Why do people feel that Skyward Sword looks disappointing?

[QUOTE="ugoo18"]

The Zelda fanbase does not know what it wants anymore, first it was MM being to hard then Celda being to kiddy. The Fanbase then demands a more realistic Zelda so TP comes along then comes the outcry that it's an OT rehash, Now they want something new and different, Nintendo shows a Demo of SS outcry once again, "graphics suck" (It's only the demo and since when did graphics determine how good a game is) "ugh more motion controls" (It's on the Wii and it's Zelda of course it's going to use motion controls, either deal with it or don't play it). Just wait till it comes out and then play it, whether you hate it or love it is your decision but don't hate the game based on a flawed initial demo.

Timstuff

which are significantly bad compared to zelda. good games but bad zelda clones especially darksiders

[QUOTE="Chemical_Viking"]

Ever since they announced this people, mainly Nintendo fans, have been assuming it would be 10/10, hyping it and treating it like the second coming. Yet the pictures show pretty much the same Zelda game people have been playing for around 15 years or so now with waggle. The game doesn't look revolutionary, and the graphics don't look special, so why is there the hype? Why is there the smugness over its release? The negativity has been a natural reaction to that.

Take Zelda out of the title and no one would be particularly hyped, but then, you couldn't do that, because it is obviously zelda. And it's obviously zelda because they're too frightened to really change it.

Haziqonfire

As I've stated many times in this thread already -- The demo showed no dungeon and was mainly a showcase for the controls. Generally speaking when theres a demo for a Zelda game, it has a dungeon in it. This means something and they've already discussed, briefly, that the layout and formula will be altered. No one ever stated it'll be a drastic change or departure from the old formula, that is simply not what Nintendo does, with any title. They keep them similar and change it enough, which is what I'm expecting with Skyward Sword and Other M.

And as I've said, it's not waggle. You do waggle, it won't work, a la Red Steel 2.

The graphics aren't complete, as the structure of developing the game is different then previous titles, the started working on graphics last and will continue to work on the visuals until release, anyone who has been following the game since E3 knows this.

It's one thing to dislike it, its another to dislike it without knowing whats going on. It has no waggle. Graphics were the last thing being worked on. We saw nothing of how the game will be structured, really. All we saw was a tech demo for the MotionPlus control scheme and a few items.

Ever since they announced this people, mainly Nintendo fans, have been assuming it would be 10/10, hyping it and treating it like the second coming. Yet the pictures show pretty much the same Zelda game people have been playing for around 15 years or so now with waggle. The game doesn't look revolutionary, and the graphics don't look special, so why is there the hype? Why is there the smugness over its release? The negativity has been a natural reaction to that.

Take Zelda out of the title and no one would be particularly hyped, but then, you couldn't do that, because it is obviously zelda. And it's obviously zelda because they're too frightened to really change it.

Chemical_Viking

thats the same thing about every game sequel though:| thats really annoying to hear when posters try to flip a general statement against wii to make their post seem more valid when its not

[QUOTE="OwnallConsoles"]

It is not about the graphics.

It's about the gameplay. It looks like the same old been there done that routine. I want a different experience instead of the Waggle fest this looks to be.

VauxhalI

Lol, waggle. What an overused term. Everytime someone uses that term when refering to the Wii, I know they haven't played anything on the Wii.

i dont understand why he has a wii if he doesnt want to use motion controls. like i dont get it

I think what really killed my glee about Twilight Princess was the fact that it was so badly delayed. If it had come out a year or two earlier like it was supposed to before Nintendo decided that they needed a Zelda game for the Wii's launch, it would have been a more impressive game and there would not be so many lame dungeons tacked on (and you gotta admit, some of them were pretty lame. Chicken people? WTF). By the time TP came out, it was already dated.

By the time we FINALLY got TP, Oblivion had just come out, and it really raised the bar on what people expect from an epic fantasy game. It had fully orchestrated music, every character in the game had high quality voice acting, there were tons of mini-quests everywhere to the point where you could find something interesting just by picking a direction and walking in it for a minute-- overall, it was just plain an epic experience.

Then, compare it to Twilight Princess-- you got a big empty world that you could ride a horse around in, and there were a couple of towns. The overworld was basically just a really big map that connected the important locations together, and without much in the way of sub quests, there really wasn't much to do out there except ride your horse which eventually got boring. It was like a sand box game with no sand. On top of that, we got text boxes for ALL of the dialogue with NO voice overs, and instead of an orchestrated soundtrack we got lame synth music which at times made the score sound almost laughable (and Skyward Swords is even worse in this department, if the trailer is any indication).

Overall, Nintendo's big fail with Zelda is that they keep lowering the production values so that they can increase their profits. If this were an indie studio like Telltale Games I could understand why they have to cut corners, but the fact of the matter is that Nintendo is only doing this so that they can reduce the amount of overhead, and keep the savings for themselves. The only person who wins is Nintendo, because we get an inferior product while Nintendo gets just as much money for it (and that's largely the fault of the hardcore Nintendoids who will still buy anything Nintendo puts their name on no matter how bad it is). This series used to be known for its incredible visuals, and now it only has "meh" visuals. It used to be known for rich, interactive worlds, and now it's becoming more and more streamlined. It used to be known for its awesome music, but now it's known largely for recycling the same theme over and over again with increasingly outdated synth music. It used to be known for delivering cool narratives for the player to participate in, but that narrative is becoming more and more outdated since Nintendo refuses to keep up with the times and give the games voice acting.

