View previous topic :: View next topic |
tay120n64
The Koholint Knight
Level 19: Soul Blazer Rank: Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 3186
7,572
Location: North Castle, Hyrule
|
tay120n64 Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: Skyward Sword: Masterpiece or Tripe? |
|
|
I went into Skyward Sword expecting a Zelda game that was rushed in development, despite supposedly being in development for four-five years. You know what other Zelda game was ACTUALLY in development for four-five years? Ocarina of Time.
Twilight Princess was undoubtedly one of the most magical experiences I have ever had with a video game. To me, it is second ONLY to Link's Awakening. I went into Skyward Sword expecting a well-crafted experience that was not going to be as good as any 3D Zelda before it. I went into the game expecting to enjoy it, but not have any majesty in which to revel.
I expected to dislike Skyward Sword from the very beginning. Demoing it at E3 last June only served to solidify those premature assumptions.
Firstly, the motion controls. Anyone who uses the word "waggle" clearly did not actually play the game. That having been said, there are glaring issues with the control scheme that go beyond the realm of "preference", which I would like to fairly point out is something I do not have for these sorts of control schemes. The sword combat is responsive, but severely limited. In Wii Sports Resort, the combat was full 1:1 movement; which is to say you could attack from ANY angle. In Skyward Sword you are allowed to attack from one of eight cardinal and intermediate directions (nine counting thrusting). While it is obvious that this was a decision made by the design team to make the combat feel more focused, it kind of misses the whole point of the Motion Plus' ability to track movement. Then there is the combat itself which turns every enemy encounter into a methodical puzzle of sorts. This isn't entirely a bad thing, but in a game that is supposed to be focused on the sense of exploration and uncovering secrets, combat should serve not to break the flow, but enhance it. When you not only have to come to a dead stop at every encounter (as an aside, I realize that previous Zelda games would force you to stop to destroy enemies due to the manner of Link's combat, however since Twilight Princess had moved the series forward by allowing Link to move around and attack in a seamless manner, adding restrictions to Link now feels anything but progressive) but you also have to stop and think, "Am I swinging the sword in the right direction?" there is clearly an issue. The problem with this form of combat is the amount of time it takes for the player to swing the remote compared to the amount of time it takes the player to press a button. Argue immersion in games all you like, the fact of the matter is buttons are and will always be the superior input method. For those who have played Skyward Sword, remember when the Bokoblins got electrified weapons in Lanaryu? Maybe you didn't have as much trouble as I did, but the speed that the Bokoblins change position ≠ the time it takes me to alter my attack's direction. Example: I swing the Wiimote --> I miss, but now my Wiimote and Link's sword are East when the enemy's opening requires that I swing --> again. I now have to move Link's sword back to a neutral position, or <-- so that I can make this happen. This should not be a problem, but enemies move quicker than you have time to do that. Skyward Sword, a game which has been streamlined and even includes a Hint System so as to be accessible to all ages encourages the player not to make any mistakes during combat.
wut.
This is a massive disconnect of design. In a game based around exploration, puzzle solving, and story, the reason combat is supposed to be easy, the whole point of it not breaking the flow, is so that the player is not constantly afraid of dying every time a monster appears.
You know what this really is? Padding. But I'll get to that in a minute.
Allow me two more quick points while I'm still on the subject of motion controls. First, the freaking Harp. Dear god, did Nintendo drop the ball here; not only is the harp completely useless outside of scripted story segments and a single mini-game, but the controls for it are the greatest illustration of why motion controls are meant to enhance standard control schemes and not replace them. For the uninformed, the Harp is used by holding "A" and waving the Wiimote left to right in time with the game's metronome. The idea is that when the metronome reaches it's apex, Link's hand should be at the end of the Harp. Simple enough, right? Two problems though. You can not see Link's hand, at least not well enough, so you have to rely on sound rather than sight to know where to stop and start waving the opposite direction. Secondly, and most proving of my point, the Wiimote does not limit how far you can move it. The limitations are entirely in the player's hands, which is indescribably vague. Were this to be mapped to a button, thumbstick, or D-Pad, it would be clear at what point to stop because these things can only be pressed so far and let go of so far before it reaches the limits of it's design. Games are designed around limitations, and it is up to the player to find those limitations and push them as far as he or she can. With motion controls, especially as illustrated here, the limitations are too vague and cause the experience to lack depth.
