PixlBit

Hey, hey, hey! While I'm quite busy writing up my Wii U worries and top 5 list of cancelled Wii games I figured I'd post something. So what better than an old 1up blog? Well a new blog would be nice, but unfortunately the one thing keeping me from posting it is a game I believe won't come at all, but still has a small sliver of hope to do so. Anyways a ways while back there was some fan debate about whether or not Skyward Sword was worth the grand expectations put upon itself for the 25th anniversary of the Zelda franchise. Needless to say while critic reception has been favorable (mostly high ranking scores of 5 stars, 10/10, 90% or more reception, etc.) some fans were less favorable. Of course this sparked a debate on 1up so I put up a objective analysis of the game as best I could...so without further ado...enjoy!

So let us start off with the motion controls.

Point # 1

Motion Controls- When the Wii was first announced many people saw a potential in the idea of motion controls to create an experience that required precise movements in terms of gunplay, swordplay, etc. Fast forward 7 years later and well…Not even Nintendo can get it perfect…even with 1:1 motion support. Twilight Princess certainly showed that a Zelda game could be done well with motion controls, but most people didn’t think it required any strategy. All you had to do was flail around and you beat the enemy. So Nintendo rectified this mistake by adding motion plus and by fine tuning the combat.

It’s no surprise that Skyward Sword actually requires you to be well…on target. You’ve now got vertical, horizontal, and diagonal directions in which to flail. Enemies now block your movements and in some cases anticipate them. It really works well in concept. The battles against Ghirahim can either be fun or frustrating as they require you to be spot on with your strikes and movement. Various items and segments require motion control to be spot on, but others don’t.

The motion controls for this game aren’t perfect. If they were perfect you wouldn’t have people complaining about how when they did a diagonal strike it went horizontal or vice versa. Let’s face it, not even Nintendo has perfected motion control technology…no one has. So frustration along with the fact that you swung one way but it registered different or the fact that at times you have to recalibrate in order to re-center mean that we're still not there yet. I’ve often claimed that when the motion controls for a Wii game work that they really do. You’ll climb, fight, drive, etc. with relative ease. But the fact that we still have to flail, recalibrate, or even revert to other control schemes because the motion controls aren’t great means that while motion controls certainly seem like a good idea…doesn’t mean that the execution is.

The verdict: Blame Nintendo for motion controls and any gimmick that requires them if you don’t like them. If not, have fun and swing away!

Point # 2

The Exploration/Gameplay- There have been many detractors against the game and its exploration. Some have said it’s a 20 hour game stretched to 40 hours. Others have said the balance is perfect. So let’s take both arguments into account and look back at other Zelda games.

Ask anybody about the original Zelda and they’ll tell you you're crazy if you say to them the game lacks exploration. Ask anybody about Zelda 2 and they’ll tell you that you’re crazy to say the game holds your hand. Zelda has de-evolved from its past. Games nowadays have to hold your hand. It’s frustrating for gamers. FFXIII had hours of handholding before it got to the meat and potatoes that it didn’t feel worth it. But lets take into account something. You can’t satisfy everyone. If you leave it too open then you risk a lack of a strong main story (ex. see some arguments for The Elder Scrolls series) Yet, if you leave it too linear then you risk backlash from people who want more to the game (See again FFXIII arguments).

It seems as though Nintendo tried to make a middle ground. And yet it didn’t satisfy anyone. The sky was open and you were able to explore it, but it felt empty and there just wasn’t much to achieve by it. Many people didn’t like Wind Waker because of that emptiness. The ocean in Wind Waker just felt too open with not enough to find or achieve by it. The same is now being said about Skyward Sword. Then comes the surface world. The surface feels linear. There’s nothing large about it and even most of the map is empty.



I mean look at the space they leave. There is at least 1/4 of the map that is empty. As for the areas...The game has you revisit these areas at least twice and there are about 6-7 dungeons in the game. That means that are two dungeons per area rather than the usual Zelda format of here’s an icy mountain top level so you get an icy mountain top dungeon. So, not only do you really not get a feeling like you uncovered a new area to explore, but the overall repetitive nature of going back to areas you've visited prior was a bit much for some.

So, of course many people feel gypped. But despite what was done soaring through the skies is great and fun. You even fight a boss in the skies which is terrific. The nature of the levels are also very well done. The areas themselves have dungeons within dungeons…or they feel that way anyway. Maybe puzzles within puzzles would be a better suited analogy. But I suppose no one likes backtracking or fetch questing. At least I don’t know anyone who found backtracking or fetch questing fun. I’m sure some people may defend finding the musical notes in Faron Woods…others probably found it to be a pain in the ass. Did you love the silent realm sections? There are those that didn't. Again if I’m to reiterate a point it just feels as if Nintendo tried to find a middle ground…and that’s why you get the disparity.

Verdict: Love it or hate it…The game play isn’t changing.

