Can I just come out and say it? Skyward sword is generic and overrated.

True enough. When I played it, the monsters would just stand there and present a verticle vulnerability, and then jitter to a horizontal, and then diagonal. 

It didn't feel integrated at all, just shoved into the game in order to justify the motion plus. 

Sure you can, but it's probably my personal favorite.

I liked the controls. It was finally a "core" game that used motion controls well. Apart from that, I agree. Both it and Twilight Princess felt pretty bland, sterile and stale to me. The series REALLY needs a shake up. locopatho

I'm not so sure about the controls, it kind of felt a little too obvious on some of the monsters. Too in your face if you get me. Difficult to properly explain how I felt about it.

I liked Twilight Princess for what it was, but they needed to to something really radically different after it and they just fell flat.

[QUOTE="locopatho"]I liked the controls. It was finally a "core" game that used motion controls well. Apart from that, I agree. Both it and Twilight Princess felt pretty bland, sterile and stale to me. The series REALLY needs a shake up. Flappykid

I'm not so sure about the controls, it kind of felt a little too obvious on some of the monsters. Too in your face if you get me. Difficult to properly explain how I felt about it.

I liked Twilight Princess for what it was, but they needed to to something really radically different after it and they just fell flat.

, the game is far too linear Flappykid

Technically, the whole Zelda franchise has been linear after the nes;. Why the crap do complaints over linearity become brought up when every Zelda game in the last 20+ years has been freekin linear?

It's 2013 not 1992.

Over-rated? The game has gotten bashed plenty of times by gamers. It's probably one of the more disliked Nintendo-made Zelda games.

As for the game itself, it was good. It had amazing dungeons as usual, and it had the best combat in a Zelda game to date. What makes SS one of the weaker Zelda titles is all the padding, backtracking, and lacking overworld.

[QUOTE="Flappykid"], the game is far too linear wiifan001

Technically, the whole Zelda franchise has been linear after the nes;. Why the crap do complaints over linearity become brought up when every Zelda game in the last 20+ years has been freekin linear?

It's 2013 not 1992.

Just calm down ok, cool it.

No need to get upset because I don't like a Zelda game, be more reasonable like the level headed fans who've responded.

meh i agree i got bored with it, but i like twilight princess alot,give me simple controls any day they were a few decent moments but nothing spectecular

It's depressing when you see honest video game review like this get torn to shreds by fanboys isn't it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDNk_zVJfb8 Apoplectic reactions like these to honest reviews are the reason game review websites never date to be critical.Flappykid

That review is lousy.  I'm not a raging fanboy about it.  A lousy review is a lousy review.

I had no problems with the controls after I got used to them.  It's not waggle, so you really got to learn the controls.

That said, I thought the game lacked in the exploration department. Sidequests were not really that compelling.  But the whole world, everything you did, was a puzzle, I thought that was an interesting take on the Zelda formula.  Combine that with the controls, it was great.

It reminds me of Zelda II.  Yeah, it's Zelda and it's damn good.  But it deviates away from certain Zelda staples that turns off a lot of players.

Ironically, Zelda fans want change, they get it, want to go back.  They don't get change, they complain.  The Zelda cycle.

Miyamoto wasnt in charge thats why it was "lacking" to some. I enjoyed it, its my #3 favorite Zelda. Windwaker is my #2, and OOT is my #1 of course. Anouma has a noticeable way of doing things different. As for SS being generic? Its an origin story...how can the story that reveals how everything became be considered generic?

[QUOTE="locopatho"]I liked the controls. It was finally a "core" game that used motion controls well. Apart from that, I agree. Both it and Twilight Princess felt pretty bland, sterile and stale to me. The series REALLY needs a shake up. Flappykid

[QUOTE="Flappykid"]It's depressing when you see honest video game review like this get torn to shreds by fanboys isn't it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDNk_zVJfb8 Apoplectic reactions like these to honest reviews are the reason game review websites never date to be critical.sonic_spark

That review is lousy.  I'm not a raging fanboy about it.  A lousy review is a lousy review.

I had no problems with the controls after I got used to them.  It's not waggle, so you really got to learn the controls.

That said, I thought the game lacked in the exploration department. Sidequests were not really that compelling.  But the whole world, everything you did, was a puzzle, I thought that was an interesting take on the Zelda formula.  Combine that with the controls, it was great.

It reminds me of Zelda II.  Yeah, it's Zelda and it's damn good.  But it deviates away from certain Zelda staples that turns off a lot of players.

Ironically, Zelda fans want change, they get it, want to go back.  They don't get change, they complain.  The Zelda cycle.