Okay that point wasn't so quick. My second point was more of an observation regarding Motion Plus vs. the Sensor Bar. I found that pointing at the screen in Twilight Princess allowed for better accuracy than having the ability to aim at the screen relative to your position, even when using the D-Pad to re-center your reticule. Thoughts?
Moving on from the motion controls, let's talk about pacing, storytelling, and characters.
Did character interaction feel forced and unnatural to anyone else? Groose was, to me, the only believable character in the game. Fi is probably the worst offender of this. At the very end when Fi and Link say goodbye (this isn't a spoiler, grow up) her line is so cheesy and expected I almost vomited. It's the absolute worst line I have ever seen in a video game since the poor translation practices of the 80s and 90s. Most of the rest of the game is better. In fact, Girahim in many ways evokes the same feelings as Agahnim (probably not an accident) in regards to his tormenting of Link and just the overall desire to chase after him. Both of these men are excellent and memorable villains and both lead into the final battle in very satisfying ways. I realize characterization and storytelling, even metaphorically, have never been Zelda's forte, but as it attempts vainly to position itself as a premier RPG series (it's not) it will have to put equal importance in story and gameplay, because that is what makes an RPG an RPG. Skyward Sword had a decent story, but most of the characters were stiff and forced and it lacked any genuine pacing, which brings us to Skyward Sword's biggest flaw:
Padding, a.k.a. Filler.
Games are padded to extend play-time. This is a fact that we, as gamers, accept. However, when over half of a game is padded, unnecessary content, there is clearly a problem. If the game we got was really the initial vision for Skyward Sword, then God help Nintendo, because this is clearly only half a game. There are only three areas in the game, four counting the Sky which is devoid of any worthwhile content. Typically in a Zelda game, padding comes in the form of Secret Grottos and Caves filled with monsters and treasures that really don't add anything to the experience except hours logged, but that's okay because it gives us something, not to do, but to find which is the core of the Zelda ideal. At what point in Skyward Sword were you ever rewarded for exploring? What's that? You found a treasure lying on the ground this one time?
GOOD FOR YOU.
In substitution for exploration Nintendo has given us the joy of Farming. Let that sink in for a minute...
In Twilight Princess there were caves with monsters, rupees and sometimes a Heart Piece. Is that any better than a Treasure or Insect? Fundamentally, no. Both are arbitrary rewards, Heart Piece notwithstanding. But it is the experience of the "double-find" that is the true reward. A "double-find", which I just made up, is the act of finding a section of map, like a cave, and then realizing you now get to explore IT. And what is the absolute greatest thing a game can reward the player with?
If you answered "Gameplay" congratulations. If not, move to Japan, there's a lot of great games for you there.
Zelda games reward explorers with more chances to explore. At what point does Skyward Sword ever reward the player for exploring? At what point is exploring ever a part of gameplay? The exploring that exists in Skyward Sword serves only to get the player from A to B in a linear fashion. Much like Metroid Fusion, for those who have played it, except at least in that game there were hidden rooms and items.
So Skyward Sword rewards the player with opportunities to kill enemies and search known drop points for rare items. This is glorified padding. It serves no purpose but to waste the player's time. Between farming, fetch quests, and arguably the whole second half of the game when you are forced to re-visit every area in the game, INCLUDING one of the dungeons, Skyward Sword is anything but an excellent game. Seriously, the game makes you enter the first dungeon again. Who does that? Somebody at Nintendo E&D looked at his colleagues and said, "You know what we should do? We should force the 'Chosen Hero' to prove his worth by re-visiting a Dungeon. We've never done that before!" And there is probably a reason it has never been done before. Probably a good one.