Overall, this is a franchise that is not aging well, and at some point someone is going to have to step in and set things straight before it completely withers into an archaic, low-bodget mess (that is, if it hasn't already with Skyward Swords). There are lots of game designers who grew up with the Zelda series and are now offering their own take on it, too. Oblivion, Darksiders and 3D dot game heroes all have their own take on the Zelda formula, and all of them have been very solid games for different reasons. I enjoyed Oblivion MORE than I enjoyed Twilight Princess. Even though it did not have the familiar Zelda characters whom I've come to know and love, it still fulfilled a lot of Zelda's un-met potential by offering a huge world filled to the brim with quests and had high production values overall (even though some things like the art direction were kind of sloppy).

I think what really killed my glee about Twilight Princess was the fact that it was so badly delayed. If it had come out a year or two earlier like it was supposed to before Nintendo decided that they needed a Zelda game for the Wii's launch, it would have been a more impressive game and there would not be so many lame dungeons tacked on (and you gotta admit, some of them were pretty lame. Chicken people? WTF). By the time TP came out, it was already dated.

By the time we FINALLY got TP, Oblivion had just come out, and it really raised the bar on what people expect from an epic fantasy game. It had fully orchestrated music, every character in the game had high quality voice acting, there were tons of mini-quests everywhere to the point where you could find something interesting just by picking a direction and walking in it for a minute-- overall, it was just plain an epic experience.

Then, compare it to Twilight Princess-- you got a big empty world that you could ride a horse around in, and there were a couple of towns. The overworld was basically just a really big map that connected the important locations together, and without much in the way of sub quests, there really wasn't much to do out there except ride your horse which eventually got boring. It was like a sand box game with no sand. On top of that, we got text boxes for ALL of the dialogue with NO voice overs, and instead of an orchestrated soundtrack we got lame synth music which at times made the score sound almost laughable (and Skyward Swords is even worse in this department, if the trailer is any indication).

Overall, Nintendo's big fail with Zelda is that they keep lowering the production values so that they can increase their profits. If this were an indie studio like Telltale Games I could understand why they have to cut corners, but the fact of the matter is that Nintendo is only doing this so that they can reduce the amount of overhead, and keep the savings for themselves. The only person who wins is Nintendo, because we get an inferior product while Nintendo gets just as much money for it (and that's largely the fault of the hardcore Nintendoids who will still buy anything Nintendo puts their name on no matter how bad it is). This series used to be known for its incredible visuals, and now it only has "meh" visuals. It used to be known for rich, interactive worlds, and now it's becoming more and more streamlined. It used to be known for its awesome music, but now it's known largely for recycling the same theme over and over again with increasingly outdated synth music. It used to be known for delivering cool narratives for the player to participate in, but that narrative is becoming more and more outdated since Nintendo refuses to keep up with the times and give the games voice acting.

Overall, this is a franchise that is not aging well, and at some point someone is going to have to step in and set things straight before it completely withers into an archaic, low-bodget mess (that is, if it hasn't already with Skyward Swords). There are lots of game designers who grew up with the Zelda series and are now offering their own take on it, too. Oblivion, Darksiders and 3D dot game heroes all have their own take on the Zelda formula, and all of them have been very solid games for different reasons. I enjoyed Oblivion MORE than I enjoyed Twilight Princess. Even though it did not have the familiar Zelda characters whom I've come to know and love, it still fulfilled a lot of Zelda's un-met potential by offering a huge world filled to the brim with quests and had high production values overall (even though some things like the art direction were kind of sloppy).

Timstuff

Well Oblivion has 93.70% on Gamerankings while Twilight Princess has a 94.51%...and on MetaCritic, Oblivion has a metascore of 94 while Twilight Princess has a 95...twilight princess also has higher userscore than oblivion as well..

I think what really killed my glee about Twilight Princess was the fact that it was so badly delayed. If it had come out a year or two earlier like it was supposed tobefore Nintendo decided that they needed a Zelda game for the Wii's launch, it would have been a more impressive game and there would not be so many lame dungeons tacked on (and you gotta admit, some of them were pretty lame. Chicken people? WTF). By the time TP came out, it was already dated.

By the time we FINALLY got TP, Oblivion had just come out, and it really raised the bar on what people expect from an epic fantasy game. It had fully orchestrated music, every character in the game had high quality voice acting, there were tons of mini-quests everywhere to the point where you could find something interesting just by picking a direction and walking in it for a minute-- overall, it was just plain an epic experience.