[QUOTE="Flappykid"][QUOTE="locopatho"]I liked the controls. It was finally a "core" game that used motion controls well. Apart from that, I agree. Both it and Twilight Princess felt pretty bland, sterile and stale to me. The series REALLY needs a shake up. Master_Of_Fools

the only thing i found a bit generic was using bugs and other items to upgrade your weapons...isnt that a monster hunter rip off?

other than that..i really liked it... i still prefer zelda1&2 on NES and windwaker to all the other zeldas.

1. zelda 2
2. Zelda 1
3. windwaker
4. skyward sword
5. majoras mask
6. link to the past
7. ocarina of time

lol i cant believe i put ocarina & lttp last. 

It feels to me that younger players overrate the game in a sort of desperate need to validate "their" generation's Zelda. ... Some younger Nintendo fanatics are declaring it the best in the series. That's a joke, it's not a patch on Majora's Mask or Windwaker for originality and it's not as stunning as OOT. It also lacks the sort of quirky charm that made The Minish Cap great. Flappykid

I'm mainly wondering how you came to the conclusion that younger players are the ones who tend to overrate Skyward Sword. Maybe they haven't played the other ones so they don't know what to compare it to, but I don't think there's any weird psychological validation thing going on. For a lot of things, the age you experience it is more important than its actual quality (like how I still think Dumb and Dumber is the funniest movie ever), so I think it's okay for younger players to like Skyward Sword more than we do.

But it's only been a little over a year since it came out. I don't see a lot of eight- or nine-year olds posting their opinions of the game all over the internet.

[QUOTE="Flappykid"]It feels to me that younger players overrate the game in a sort of desperate need to validate "their" generation's Zelda. ... Some younger Nintendo fanatics are declaring it the best in the series. That's a joke, it's not a patch on Majora's Mask or Windwaker for originality and it's not as stunning as OOT. It also lacks the sort of quirky charm that made The Minish Cap great. JordanElek

I'm mainly wondering how you came to the conclusion that younger players are the ones who tend to overrate Skyward Sword. Maybe they haven't played the other ones so they don't know what to compare it to, but I don't think there's any weird psychological validation thing going on. For a lot of things, the age you experience it is more important than its actual quality (like how I still think Dumb and Dumber is the funniest movie ever), so I think it's okay for younger players to like Skyward Sword more than we do.

But it's only been a little over a year since it came out. I don't see a lot of eight- or nine-year olds posting their opinions of the game all over the internet.

don't even bother with him... he just a nintendo troll inavding the forum.

How, in a genre as sparse as action adventure, can Skyward Sword be considered generic?meetroid8

[QUOTE="sonic_spark"]

[QUOTE="Flappykid"]It's depressing when you see honest video game review like this get torn to shreds by fanboys isn't it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDNk_zVJfb8 Apoplectic reactions like these to honest reviews are the reason game review websites never date to be critical.locopatho

That review is lousy.  I'm not a raging fanboy about it.  A lousy review is a lousy review.

I had no problems with the controls after I got used to them.  It's not waggle, so you really got to learn the controls.

That said, I thought the game lacked in the exploration department. Sidequests were not really that compelling.  But the whole world, everything you did, was a puzzle, I thought that was an interesting take on the Zelda formula.  Combine that with the controls, it was great.

It reminds me of Zelda II.  Yeah, it's Zelda and it's damn good.  But it deviates away from certain Zelda staples that turns off a lot of players.

Ironically, Zelda fans want change, they get it, want to go back.  They don't get change, they complain.  The Zelda cycle.

I agree with the statement but I don't see how that relates to my post.

I think the change was meant to support the control scheme.  Nintendo builds gameplay mechanics first before anything else.  I think the change was good in relation to the M+ mechanics, but I prefer Zelda to be more in line with Twilight Princess (my personal favorite) in terms of core design.

And I fully agree with that other post.  Difficulty Option + Optional Hint System = Many problems solved.

My main complaint about it is the streamlined approach. This game borderline babies you with Fi spouting off obvious comments more times than necessary. Nintendo needs to provide more options to accommodate more people of varying skills. I'd prefer to play an adventure game using my own observations and judgement.

Other than that, it was an amazing game that benefitted plenty from the WM+ controls (although some implementations were questionable, like swimming) . But apparently that's a polarizing argument.

[QUOTE="wiifan001"]

[QUOTE="Flappykid"], the game is far too linear Flappykid

Technically, the whole Zelda franchise has been linear after the nes;. Why the crap do complaints over linearity become brought up when every Zelda game in the last 20+ years has been freekin linear?

It's 2013 not 1992.

Just calm down ok, cool it.

