It's not like anything in the Zelda universe got explained, they just shifted where the magic occurs. Rather than being a magic sword that repels evil that only Link can touch, we make a sword that does all this, using magic flames and a sword with a AI girl living inside it. Same goes for origins of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf. Nothing was revealed, and the time aspects of the plot make no sense.

The story was probably non-existent because you didn't pay attention to it at all. Demise basically said that he is Ganondorf, Vaati, and all the evil that ever will be. He said Link's ancestors will be forced to deal with the incarnations of his evil for eternity, and that him and Zelda would be bound by that curse.

If that doesn't explain the character's origins, I really don't know what else would satisfy you.

How is that a story? You literally reduced the game's story to one line, which is that Demise *says* that he is the hate that will constantly reincarnate. How does he do that? Why can he do that? Where does Demise come from?

What thematic purpose does this serve? It's just an event, no not even, it's just a statement. There's no theme, there's no thematic development. I don't see how that constitutes a story. It's an explanation that begs an even larger explanation.

 

[Nin10Gamer]

Nin10Gamer,
I think you made a fairly excellent post in the other thread ("Is anyone thoroughly disappointed with SS?"), pointing out some of the things I've never been too concerned with (voice acting, animation) and other things which I've simply come to accept (linearity, hand-holding, not-so-great exploration). I'd love for the series to go back to its roots (I'm playing and loving 3D Dot Game Heroes right now, despite it also being quite linear) but I just cannot see that happening anytime soon, and I feel the same - sadly - is true of Metroid as well.

And that's why I most likely won't be buying any Zelda games from this point forward unless they're remakes. I see other games evolving while keeping true to their roots while Zelda doesn't feel like it's done much in the last few years (honestly, Skyward Sword being the best in a decade doesn't say much, if anything).

How is that a story? You literally reduced the game's story to one line, which is that Demise *says* that he is the hate that will constantly reincarnate. How does he do that? Why can he do that? Where does Demise come from?

What thematic purpose does this serve? It's just an event, no not even, it's just a statement. There's no theme, there's no thematic development. I don't see how that constitutes a story. It's an explanation that begs an even larger explanation.

Exactly. It was a poorly contrived explanation to try and fit the mess of the Zelda timeline together.

And the story itself was fine I guess, but how much of an overemphasis is there on Link and Zelda's relationship? Every scene screams "THIS IS ROMANTIC, LINK. REACT." I can only think of one moment within a scene that didn't feel focused on or connected to Link and Zelda's friendship/romance (when Zelda's father is talking about the bird and Link's connection). The rest is "Zelda needs to be saved/revived... again". I'd like it if Zelda actually didn't get kidnapped or be in need of rescuing because I find it hilarious how much effort Nintendo puts into something like this.

 

[Zarcroh]

Why are so many people complaining about the story? Zelda is mostly about gameplay. How did you start loving the series in the first place? Zelda can tell a good story, but I'm sure there have always been games with better stories that you would like.

 

[ZeldaDude123]

I wouldnt say I hated it. I liked it alot but it just isn't what I expect from a Zelda game. Neither was TP. I feel like TP and SS tried to hard to be "epic". When the older games did not focus on that and presented a more down to earth story (no pun intended). Some of my favorite moments in Zelda history are the scenes with sheik and her quotes, or the hidden messages of Majora's mask. I hope Wii U Zelda looks towards the way the N64 Zeldas did things. BTW I did not play the N64 games until after I played wind waker and TP. So I am not speaking nostalgically here.

 

[Nin10Gamer]

Why are so many people complaining about the story? Zelda is mostly about gameplay. How did you start loving the series in the first place? Zelda can tell a good story, but I'm sure there have always been games with better stories that you would like.

I don't get it. You first state that the story in a Zelda game isn't the main focus and then you ask how I fell in love with the franchise, implying that story is a main focus? Which one is it?

But since you asked, I fell in love with the series because of the Zelda games from the years 1986-2003, games I found full of adventure and joy whereas newer Zeldas just bore me. You don't have to be 100% pleased with a franchise to like it.

Don't get me wrong, the story in Skyward Sword is fine, but I feel that it would have been far better overall if it didn't involve saving Zelda or someone else. She may have had more personality, but her role was reduced to the damsel in distress. I liked her role as Tetra in Wind Waker, where she was more of a tomboy and somewhat more experienced than Link was in that game. Why can't we see more of that?