Then, compare it to Twilight Princess-- you got a big empty world that you could ride a horse around in, and there were a couple of towns. The overworld was basically just a really big map that connected the important locations together, and without much in the way of sub quests, there really wasn't much to do out there except ride your horse which eventually got boring. It was like a sand box game with no sand. On top of that, we got text boxes for ALL of the dialogue with NO voice overs, and instead of an orchestrated soundtrack we got lame synth music which at times made the score sound almost laughable (and Skyward Swords is even worse in this department, if the trailer is any indication).

Overall, Nintendo's big fail with Zelda is that they keep lowering the production values so that they can increase their profits. If this were an indie studio like Telltale Games I could understand why they have to cut corners, but the fact of the matter is that Nintendo is only doing this so that they can reduce the amount of overhead, and keep the savings for themselves. The only person who wins is Nintendo, because we get an inferior product while Nintendo gets just as much money for it (and that's largely the fault of the hardcore Nintendoids who will still buy anything Nintendo puts their name on no matter how bad it is). This series used to be known for its incredible visuals, and now it only has "meh" visuals. It used to be known for rich, interactive worlds, and now it's becoming more and more streamlined. It used to be known for its awesome music, but now it's known largely for recycling the same theme over and over again with increasingly outdated synth music. It used to be known for delivering cool narratives for the player to participate in, but that narrative is becoming more and more outdated since Nintendo refuses to keep up with the times and give the games voice acting.

Overall, this is a franchise that is not aging well, and at some point someone is going to have to step in and set things straight before it completely withers into an archaic, low-bodget mess (that is, if it hasn't already with Skyward Swords). There are lots of game designers who grew upwith the Zelda series and are now offering their own take on it, too. Oblivion, Darksiders and 3D dot game heroes all have their own take on the Zelda formula, and all of them have been very solid games for different reasons. I enjoyed Oblivion MORE than I enjoyed Twilight Princess. Even though it did not have the familiar Zelda characters whom I've come to know and love, it still fulfilled a lot of Zelda's un-met potential by offering a huge world filled to the brim with quests and had high production values overall (even though some things like the art direction were kind of sloppy).

[QUOTE="ugoo18"]

The Zelda fanbase does not know what it wants anymore, first it was MM being to hard then Celda being to kiddy. The Fanbase then demands a more realistic Zelda so TP comes along then comes the outcry that it's an OT rehash, Now they want something new and different, Nintendo shows a Demo of SS outcry once again, "graphics suck" (It's only the demo and since when did graphics determine how good a game is) "ugh more motion controls" (It's on the Wii and it's Zelda of course it's going to use motion controls, either deal with it or don't play it). Just wait till it comes out and then play it, whether you hate it or love it is your decision but don't hate the game based on a flawed initial demo.

Timstuff

I laughed. I really did. Two games that are completely based on Zelda are your replacement for Zelda? It's like saying you are tired of one kind of chocolate, so you switch to a different kind of the same chocolate.

[QUOTE="OwnallConsoles"]

I will explain what I mean further.

I played Zelda TP and was bored of it. It seems like I played the whole game before in Oot. I did not enjoy the wolf aspects and the game seemed like a total rehash. This looks to be similiar.

VauxhalI

You like Grand Theft Auto, though. Right? That formula really hasn't changed much since GTA3, do you complain about that as well? I hope you're consistent.

This can be applied to most of the PS360 games anyway, including most "new IPs" because they contain the same gameplay seen in other games, what's the point? RDR you say? It's GTA4: Horse Edition.

Skyward Sword is actually a huge gameplay step forward thanks to WM+ we now have strategic combat

I'm curious to know what exactly "has remain unchanged since OoT" in Zelda games? And what do you propose as an alternative? People who have complaints are more like haters rather than giving constructive criticism, which is why people have to respond with hate

There is a reason why Nintendo choosed to add motion / IR / touch screen on their systems, it adds the potential of new gameplay. If you want something new and unique, Nintendo is the only company devoted to deliver just that.

OwnAll dude is most likely biased against moving, and no they aren't going to add traditional controls as the combat is impossible to emulate with dual analogue controls. It seems to me like you are afraid of new, as you are craving for a tradtional control setup, which is a step back at this point.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"][QUOTE="ugoo18"]

The Zelda fanbase does not know what it wants anymore, first it was MM being to hard then Celda being to kiddy. The Fanbase then demands a more realistic Zelda so TP comes along then comes the outcry that it's an OT rehash, Now they want something new and different, Nintendo shows a Demo of SS outcry once again, "graphics suck" (It's only the demo and since when did graphics determine how good a game is) "ugh more motion controls" (It's on the Wii and it's Zelda of course it's going to use motion controls, either deal with it or don't play it). Just wait till it comes out and then play it, whether you hate it or love it is your decision but don't hate the game based on a flawed initial demo.

jimkabrhel

I laughed. I really did. Two games that are completely based on Zelda are your replacement for Zelda? It's like saying you are tired of one kind of chocolate, so you switch to a different kind of the same chocolate.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"] In all fairness to Zelda TP, Gamespot's screenshots 5 years ago made all games look awful because they were so heavily compressed.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]I just gave up on Zelda after Twilight Princess. At least now we have alternatives like Darksiders and 3D Dot Game Heroes.Timstuff

I laughed. I really did. Two games that are completely based on Zelda are your replacement for Zelda? It's like saying you are tired of one kind of chocolate, so you switch to a different kind of the same chocolate.