No need to get upset because I don't like a Zelda game, be more reasonable like the level headed fans who've responded.

I'd rather be right than level headed.

in this case I'm both

every zelda game post nes has been linear. Why pick on skyward sword and call it out when al the other Zelda games after 1988 have been linear?

[QUOTE="Flappykid"], the game is far too linear wiifan001

Technically, the whole Zelda franchise has been linear after the nes;. Why the crap do complaints over linearity become brought up when every Zelda game in the last 20+ years has been freekin linear?

It's 2013 not 1992.

[QUOTE="wiifan001"]

[QUOTE="Flappykid"], the game is far too linear Minishdriveby

Technically, the whole Zelda franchise has been linear after the nes;. Why the crap do complaints over linearity become brought up when every Zelda game in the last 20+ years has been freekin linear?

It's 2013 not 1992.

I kind of get where you're going with this.

However, Skyward Sword had 2 different worlds, and not mirrored either: the sky world and the surface world, which were cut off from each other. The sky world was very large but it's set up where you could travel from one corner of the world to the other (without warping) in 3 minutes. Sky travel is so much faster than going by horse, by boat, by trains or anything else outside of warping. In comparison, I think the fast travel and its 2 separate splits (surface and sky) made it appear Skyward look smaller than it really is. Skyward Sword's world is really freekin huge...empty in the sky mostly, but huge.

Dungeons in SS are certainly less mazy (maze like) than in OoT, AlttP, and MM, yes the dungeons in SS are more linear, but you still do those dungeons in order, just like the all the other Zelda games not from nes (with a couple exceptions from like WW and OoT in a couple points).

Xenoblade was linear too, regardless that the Bionis world in Xenoblade is my favorite overworld in my entire history in my experience of gaming. But the overworld of a game and linearity are two different things. 

I don't have an ssue with negative feedback over a bland sky world considering the vast, vast majority islands weere literally nothing but an empty flat land with a patch of grass and one chest on it. What I do have an issue though, is calling out a a single Zelda game for being linear.

Every single Zelda game since A Link to the Past, in 1992, has been linear. It's not right to call out just Skyward Sword to prove a point why as tc puts it "generic and overrated" to use linearity as an excuse when the franchise has been that way for the last 20+ years.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]

[QUOTE="wiifan001"]

Technically, the whole Zelda franchise has been linear after the nes;. Why the crap do complaints over linearity become brought up when every Zelda game in the last 20+ years has been freekin linear?

It's 2013 not 1992.

wiifan001

I kind of get where you're going with this.

However, Skyward Sword had 2 different worlds, and not mirrored either: the sky world and the surface world, which were cut off from each other. The sky world was very large but it's set up where you could travel from one corner of the world to the other (without warping) in 3 minutes. Sky travel is so much faster than going by horse, by boat, by trains or anything else outside of warping. In comparison, I think the fast travel and its 2 separate splits (surface and sky) made it appear Skyward look smaller than it really is. Skyward Sword's world is really freekin huge...empty in the sky mostly, but huge.

Dungeons in SS are certainly less mazy (maze like) than in OoT, AlttP, and MM, yes the dungeons in SS are more linear, but you still do those dungeons in order, just like the all the other Zelda games not from nes (with a couple exceptions from like WW and OoT in a couple points).

Xenoblade was linear too, regardless that the Bionis world in Xenoblade is my favorite overworld in my entire history in my experience of gaming. But the overworld of a game and linearity are two different things. 

I don't have an ssue with negative feedback over a bland sky world considering the vast, vast majority islands weere literally nothing but an empty flat land with a patch of grass and one chest on it. What I do have an issue though, is calling out a a single Zelda game for being linear.

Every single Zelda game since A Link to the Past, in 1992, has been linear. It's not right to call out just Skyward Sword to prove a point why as tc puts it "generic and overrated" to use linearity as an excuse when the franchise has been that way for the last 20+ years.

 I don't have a problem with linearity in story telling. In that sense Xenoblade was very linear like almost all games/media. Skyward Sword may have had a large open skyworld, but with literally nothing to do it in and no sights to see it was rather boring and basically only acted as a hub.

Minishdriveby

I've no problem with that and yes Skyward Sword's sky world was boring, but at least you travel through the whole thing in a couple minutes. The surface world I liked.