Point # 3

The Characters- Characters make or break a Zelda game. Whether its for comical means (I am Error) or it if it showcases changes in terms of character (Ganondorf as a tragic villain in Wind Waker). Many people have felt that even though there are various characters in Skyward Sword they just aren’t…appealing. Aside from the main Link/Zelda love storyline other aspects feel…not as good. You’ve got Fi the sidekick who many hate. Nintendo felt the need to give you a computer A.I. that is well…a programmed computer. Fi is given no character traits, no back story, no emotional attachment. She serves as an ends to the means and is quickly forgotten which would be fine if her counter part wasn’t Ghirahim.

Ghirahim, the demon lord who pesters you throughout the game and constantly tries to catch Zelda is at the very least interesting. He gets frustrated and angry. He’s mysterious and wicked. At the very least he showcases a personality trait…whatever trait that may be. And taking into account Twilight Princess which had Midna…there is just no reason why Nintendo felt the need to backtrack in terms of a supporting character. And of course there’s Groose.

Groose is just…sad. I didn’t mind the character, but it’s not like he’s memorable either. I mean who are Grooses’s ancestors? Are they going to make some connection to Groose in some way later? Was I the only one who thought Groose would in some way get possessed by Demise and turn into Ganondorf? I mean there are various characters like Link, Zelda, Gaespora, and Impa that have had other iterations of the character.  I mean where does Groose fit in? He just serves as the comic relief character. Say what you want about other comic relief Zelda characters (ex. The mailman in Twilight Princess) at least they were amusing. Groose comes off as well a jerk…well I guess they got me there.

Other characters consist of a love struck item check girl, a creepy looking fortune teller, a handy mechanic, Beedle the goofy shop owner, etc. Each has a personality and it’s interesting to interact with them, solving their problems, etc. There are shades of Majora’s Mask at work, but ultimately there’s not much to be gained from helping people. Aside from more rupees, anything you get can be upgraded with items you find in whatever area you're traveling in and you can win the best shield in the game in boss battle rush mode.

The Verdict: Love em or hate em…The characters aren’t changing either.

Point # 4

The Miscellaneous- Various things were brought up in the 1up article about why Skyward Sword didn't live up to expectations. One of them was the fact that the harp isn’t utilized like the ocarina or even the baton in wind waker. To be honest, I could care less about the new fascination with musical instruments giving you abilities. Zelda back in the day didn’t need musical instruments for changing weather, day and night, etc. I mean do we really need a magical musical instrument to make things worthwhile?

There was also a point about not being able to travel at night. I understand the frustration with not being able to go skyward at night. I mean take into consideration Ocarina, Majora’s Mask, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess…all of which had the ability to explore at night! Now all of a sudden we can’t go exploring everywhere at night? Take it as another step back I suppose kids…It’s not safe out there in the dark.

There was a complaint about motion controlled puzzles as well. I actually thought this was good. Inserting the master dungeon keys was a neat idea. Other various puzzles were also well implemented. Sure I wish there was less focus on motion based puzzles, but I felt that the puzzles were done particularly well. Zelda continues to make well designed puzzles and dungeons. Lets just keep hoping it continues.

Another complaint was there wasn't enough side activity. You can do other little things like catch bugs, play a rupee finding game, etc. here is no fishing this time around for anybody who may have liked it. (Some people did, others may not have) But I do feel like there’s just less to do. Again taking into account Twilight Princess you had similar things such finding bugs and a rupee game (with double clawshots!) However in twilight Princess you had balloon popping, sled riding, water rafting, etc. Heck it even had hidden caves in which to fight enemies or collect pieces of hearts and the cave of ordeals! Skyward Sword has a lot less when you think about it.

The Verdict: For some this Zelda just doesn’t have enough meat.

The Final Assessment:

Skyward Sword isn’t going to be for everyone and it probably wasn't. It isn’t as accessible as most Zelda games because it isn’t like most Zelda games. (Although there are arguments about that, but thats a whole different topic) Nintendo went off the beaten path to try something different and they did just that. There were familiar elements and certainly familiar aspects, but the end result brought to life something that many feel lacked that Zelda feel. Again using the FFXIII analogy, Square Enix felt the need to create and try something different. There were no towns, it became linear, etc. That’s not to say XIII was a bad game. (Though some may think it is) It was a good game, but many wanted greatness. Perhaps that’s how this Zelda shaped up to be. Many wanted greatness, but it was rather just good...or bad depending on your view. And you could certainly dissect any Zelda game this way or any game for that matter by pointing out 5 wrong things it did.

The Point is you can’t please everyone. There’s no point in arguing for or against Zelda. One person will feel one way and another will feel differently. Trying to find a middle ground from an objective standpoint would be meaningless. Heck not even I could be completely objective towards the game. (I quite enjoyed it actually) So take this blog with a grain of salt and enjoy the damn game for what it is…or don’t. Either way I doubt I’m changing anyone’s mind.