I think you have it the other way around. I liked Darksiders and loved 3D Dot Heroes, but they are just imitations of Zelda.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

I think what really killed my glee about Twilight Princess was the fact that it was so badly delayed. If it had come out a year or two earlier like it was supposed to before Nintendo decided that they needed a Zelda game for the Wii's launch, it would have been a more impressive game and there would not be so many lame dungeons tacked on (and you gotta admit, some of them were pretty lame. Chicken people? WTF). By the time TP came out, it was already dated.

By the time we FINALLY got TP, Oblivion had just come out, and it really raised the bar on what people expect from an epic fantasy game. It had fully orchestrated music, every character in the game had high quality voice acting, there were tons of mini-quests everywhere to the point where you could find something interesting just by picking a direction and walking in it for a minute-- overall, it was just plain an epic experience.

Then, compare it to Twilight Princess-- you got a big empty world that you could ride a horse around in, and there were a couple of towns. The overworld was basically just a really big map that connected the important locations together, and without much in the way of sub quests, there really wasn't much to do out there except ride your horse which eventually got boring. It was like a sand box game with no sand. On top of that, we got text boxes for ALL of the dialogue with NO voice overs, and instead of an orchestrated soundtrack we got lame synth music which at times made the score sound almost laughable (and Skyward Swords is even worse in this department, if the trailer is any indication).

Overall, Nintendo's big fail with Zelda is that they keep lowering the production values so that they can increase their profits. If this were an indie studio like Telltale Games I could understand why they have to cut corners, but the fact of the matter is that Nintendo is only doing this so that they can reduce the amount of overhead, and keep the savings for themselves. The only person who wins is Nintendo, because we get an inferior product while Nintendo gets just as much money for it (and that's largely the fault of the hardcore Nintendoids who will still buy anything Nintendo puts their name on no matter how bad it is). This series used to be known for its incredible visuals, and now it only has "meh" visuals. It used to be known for rich, interactive worlds, and now it's becoming more and more streamlined. It used to be known for its awesome music, but now it's known largely for recycling the same theme over and over again with increasingly outdated synth music. It used to be known for delivering cool narratives for the player to participate in, but that narrative is becoming more and more outdated since Nintendo refuses to keep up with the times and give the games voice acting.

Overall, this is a franchise that is not aging well, and at some point someone is going to have to step in and set things straight before it completely withers into an archaic, low-bodget mess (that is, if it hasn't already with Skyward Swords). There are lots of game designers who grew up with the Zelda series and are now offering their own take on it, too. Oblivion, Darksiders and 3D dot game heroes all have their own take on the Zelda formula, and all of them have been very solid games for different reasons. I enjoyed Oblivion MORE than I enjoyed Twilight Princess. Even though it did not have the familiar Zelda characters whom I've come to know and love, it still fulfilled a lot of Zelda's un-met potential by offering a huge world filled to the brim with quests and had high production values overall (even though some things like the art direction were kind of sloppy).

bowser3

Well Oblivion has 93.70% on Gamerankings while Twilight Princess has a 94.51%...and on MetaCritic, Oblivion has a metascore of 94 while Twilight Princess has a 95...twilight princess also has higher userscore than oblivion as well..

besides zelda TP was rated higher then oblivion on metacritic and gamerankings

[QUOTE="bowser3"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

I think what really killed my glee about Twilight Princess was the fact that it was so badly delayed. If it had come out a year or two earlier like it was supposed to before Nintendo decided that they needed a Zelda game for the Wii's launch, it would have been a more impressive game and there would not be so many lame dungeons tacked on (and you gotta admit, some of them were pretty lame. Chicken people? WTF). By the time TP came out, it was already dated.

By the time we FINALLY got TP, Oblivion had just come out, and it really raised the bar on what people expect from an epic fantasy game. It had fully orchestrated music, every character in the game had high quality voice acting, there were tons of mini-quests everywhere to the point where you could find something interesting just by picking a direction and walking in it for a minute-- overall, it was just plain an epic experience.

Then, compare it to Twilight Princess-- you got a big empty world that you could ride a horse around in, and there were a couple of towns. The overworld was basically just a really big map that connected the important locations together, and without much in the way of sub quests, there really wasn't much to do out there except ride your horse which eventually got boring. It was like a sand box game with no sand. On top of that, we got text boxes for ALL of the dialogue with NO voice overs, and instead of an orchestrated soundtrack we got lame synth music which at times made the score sound almost laughable (and Skyward Swords is even worse in this department, if the trailer is any indication).

