Why do people feel that Skyward Sword looks disappointing?

Looks like a great zelda game. People are pissed becasue of **** E3 Demo, and the art style is the offspring of wind waker and twilight princess, basically what your first post said.

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

1. The plot in Twilight Princess is different from past Zelda games.2.And when you talk about "innovation", you really mean some new quirky gimmick or gameplay addition that is totally different than anything we've seen before.3. Twilight Princess' dungeons, boss fights, and swordplay innovate and take the Zelda series to new heights. You're never doing the same thing in a boss fight or dungeon that you were before, and they make brilliant use of the items you recieve. And you've seen absolutely nothing regarding SS other than Link swinging his sword. 4. Essentially no plot details have been released by Nintendo, although the basic ideas that they gave hint that the storyline will be very different from past Zeldas and more like Majora's Mask.Loco_Live

1. The plot is nothing but a mixture of Oot and Alttp. Light world dark world, check. Ganon, check. Save princess, check. Link changes into an animal in dark world, check.

2. No, How a bout a different way of progressing through the game other than the same old 'enter dungeon, get new item, use item to defeat boss, use item to get to new boss, repeat'.

3. Then explain the lackluster reviews and general fan dissapointment with the game.

4. The game takes place before Hyrule kingdom was built. It takes place before Oot. Link lives in a land that floats in the sky. The game chronicles how ganondorf turns bad. All of this stuff and more have been revealed by Miyamoto and Anouma themselves in many interviews.

So this weekend I've been playing a lot of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, and here's what I've concluded:

1) Of the two, Wind Waker's graphics have held up better. It still looks just as charming and whimsical as it did when it came out 8 years ago. Does that mean it's necessarily better? That's debatable, but I would say no. However, I think that its one of those rare examples of a game making perfect use of the technology that was available at the time to create something that is just as easy to appreciate today as it was when it came out.

2) Twilight Princess, while graphically dated as a 6th generation game, still looks very pretty thanks to its top-tier production design. Even though they faced technological and budgetary limitations (after all, this game was made with a Nintendo budget, not a Sony or MS one), they still managed to produce a game that was very pretty and had a great many little touches to make everything look more life-like. I would have preferred the graphics not look so desaturated and that they didn't go so far with the light bloom, but then again, this was a popular fad at the time and I guess Nintendo wanted to stay current. I love how when yo walk through the forrest you can see little patches of moss everywhere, little branches and roots in the soil, and little glimmers of light coming down from between the leaves on the trees. Even things like seeing squirrels scurry around help bring the whole experience together. These are artistic choices that make the game look good independent of the technology, and I think that that is the biggest reason for why the game looks good.

3) Comparing both to Skyward Swords, SS looks like crap. It tries to look whimsical like Wind Waker, but it does not have the charm. It has the more "realistic" Link from Twilight Princess, but it has none of the environmental detail. The environmental geometry look as simple as Wind Waker's, however it does not have bright and cartoony cel shaded characters to make it work, nor does it have the artistic flourishes to make it resemble reality like in Twilight Princess. It's a Zelda game with flat, simple, and quite frankly very cheap looking graphics. Nintendo loves to pinch their pennies as tightly as possible when it comes to anything that doensn't have Mario in it, and unfortunately it's starting to show.

The visuals are beyond disappointing.

So this weekend I've been playing a lot of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, and here's what I've concluded:

1) Of the two, Wind Waker's graphics have held up better. It still looks just as charming and whimsical as it did when it came out 8 years ago. Does that mean it's necessarily better? That's debatable, but I would say no. However, I think that its one of those rare examples of a game making perfect use of the technology that was available at the time to create something that is just as easy to appreciate today as it was when it came out.

2) Twilight Princess, while graphically dated as a 6th generation game, still looks very pretty thanks to its top-tier production design. Even though they faced technological and budgetary limitations (after all, this game was made with a Nintendo budget, not a Sony or MS one), they still managed to produce a game that was very pretty and had a great many little touches to make everything look more life-like. I would have preferred the graphics not look so desaturated and that they didn't go so far with the light bloom, but then again, this was a popular fad at the time and I guess Nintendo wanted to stay current. I love how when yo walk through the forrest you can see little patches of moss everywhere, little branches and roots in the soil, and little glimmers of light coming down from between the leaves on the trees. Even things like seeing squirrels scurry around help bring the whole experience together. These are artistic choices that make the game look good independent of the technology, and I think that that is the biggest reason for why the game looks good.

3) Comparing both to Skyward Swords, SS looks like crap. It tries to look whimsical like Wind Waker, but it does not have the charm. It has the more "realistic" Link from Twilight Princess, but it has none of the environmental detail. The environmental geometry look as simple as Wind Waker's, however it does not have bright and cartoony cel shaded characters to make it work, nor does it have the artistic flourishes to make it resemble reality like in Twilight Princess. It's a Zelda game with flat, simple, and quite frankly very cheap looking graphics. Nintendo loves to pinch their pennies as tightly as possible when it comes to anything that doensn't have Mario in it, and unfortunately it's starting to show.

Timstuff

You can't be serious :lol:

It looks beasty just a little worried about the demo from e3. Im sure theyll fix it up to have it perfect for launch.will519

I bet that the next game will be on Nintendo's HD system and will have voice acting and semi-realistic graphicsTimstuff

whoa, whoa -- Voice acting?

Hold on there...what about the Nintendo Budget ™?

[QUOTE="bc1391"][QUOTE="Shinobishyguy"]So NOW people are starting to say the actually liked twilight princess? Just as SS is first revealed? Looks like the cycle is in full swing.Timstuff