If you put a high emphasis on something, then it will be subject to praise, criticism, or both. It's just like how graphics in a game will be criticized even if they aren't the main focus- they all make up the game regardless.

 

[checker138]

Why are so many people complaining about the story? Zelda is mostly about gameplay. How did you start loving the series in the first place? Zelda can tell a good story, but I'm sure there have always been games with better stories that you would like.

Your comment confuses me. I loved Skyward Sword and almost every moment was a joy to play, but the story was still lacking. Ultimately, SS wasn't about the story and you could play the game not paying attention to it if you wanted to. Being that I do like stories and I appreciate the potential that video game storytelling holds, this realization doesn't stop me from being disappointed with a story even if the story is ultimately inconsequential to the rest of the experience.

However, since you asked, I first started loving the series for Majora's Mask. It was the first Zelda that I watched somebody else play for a little bit and convinced me that I needed to play it too. I'd seen bits of OoT and ALttP played, but neither won me over. It wasn't until MM with the varied interactions with the world (through the different masks), the more subdued yet more meaningful story, and focus on the character's responses to the end of the world that I thought the Zelda series was worth a try. I finished MM and played most of the others in the series after. While I liked every Zelda I've played, I sort of felt I was lied to as MM was completely different.

The truth is that I don't actually care about Hyrule and I find Ganondorf, the master sword, and the Triforce to be thematically irrelevant devices. We never see characters (with the exception of WW) have to really develop or even react to these *end of the world* class entities. Those devices should be used as obstacles for personal struggles and character growth, but more often than not, Zelda resigns its stories to be nothing more than a string of "stuff happened," and characters almost never respond (with Midna, Tetra, King of Red Lions, and WW Ganondorf being notable exceptions) to these events in a personal way.

SS came close with Zelda, but then sort of copped out when it went, [hl=black]"hey, Zelda's actually a Goddess, she just sort of forgot."[/hl] However, Zelda games are enjoyable without the story and this doesn't stop me from liking every game; it's just that no other game would have probably gotten me to try the franchise.

 

[jordaniangamer]

Why are so many people complaining about the story? Zelda is mostly about gameplay. How did you start loving the series in the first place? Zelda can tell a good story, but I'm sure there have always been games with better stories that you would like.

Everybody started loving the series from its strong foundational gameplay, and perhaps majestic story. OoT was my first Zelda, so partly story is a good contribution to my special enjoyment. Now, there are many things that make a game's story good...so, I can understand people scratching their heads saying OoT had a simple story, what's so special about it?

I am not addressing comparisons like the DEEP storytelling of Metal Gear Solid compared with Zelda. That's ridiculous with a mentality of seeing black and white.

 

[lizalfos]

Why are so many people complaining about the story? Zelda is mostly about gameplay. How did you start loving the series in the first place? Zelda can tell a good story, but I'm sure there have always been games with better stories that you would like.

Forgive us for wanting to have a story in a game, some motivation to do what we're supposed to be doing. If we didn't want stories in games, we'd be playing tetris or minesweeper or something. Granted, when I was 3, playing LoZ, I wasn't concerned with any sort of story. That changed sometime before I turned 12 and OoT was released. Blame it on the SNES RPG explosion, that's what I do. That's the reason gameplay is like fifth on my list of important things for games to have, and story is first.

 

[Deleted member 4122759]

Agreed. The story was terribly paced and horribly lacking. The story given would have worked so much better in a game that was at most 20 hours long.

I just felt that as I was playing, not much was really going on story wise. Sure, there were some interesting elements that revealed new things about the series, but I wasn't continuously gripped by the plot-line.

 

[Zarcroh]

Sorry, I thought you were saying that you disliked the game because of the story. Like, the story ruined the game.

I don't care that much for story in video games, so I probably didn't understand what you were saying. For me, whenever there was a slow, boring moment in Skyward Sword, I was motivated by the fact that the game was a lot of fun before, and this boring moment was just an exception to the rule.

 

[solidturtleman]

This seems a tad bit ridiculous. Where is the "hate" coming from? A couple reviewers give it seven and eights?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/critic-reviews

Is that really hate? The rest of the "hate" comes from people who either haven't played it or ignorrantly claim it's bad because of Zelda's age.