Overall, Nintendo's big fail with Zelda is that they keep lowering the production values so that they can increase their profits. If this were an indie studio like Telltale Games I could understand why they have to cut corners, but the fact of the matter is that Nintendo is only doing this so that they can reduce the amount of overhead, and keep the savings for themselves. The only person who wins is Nintendo, because we get an inferior product while Nintendo gets just as much money for it (and that's largely the fault of the hardcore Nintendoids who will still buy anything Nintendo puts their name on no matter how bad it is). This series used to be known for its incredible visuals, and now it only has "meh" visuals. It used to be known for rich, interactive worlds, and now it's becoming more and more streamlined. It used to be known for its awesome music, but now it's known largely for recycling the same theme over and over again with increasingly outdated synth music. It used to be known for delivering cool narratives for the player to participate in, but that narrative is becoming more and more outdated since Nintendo refuses to keep up with the times and give the games voice acting.

Overall, this is a franchise that is not aging well, and at some point someone is going to have to step in and set things straight before it completely withers into an archaic, low-bodget mess (that is, if it hasn't already with Skyward Swords). There are lots of game designers who grew up with the Zelda series and are now offering their own take on it, too. Oblivion, Darksiders and 3D dot game heroes all have their own take on the Zelda formula, and all of them have been very solid games for different reasons. I enjoyed Oblivion MORE than I enjoyed Twilight Princess. Even though it did not have the familiar Zelda characters whom I've come to know and love, it still fulfilled a lot of Zelda's un-met potential by offering a huge world filled to the brim with quests and had high production values overall (even though some things like the art direction were kind of sloppy).

Mario1331

Well Oblivion has 93.70% on Gamerankings while Twilight Princess has a 94.51%...and on MetaCritic, Oblivion has a metascore of 94 while Twilight Princess has a 95...twilight princess also has higher userscore than oblivion as well..

besides zelda TP was rated higher then oblivion on metacritic and gamerankings

I agree with Timstuff 110%. I dont give a **** what gamerankings or someother website gave TP or Oblivion. I had much more fun playing oblivion then I did with Twilight Princess. I remember playing Ocarina of Time for the first time and it seemed so open and huge but now the whole zelda series feels very linear when compared to games like the elder scrolls or Gta. Its getting harder for me to keep liking zelda when the thing I liked most about it as a kid was its openness and now other games are much better in that aspect.

It looks awesome, but I dislike that Wii-mote VHUD taking up half the screen.

It looks awesome, but I dislike that Wii-mote VHUD taking up half the screen.

felipebo

Personally i am very very glad that they went with a more styIish look than realism. As long as they keep themselves from making a bloody zelda game.
Darker is ok... if it is darker in a mysterious fashion. Not bloody or gory... then i wouldn't want to live in a zelda world any longer...

to the people saying that SS looks worse than TP
No.....just no.Shinobishyguy

Thank you. The first pic looks like some really low res WRPG. The second pic looks like a zelda game because it matches the styIe of every zelda game and zedla concept art since the NES.

TP simply does not look like zelda. Every zedla game on the NES, GB, GBA, SNES, DS, and GC (sans TP) are cartoony.

People forget what link is supposed to look like.

Not this:

Nintendo has just decided that zelda should look like a zelda game again. Not like something from cartoon network (WW) or lord of the rings (TP)

I think it looks amazing and cannot wait.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"] In all fairness to Zelda TP, Gamespot's screenshots 5 years ago made all games look awful because they were so heavily compressed.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]I just gave up on Zelda after Twilight Princess. At least now we have alternatives like Darksiders and 3D Dot Game Heroes.Timstuff

I laughed. I really did. Two games that are completely based on Zelda are your replacement for Zelda? It's like saying you are tired of one kind of chocolate, so you switch to a different kind of the same chocolate.

that was probably the most ridiculous analogy i've ever heard.

3DGH and Darksiders are very good games but they are just second rate clones,and people would laugh in your face if you tried telling them they were in any way superior to Zelda

BTW Chuck Norris jokes/memes stopped being funny 5-6 years ago.

[QUOTE="felipebo"]

It looks awesome, but I dislike that Wii-mote VHUD taking up half the screen.

Nintendo_Ownes7

If so, then I've only good things to say about the game.

I think what really killed my glee about Twilight Princess was the fact that it was so badly delayed. If it had come out a year or two earlier like it was supposed to before Nintendo decided that they needed a Zelda game for the Wii's launch, it would have been a more impressive game and there would not be so many lame dungeons tacked on (and you gotta admit, some of them were pretty lame. Chicken people? WTF). By the time TP came out, it was already dated.

By the time we FINALLY got TP, Oblivion had just come out, and it really raised the bar on what people expect from an epic fantasy game. It had fully orchestrated music, every character in the game had high quality voice acting, there were tons of mini-quests everywhere to the point where you could find something interesting just by picking a direction and walking in it for a minute-- overall, it was just plain an epic experience.

Then, compare it to Twilight Princess-- you got a big empty world that you could ride a horse around in, and there were a couple of towns. The overworld was basically just a really big map that connected the important locations together, and without much in the way of sub quests, there really wasn't much to do out there except ride your horse which eventually got boring. It was like a sand box game with no sand. On top of that, we got text boxes for ALL of the dialogue with NO voice overs, and instead of an orchestrated soundtrack we got lame synth music which at times made the score sound almost laughable (and Skyward Swords is even worse in this department, if the trailer is any indication).