You know, if you enjoyed Skyward Sword, then more power to you. I had a decent time playing it, myself. If you enjoyed the motion-based combat, awesome. I didn't like it, but it isn't inherently terrible. But to hold up Skyward Sword to such lofty heights... I just don't see it. There are too many flaws, even ignoring the popular, "every Zelda game is the same" argument.
So for those of you who played Skyward Sword, a serious question: Why did you like it?
And for those who loved Skyward Sword: Why do you think it is better than other Zelda games? _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fazermint
Shameless Pirate
Level 10: Dark Bat
Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 336
712
|
Fazermint Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You have a lot of good points, and I agree with most of them. However, to me they weren't as game-breaking as they were to you.
On the motion control subject:
The decision to allow only 8 directions of attacks was, imo, no real flaw. Allowing attacks from any kind of direction would make it harder to design battles, and you might have ended up finding this one angle that could breeze you through the game. I felt that 8 directions was satisfactory, and not limiting at all. The fact that your sword stays where you left it the previous swing is, while unhandy at times, realistic, and I liked that. When that left me vulnerable I usually jerked the shield, something you'd had to do in a real battle as well. While I am against punishment for small mistakes, I didn't see it as much as a punishment as a battle system detail.
I actually liked the increased focus on combat. Exploring is still a major part of the game. I actually think at some points in other Zelda games, what breaks the flow is the exploration itself. But that's just my point of view. Anyway, I have to give it to you, the lightsabre goblins were a pain in the ass. Other than that I thought it was a rich experience. Did you for example figure out that you could run up the shields of the big goblins and jump over their heads, and strike them from behind? Probably, but still, it's pretty cool, right?
The harp was stupid, next issue.
I've yet to play the Wii version of TP (I first played through the GC version, then bought the Wii version and gave the GC version to my sister), so I wouldn't know about the pointer accuracy.
I have always thought that the characters in Zelda games were underdeveloped. I liked Groose, had a few chuckles as he went around calling places Grooseville. I also liked the increased involvement of Zelda, as she played but a minor role in other games. In SS you're actually looking for her, searching for her, because she's your friend and not just to save the world. Fi, on the other hand, pissed me off. "There's an 80% chance of..." oh shut up. Oh and the parting in the end, soooo cliché.
And Link, Y U NO utter any words? Will someone please give the poor guy a personality?
I'm kinda neutral to the monster part collecting business. I liked there to be some kind of crafting system, but to actually have to grind for it does not fit in a Zelda game. The two points balanced each other out.
I as well felt as if the game could have been more. Reusing dungeons was a bad idea, I'd much rather have three new ones (duh). I came to enjoy the linearity of the story line, because not once did I get stuck.
I guess when it comes to why I loved SS... I guess it's because of the motion control battles. It's also the first game in which you actually have to use your shield a lot. My only disappointment in the game was the extent of the aerial exploration. I'd hoped it'd be like sailing around in WW, only flying instead. When all is said and done, I believe WW remains my favorite. _________________ Hey. I'm Fazermint. And I'm Juicy!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tay120n64
The Koholint Knight
Level 19: Soul Blazer Rank: Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 3186
7,572
Location: North Castle, Hyrule
|
tay120n64 Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone seems to like SS because of the motion controls.
But the reason I play Zelda games is because I like uncovering hidden secrets, and this was completely absent from SS. I mean, I do enjoy farming, but it's the most artificial kind of padding. Even though I have fun doing it, I'm going to call it out every time.
A good Zelda game progresses by using what you have learned and acquired to access new areas. (This is why Link's Awakening is the best)
Skyward Sword will not let you progress without accessing mandatory story segments. The game is 100% story driven. You know how many times you are required to take part in a story event to progress the game in Link's Awakening?
ONCE.
Every other instance of progression in the game comes naturally by exploring new areas which open up through item acquisition. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fazermint
Shameless Pirate
Level 10: Dark Bat
Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 336
712
|
Fazermint Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed, there were little use for the equipment outside of dungeons. It'd be better if they had let the entire game happen in the sky, where you'd need item X to do X on island X, and letting you explore and find secrets freely (while still maintaining a story line, like in WW).