A tenth of the fanbase feels meh towards it? I flat-out don't like Skyward Sword, but I don't hate it.

 

[Xiaber]

This seems a tad bit ridiculous. Where is the "hate" coming from? A couple reviewers give it seven and eights?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/critic-reviews

Is that really hate? The rest of the "hate" comes from people who either haven't played it or ignorrantly claim it's bad because of Zelda's age.

A tenth of the fanbase feels meh towards it? I flat-out don't like Skyward Sword, but I don't hate it.

He probably made this thread based on several other threads about people asking if others agreed with them that the game stinks, that and wherever else he sees it from. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean he doesn't.

 

[kevintown311]

I think you guys are looking at this (and every Zelda game) with too much scrutiny. I was almost a victim of my own fandom while playing Skyward Sword. It's like you play the game in constant anticipation of some kind of significant timeline revelation or.....whatever. I wasn't even enjoying the game for what it was. Another thing that happens is that you constantly compare it to past Zelda games. You gotta teach yourself to relax and just enjoy the game for what it is. With each new Zelda era they try to present us with something new and something they think we'll like. Just let them do their thing as developers. Ocarina is the 3D archetype, majora is the living town, wind waker is the grand world with new art, twilight princess is the one with a transformation and the most physically realistic, skyward sword is motion controls and flight. Don't ask for everything at once, just enjoy the ride.....accept for the DS Zeldas, damn them to digital hell.

 

[GamingEvolution]

I don't know. Something about SS didn't scream "Zelda" for me. I also agree with a number of posts on here, the story is kind of nonexistent. I never truly felt like I had a purpose when playing the game. It is true though that the developers wrote the gameplay first and then created the story based on that. Story is one of the main reasons I play Zelda games and this simply did not make the cut.

One thing that made the game seem off was the uselessness of the shipyard. I mean come on, you do the coaster thing and then you finally get the to building only to find another Moldarach in your way. Waste of time, if you ask me. They could have implemented some other boss or at least made the place meaningful in some way.

Another thing that bothered me was the sling-shot. Really? Do I even have to say anything about it? It was basically a useless item which was made even more useless when you got the bow.

I want to love this game but I simply just don't. At best, SS should have gotten a 7 or 8 out of 10 from IGN IMO.

 

[gb6754]

I personally love the game but I can easily see that some might hate it due its insane difficulty and long duration because it has detracted some of the fun for me in the game.

Skyward Sword is best played if you are a veteran Zelda player who has played several of games beforehand so you know how to play it well. I especially recommend playing Twilight Princess on the Wii and the Ocarina of Time and its Master Quest if possible beforehand so you have a basic understanding of the controls and plot line of Skyward Sword.

 

[gb6754]

Another thing that bothered me was the sling-shot. Really? Do I even have to say anything about it? It was basically a useless item which was made even more useless when you got the bow.

That Sling-slot uselessness is not exclusive to Skyward Sword, I also found it in Twilight Princess.

 

[Juggleguy]

Threads like these only show me that you cannot ****ing please everyone. I'm ashamed that we constantly put so much unnecessary pressure and criticism on the producers of Zelda.

Fully censor profanity. You know better. -Falcor

 

[therza2071]

Threads like these only show me that you cannot ****ing please everyone. I'm ashamed that we constantly put so much unnecessary pressure and criticism on the producers of Zelda.

Fully censor profanity. You know better. -Falcor

Our constant bitching is good for them, and the final product.

 

[winter123]

Regarding difficulty, I thought it was really hard for the first 5-10 hours because the controls seemed so awkward and you only had 3 hearts. Once I got used to it and got some heart pieces, I find it way too easy. These huge bosses toward the end still only take 1 heart at a time and are honestly pretty predictable. When you have 19 hearts and 5 bottles full of Potion++, 1 heart is no big deal.

So I am happy for Hero Mode.

If you are complaining about puzzles, I don't understand that either. They were good puzzles but never hard. There's only ever one thing you can do and it's usually related to the item you just got, etc. If you really REALLY get stuck, just hit down on the d-pad (I am ashamed to admit I did this twice towards the end).