Overall, Nintendo's big fail with Zelda is that they keep lowering the production values so that they can increase their profits. If this were an indie studio like Telltale Games I could understand why they have to cut corners, but the fact of the matter is that Nintendo is only doing this so that they can reduce the amount of overhead, and keep the savings for themselves. The only person who wins is Nintendo, because we get an inferior product while Nintendo gets just as much money for it (and that's largely the fault of the hardcore Nintendoids who will still buy anything Nintendo puts their name on no matter how bad it is). This series used to be known for its incredible visuals, and now it only has "meh" visuals. It used to be known for rich, interactive worlds, and now it's becoming more and more streamlined. It used to be known for its awesome music, but now it's known largely for recycling the same theme over and over again with increasingly outdated synth music. It used to be known for delivering cool narratives for the player to participate in, but that narrative is becoming more and more outdated since Nintendo refuses to keep up with the times and give the games voice acting.

Overall, this is a franchise that is not aging well, and at some point someone is going to have to step in and set things straight before it completely withers into an archaic, low-bodget mess (that is, if it hasn't already with Skyward Swords). There are lots of game designers who grew up with the Zelda series and are now offering their own take on it, too. Oblivion, Darksiders and 3D dot game heroes all have their own take on the Zelda formula, and all of them have been very solid games for different reasons. I enjoyed Oblivion MORE than I enjoyed Twilight Princess. Even though it did not have the familiar Zelda characters whom I've come to know and love, it still fulfilled a lot of Zelda's un-met potential by offering a huge world filled to the brim with quests and had high production values overall (even though some things like the art direction were kind of sloppy).

Timstuff

I agree..

Games like Oblivion, Fable and more recently Darksiders.. killed my interest in the Zelda series. I supported the N64 and still believe TooT was one of the greatest games ever crafted. However, WW was not what I was expecting for a sequel and by the time TP came out, I had already moved on to the 360. And yes I owned a GC last gen just not that many games. I don't fault Nintendo for playing it safe with a lot of it's flagship titles but you have to shake things up every once in a while. I personally don't have any major issue's with SS visuals but I would have much preferred a more polygon look as opposed to the cell shaded look.

[QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]to the people saying that SS looks worse than TP

Thank you. The first pic looks like some really low res WRPG. The second pic looks like a zelda game because it matches the style of every zelda game and zedla concept art since the NES.

TP simply does not look like zelda. Every zedla game on the NES, GB, GBA, SNES, DS, and GC (sans TP) are cartoony.

People forget what link is supposed to look like.

Not this:

Nintendo has just decided that zelda should look like a zelda game again. Not like something from cartoon network (WW) or lord of the rings (TP)

goblaa

I believe something more along the lines of this is what people are referring to.

Personally i am very very glad that they went with a more styIish look than realism. As long as they keep themselves from making a bloody zelda game.
Darker is ok... if it is darker in a mysterious fashion. Not bloody or gory... then i wouldn't want to live in a zelda world any longer...

KungfuKitten

I agree..

Games like Oblivion, Fable and more recently Darksiders.. killed my interest in the Zelda series. I supported the N64 and still believe TooT was one of the greatest games ever crafted. However, WW was not what I was expecting for a sequel and by the time TP came out, I had already moved on to the 360. And yes I owned a GC last gen just not that many games. I don't fault Nintendo for playing it safe with a lot of it's flagship titles but you have to shake things up every once in a while. I personally don't have any major issue's with SS visuals but I would have much preferred a more polygon look as opposed to the cell shaded look.

OhSnapitz

Nintendo plays it safe? I disagree somewhat, because the way I see many of their titles is they do what people like about those franchises and change it enough to make it seem different. Zelda is the one that's become a bit stale, but Spirit Tracks was one of the better Zelda games since Wind Waker, at least to me.

They are the best developer who can make a game feel similar to what people like about them as well as drastically changing them enough (again, at least to me). Specifically with titles that went from 2D to 3D, like Mario, Zelda and Metroid -- We're already seeing a change in Metroid from the Prime games to Other M -- and from what we know about Skyward Sword, which isn't a whole lot, but enough to get some excited, is that it'll follow suit in that formula that Nintendo is good at doing. Similar experiences, as well as offering something different. Mario has also gone through that this generation with Super Mario Galaxy and more so with Super Mario Galaxy 2.

While I do agree they sometimes keep it safe with titles like New Super Mario Bros Wii -- I still believe they do enough to make them feel different and they do it often.

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

I agree..

Games like Oblivion, Fable and more recently Darksiders.. killed my interest in the Zelda series. I supported the N64 and still believe TooT was one of the greatest games ever crafted. However, WW was not what I was expecting for a sequel and by the time TP came out, I had already moved on to the 360. And yes I owned a GC last gen just not that many games. I don't fault Nintendo for playing it safe with a lot of it's flagship titles but you have to shake things up every once in a while. I personally don't have any major issue's with SS visuals but I would have much preferred a more polygon look as opposed to the cell shaded look.