I would also say the skyworld hurt the cohesivness of the game's world. The lower world just didn't feel connected to each other basically you were allowed to go to three seperate mini-worlds through skyportals. Minishdriveby

oh absolutely. Games like A Link to the Past and Oracle of Ages have connections for being parallel worlds and Ocarina of Time all sorts of shortcuts, secret passages, warping and everything that made it feel like one world.

but as for skyward sword (and this is one thing I didn't like), the Woods, volcano and desert were completely cut off that you could not warp or travel from surface to surface world without going to the sky and then dropping down. It's like Metroid Prime 3 where you visit a whole different planet through your ship (in Skyward Sword's case, a loftwing) yet in skyward sword it is one world, just the surface world, the forest, volcano, desert and other areas, are cut off from each other. Warping directly from one surface world to another would have been convenient.

 none of the past games have shuttled you down a corridor in quite the same way as Skyward Sword did for most of the time. 

Minishdriveby

As far as dungeons go in Skyward Sword, yes I understand that clearly.

Do you have examples of this "corridor shuttling" ouside the dungeons? I can't really think of any.

but as for skyward sword (and this is one thing I didn't like), the Woods, volcano and desert were completely cut off that you could not warp or travel from surface to surface world without going to the sky and then dropping down. It's like Metroid Prime 3 where you visit a whole different planet through your ship (in Skyward Sword's case, a loftwing) yet in skyward sword it is one world, just the surface world, the forest, volcano, desert and other areas, are cut off from each other. Warping directly from one surface world to another would have been convenient.

wiifan001

Agreed. That's one of my complaints about Metroid Prime 3 too. Corridor levels was also a problem in that game.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]

 none of the past games have shuttled you down a corridor in quite the same way as Skyward Sword did for most of the time. 

wiifan001

As far as dungeons go in Skyward Sword, yes I understand that clearly.

Do you have examples of this "corridor shuttling" ouside the dungeons? I can't really think of any.

The picture, albeit small and only a portion, can kind of give you an idea of what I'm talking about. You get tiny pathways that branch into dead ends or just go back full cricle with little deviance in those pathways. The rest of the area is blocked off by lava. Other areas in the game have this too, Faron Woods although multi-layered had you following pathways in the same way too. It might seem a little absurd to complain about this, but when I was playing the game I had this sense of restriction that I hadn't had in other games when traveling around the world, and that annoyed me a tiny bit. 

I remember the second part of the game opens up in some places like the Sea in the desert, but for the majority of the game it felt the other way to me.

I agree with the statement but I don't see how that relates to my post.

I think the change was meant to support the control scheme.  Nintendo builds gameplay mechanics first before anything else.  I think the change was good in relation to the M+ mechanics, but I prefer Zelda to be more in line with Twilight Princess (my personal favorite) in terms of core design.

And I fully agree with that other post.  Difficulty Option + Optional Hint System = Many problems solved.

sonic_spark

I mean that people like me were a bit disappointed in TP and wanted the series to change in some ways. Making the game as linear as Skyward Sword with a small overworld and very little side content wasn't the change we wanted though. I don't think it's a "Zelda cycle" so much as people just wanting Zelda to evolve faster while keeping the same core, and being disappointed when this doesn't happen.

Skyward sword had a much greater linearity to it than past games. The specific regions were basically corridors with a couple branching paths. When you look at ALTTP, WW, TP, OoT, etc. they all had rather large overworlds. Zelda has just been put in the back of the adventure/exploration cabinet while other games progress it, i.e. Xenoblade. Skyward Sword while being more linear did make some strides like upgrading equipment, stamina, and the motion + (which is cool for following sword gestures, but not necessary to complete the game since you could just end up shieldbashing and waggling).

Minishdriveby

I very much agree with you. SS was clearly the most linear. It's overworld was even worse, more sterile and more empty then TP. When people talk about non linearity, they don't mean "do the dungeons in any order". Main stories are almost always linear after all. They mean "explore the wide open world at your own pace and find interesting/fun side content". Ocarina and Windwaker were fun for that.

Wow, some of you really get emotive when I say I don't like a game, can't handle any criticism calmly. 

Most here are reasonable and take the posts with the good humour that is expected of normal people. Some of you......well.....

I'm only just after getting onto the computer since my last post, so I'll post more detailed replies soon.

I liked the controls. It was finally a "core" game that used motion controls well. Apart from that, I agree. Both it and Twilight Princess felt pretty bland, sterile and stale to me. The series REALLY needs a shake up. locopatho

I think that many people overrated it but the game is far from "generic."  People need to stop using words that they don't know the proper meaning to.

I think that many people overrated it but the game is far from "generic."  People need to stop using words that they don't know the proper meaning to.

turtlethetaffer

It is not among the best Zelda games, but it is not mediocre either.

The controls felt great, and they make me wish that every single Zelda game from this point onward features an option to use the motion plus or some sort of motion device as a control scheme.