Haziqonfire

Nintendo plays it safe? I disagree somewhat, because the way I see many of their titles is they do what people like about those franchises and change it enough to make it seem different. Zelda is the one that's become a bit stale, but Spirit Tracks was one of the better Zelda games since Wind Waker, at least to me.

They are the best developer who can make a game feel similar to what people like about them as well as drastically changing them enough (again, at least to me). Specifically with titles that went from 2D to 3D, like Mario, Zelda and Metroid -- We're already seeing a change in Metroid from the Prime games to Other M -- and from what we know about Skyward Sword, which isn't a whole lot, but enough to get some excited, is that it'll follow suit in that formula that Nintendo is good at doing. Similar experiences, as well as offering something different. Mario has also gone through that this generation with Super Mario Galaxy and more so with Super Mario Galaxy 2.

While I do agree they sometimes keep it safe with titles like New Super Mario Bros Wii -- I still believe they do enough to make them feel different and they do it often.

It is a news article from gamespot but at the bottom of the article it has a video of Eiji Aonuma mentioning some of the changes in SS. Link

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Personally i am very very glad that they went with a more styIish look than realism. As long as they keep themselves from making a bloody zelda game.
Darker is ok... if it is darker in a mysterious fashion. Not bloody or gory... then i wouldn't want to live in a zelda world any longer...

Timstuff

Now this is getting ridiculous. You say the only reason some obscure version of OOT was better is blood?

Why should anyone care what you have to say about Zelda, then?

[QUOTE="Haziqonfire"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

I agree..

Games like Oblivion, Fable and more recently Darksiders.. killed my interest in the Zelda series. I supported the N64 and still believe TooT was one of the greatest games ever crafted. However, WW was not what I was expecting for a sequel and by the time TP came out, I had already moved on to the 360. And yes I owned a GC last gen just not that many games. I don't fault Nintendo for playing it safe with a lot of it's flagship titles but you have to shake things up every once in a while. I personally don't have any major issue's with SS visuals but I would have much preferred a more polygon look as opposed to the cell shaded look.

Nintendo_Ownes7

Nintendo plays it safe? I disagree somewhat, because the way I see many of their titles is they do what people like about those franchises and change it enough to make it seem different. Zelda is the one that's become a bit stale, but Spirit Tracks was one of the better Zelda games since Wind Waker, at least to me.

They are the best developer who can make a game feel similar to what people like about them as well as drastically changing them enough (again, at least to me). Specifically with titles that went from 2D to 3D, like Mario, Zelda and Metroid -- We're already seeing a change in Metroid from the Prime games to Other M -- and from what we know about Skyward Sword, which isn't a whole lot, but enough to get some excited, is that it'll follow suit in that formula that Nintendo is good at doing. Similar experiences, as well as offering something different. Mario has also gone through that this generation with Super Mario Galaxy and more so with Super Mario Galaxy 2.

While I do agree they sometimes keep it safe with titles like New Super Mario Bros Wii -- I still believe they do enough to make them feel different and they do it often.

It is a news article from gamespot but at the bottom of the article it has a video of Eiji Aonuma mentioning some of the changes in SS. Link

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Personally i am very very glad that they went with a more styIish look than realism. As long as they keep themselves from making a bloody zelda game.
Darker is ok... if it is darker in a mysterious fashion. Not bloody or gory... then i wouldn't want to live in a zelda world any longer...

789shadow

Now this is getting ridiculous. You say the only reason some obscure version of OOT was better is blood?

Why should anyone care what you have to say about Zelda, then?

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]There was blood in the Gold Cart version of Ocarina of Time and almost everyone (including me) says that it's the best version of the game.

Timstuff

Now this is getting ridiculous. You say the only reason some obscure version of OOT was better is blood?

Why should anyone care what you have to say about Zelda, then?

Insignificant changes that have no effect whatsoever on 99% of the game. Great.

The art style in this game is very inconsistent. The monsters and world look like they were designed around Toon Link, but Link's character model is basically a simplified version of the Twilight Princess version. He looks like he's in the wrong game. It's like they tried to combine the look of Twilight Princess with the look of Windwaker, and ended up with something that lacked the personality of either.

Timstuff

In all honesty, I agree with many of these statements. Link doesn't mesh well with his surroundings, which is a bit unsettling to see. Along with that, there are some color and styIistic choices that are strange, like the giant mushrooms (way to pull a page from the Mario series, Nintendo). The monsters look "off," as well. The developers do have time to work on the graphics, but with that said, they have a lot of work to do.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

The art style in this game is very inconsistent. The monsters and world look like they were designed around Toon Link, but Link's character model is basically a simplified version of the Twilight Princess version. He looks like he's in the wrong game. It's like they tried to combine the look of Twilight Princess with the look of Windwaker, and ended up with something that lacked the personality of either.

VGobbsesser

In all honesty, I agree with many of these statements. Link doesn't mesh well with his surroundings, which is a bit unsettling to see. Along with that, there are some color and styIistic choices that are strange, like the giant mushrooms (way to pull a page from the Mario series, Nintendo). The monsters look "off," as well. The developers do have time to work on the graphics, but with thats said, they have a lot of work to do.

I think it looks amazing. For the Wii it looks great on a technical aspect and the artstyle I think is great.

I guess there's not enough brown or androgynism.

Here is the bottom line:

Me and others were expecting to be blown away by new aspects of gameplay and originality. Instead we got the same thing with motion controls tagged on. It could turn to be a 10 but judging by the e3 demo it does not look any different.

I don;t Rike it. Maybe,just maybe,if they release a demo.....ZippySlappy

Here is the bottom line:

Me and others were expecting to be blown away by new aspects of gameplay and originality. Instead we got the same thing with motion controls tagged on. It could turn to be a 10 but judging by the e3 demo it does not look any different.

OwnallConsoles

Nothing is tagged on.

It's not waggle, which you stilldon't understand.

And like I said the demo was a showcase for the controls notthe overall game.

Here is the bottom line:

Me and others were expecting to be blown away by new aspects of gameplay and originality. Instead we got the same thing with motion controls tagged on. It could turn to be a 10 but judging by the e3 demo it does not look any different.

OwnallConsoles

You saw a demonstration of the controls, with a little bit of background and landscape. Those involved in developing said that they were focused purely on the control. We haven't seen the true game yet, I'm sure.

If you have this attitude now, you're predisposed to dislike it.

[QUOTE="ZippySlappy"]I don;t Rike it. Maybe,just maybe,if they release a demo.....IppoTenma

Here is the bottom line:

Me and others were expecting to be blown away by new aspects of gameplay and originality. Instead we got the same thing with motion controls tagged on. It could turn to be a 10 but judging by the e3 demo it does not look any different.

OwnallConsoles

How many changes were you expecting from a demo? It's a Zelda game so it has to stay true to the series. 1:1 motion controls are a huge difference in game play but apparently to you it seems like it's just tacked on.

Really we haven't played the game so there's no way we can judge. It could feel a lot like every other Zelda, but there's no way to tell.

You really just seem like you were expecting this Zelda to be an RPG or something.

[QUOTE="VauxhalI"]

[QUOTE="OwnallConsoles"]

I will explain what I mean further.

I played Zelda TP and was bored of it. It seems like I played the whole game before in Oot. I did not enjoy the wolf aspects and the game seemed like a total rehash. This looks to be similiar.

kontejner44

You like Grand Theft Auto, though. Right? That formula really hasn't changed much since GTA3, do you complain about that as well? I hope you're consistent.

This can be applied to most of the PS360 games anyway, including most "new IPs" because they contain the same gameplay seen in other games, what's the point? RDR you say? It's GTA4: Horse Edition.

Skyward Sword is actually a huge gameplay step forward thanks to WM+ we now have strategic combat

I'm curious to know what exactly "has remain unchanged since OoT" in Zelda games? And what do you propose as an alternative? People who have complaints are more like haters rather than giving constructive criticism, which is why people have to respond with hate

There is a reason why Nintendo choosed to add motion / IR / touch screen on their systems, it adds the potential of new gameplay. If you want something new and unique, Nintendo is the only company devoted to deliver just that.

OwnAll dude is most likely biased against moving, and no they aren't going to add traditional controls as the combat is impossible to emulate with dual analogue controls. It seems to me like you are afraid of new, as you are craving for a tradtional control setup, which is a step back at this point.

I agree with you, and I wasn't bashing Skyward Sword. I think it's going to be a good game. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy that a lot of gamespoters subscribe to. "It's not different enough!" - people that %i&*H about that, I hope, aren't playing Modern Warfare and several other this gen shooters. Why? Because they're all the same. But most of them probably do, and it's laughable when they use arguments against a popular series that pretty much apply to every game they play as well.

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

[QUOTE="bowser3"]

Well Oblivion has 93.70% on Gamerankings while Twilight Princess has a 94.51%...and on MetaCritic, Oblivion has a metascore of 94 while Twilight Princess has a 95...twilight princess also has higher userscore than oblivion as well..

DillonShwing

besides zelda TP was rated higher then oblivion on metacritic and gamerankings

I agree with Timstuff 110%. I dont give a **** what gamerankings or someother website gave TP or Oblivion. I had much more fun playing oblivion then I did with Twilight Princess. I remember playing Ocarina of Time for the first time and it seemed so open and huge but now the whole zelda series feels very linear when compared to games like the elder scrolls or Gta. Its getting harder for me to keep liking zelda when the thing I liked most about it as a kid was its openness and now other games are much better in that aspect.

nice opinion goes back to the beginning of my last post your opinion =/= fact. i had more fun with pokemon then Lost odyessy it really doesnt matter if you agree with him its whats true and whats not and an opinion is not a fact...

GTA is the same every time with a little change from chinatown wars.seriously what are you talking about?

I think it looks really solid, a good year will do the game well.

Meh, no matter what look Nintendo went with for SS there'd probably still be a massive amount of people complaining about whatever look they chose. The Zelda fanbase can be picky like that. >.>