It had its weak points (especially the sky overworld and shallow sidequests), but it brought a few new ideas and concepts that will certainly serve the franchise well as years go by and Nintendo keeps working on changing Zelda's structure.

SS seems very rushed to me.  I think there was a `turn the tea tables` moment at some point in development.  Most of the game`s design was tossed at around 2009 so they could make the game more like Demons Souls

I've played every Zelda game, multiple times, and maybe ss isn't the best, but there is nothing wrong with it. Def a 9/10 in the Zelda series, but I personally thought controls where best controls in a video game period. Maybe had a few issues, which is no more different the button mashing issues, but I thought the controls added to the expierence and overall I'd like to have had dark souls with Zelda ss controls. As a side, I'm replaying it threw my 11 year old son who never played Zelda, and he complained about controls for a while, but he loves game now. I'm just breing his " guide". I need to break his obsession with only playing nothing but shootersda_chub

It feels to me that younger players overrate the game in a sort of desperate need to validate "their" generation's Zelda. It's a mediocre entry into the franchise. The over-world is constricted, the game is far too linear, the characters/ mount are bland and the formula just seems strained. Some younger Nintendo fanatics are declaring it the best in the series. That's a joke, it's not a patch on Majora's Mask or Windwaker for originality and it's not as stunning as OOT. It also lacks the sort of quirky charm that made The Minish Cap great. Does anyone agree with me on this? That it just seemed like Nintendo were running out of ideas? And no, I'm not trolling, this is just how I feel about the game and not enough people are saying it. Flappykid

As someone who has been playing Zelda games since the NES original, I can relate to what you're saying. The game is way too linear, takes too long to get started and has too many needless cutscenes. The sidequests are horribly generic and there is no real exploration to speak of. Skyward sword took everything great about Zelda games of the best and threw it out the window.

I did enjoy Skyward Sword, but it certainly isn't at the top of the list as far as Zelda games go. It was like a strange mixing of Twilight Princess and Windwaker that managed to be average at its parents' strengths. It had more annoyances than most Zelda games, too. Fi is probably the most annoying support character in a Zelda game, and that's saying a lot. Navi was annoying too, but here "hey! listen!" was more like getting a text from someone you didn't want to talk to. You just let it go. Fi is like that annoying person jumping out of your phone and standing in front of you, bringing everything you were doing to a grinding halt so they could tell you that, yes indeed, you have to get a key to unlock this door. Also, the sky is blue, enemies hurt, and chests have stuff in them.GreatExarch

That pretty much sums up my issue with Fi.  She'd spout all this useless information and would never have anything actually useful to say.  Like if you really got stuck in a dungeon or something, good luck getting answers from her.

[QUOTE="GreatExarch"]I did enjoy Skyward Sword, but it certainly isn't at the top of the list as far as Zelda games go. It was like a strange mixing of Twilight Princess and Windwaker that managed to be average at its parents' strengths. It had more annoyances than most Zelda games, too. Fi is probably the most annoying support character in a Zelda game, and that's saying a lot. Navi was annoying too, but here "hey! listen!" was more like getting a text from someone you didn't want to talk to. You just let it go. Fi is like that annoying person jumping out of your phone and standing in front of you, bringing everything you were doing to a grinding halt so they could tell you that, yes indeed, you have to get a key to unlock this door. Also, the sky is blue, enemies hurt, and chests have stuff in them.turtlethetaffer

That pretty much sums up my issue with Fi.  She'd spout all this useless information and would never have anything actually useful to say.  Like if you really got stuck in a dungeon or something, good luck getting answers from her.

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="GreatExarch"]I did enjoy Skyward Sword, but it certainly isn't at the top of the list as far as Zelda games go. It was like a strange mixing of Twilight Princess and Windwaker that managed to be average at its parents' strengths. It had more annoyances than most Zelda games, too. Fi is probably the most annoying support character in a Zelda game, and that's saying a lot. Navi was annoying too, but here "hey! listen!" was more like getting a text from someone you didn't want to talk to. You just let it go. Fi is like that annoying person jumping out of your phone and standing in front of you, bringing everything you were doing to a grinding halt so they could tell you that, yes indeed, you have to get a key to unlock this door. Also, the sky is blue, enemies hurt, and chests have stuff in them.wiifan001

That pretty much sums up my issue with Fi.  She'd spout all this useless information and would never have anything actually useful to say.  Like if you really got stuck in a dungeon or something, good luck getting answers from her.

Hey master, I bet these giant doors with the huge, elaborate chain lock is probably important. I bet there's treasure behind it. You should try to open it.

Wow, thanks Fi. I had no idea. 

It tied with Majora's Mask for me. I don't know which one is better if I had to choose.