I guess SS just turned out to be more battle-oriented. _________________ Hey. I'm Fazermint. And I'm Juicy!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Flamez
Hail to the King baby!
Level 16: Cursed Armor Rank: Resident
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 1242
7,230
Location: Australia
|
Flamez Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just started playing it. This is the first Zelda game I have played where I dont think it was made for Zelda fans, but instead Wii fans. Like Tay, I play Zelda for the exploreing; finding that one secret, hunting down that last hidden item. Its what I love about Zelda. I dont love Zelda for arkward controls, a world that feels empty in comparisson to other Zelda worlds (hell I shouldnt even classify clouds as world).
This game could of been great. But it isnt. I do not understand why it got the scores it did. _________________
Joined TE on May 30, 2002, 2:26am!
Yeah, beat that.
I'm hot stuff.
http://terraearth.proboards.com - Original TE forums.
http://www.facebook.com/lochy - I gots facebook! yay for social networking? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
inferiare
TerraEarth Historian
Level 20: Guardian of Pandora Rank: Administrator
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6801
14,521
Location: Under a rock, which is under a bigger rock...
|
inferiare Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm enjoying it because I love when games build on a story and add to it. This is adding in the beginning of the story presented in ALLLLLLLLL of the other games in the series.
I honestly don't have many issues with the motion controls, I don't have problems or issues trying to swing the sword, I don't have the issues with the shield, anything like that.
I've honestly just flown around the sky map for fun, landed on random floating islands and looked around. The no exploration for some is plenty of fun exploration for others. :/
Again, while it may be a matter of preference, but I think it has to do with OMG OMG HYPE HYPE HYPE and then the expectation of it being on par with the Zelda games that were enjoyed in the past and it being different than what you were expecting. It's like going into, say, Persona 1 or 2 after playing only 3 or 4: there are no Social Links like there are in 3 or 4 in the first two. You don't have free controls like you would in 2, 3, or 4 in P1. Going in and getting something different than what you were expecting will only leave disappointment. Like it for what it was: an experiment that people either really loved (or at least liked enough to say it was a good game) or really disliked.
I think it's fun - while it didn't have mind-breaking puzzles or anything, that doesn't matter. I enjoyed it on the same level I've enjoyed the others, for as long as I played them, and I'm still enjoying it since I... haven't beaten it yet. Skyrim usually dominates the TV lately, and it ain't me playing it. _________________
Presia firle anw faura,
van futare parge iem...
Melenas. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fazermint
Shameless Pirate
Level 10: Dark Bat
Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 336
712
|
Fazermint Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Flamez wrote: | Just started playing it. This is the first Zelda game I have played where I dont think it was made for Zelda fans, but instead Wii fans. Like Tay, I play Zelda for the exploreing; finding that one secret, hunting down that last hidden item. Its what I love about Zelda. I dont love Zelda for arkward controls, a world that feels empty in comparisson to other Zelda worlds (hell I shouldnt even classify clouds as world).
This game could of been great. But it isnt. I do not understand why it got the scores it did. |
The motion controls you call awkward is what gave the game its score. True story. _________________ Hey. I'm Fazermint. And I'm Juicy!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tay120n64
The Koholint Knight
Level 19: Soul Blazer Rank: Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 3186
7,572
Location: North Castle, Hyrule
|
tay120n64 Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fazermint wrote: | The motion controls you call awkward is what gave the game its score. True story. |
THIS.
Also, @Raini:
What you're calling exploring there, is probably more akin to admiring. And really, for people who are used to RPGs, Skyward Sword is going to seem just fine. In a lot of ways, Skyward Sword feels like the spiritual successor to Zelda II. It disheartens me, because I've been wanting a return to Zelda II, and now that I finally have it, it isn't good enough. Though the game has increased RPG elements and a focus on Action over Adventure or Puzzle genres, it lacks what made Zelda II a timeless experience:
Depth. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Freedan
Level 19: Soul Blazer Rank: Resident
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 3856
10,167
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Freedan Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I liked about Skyward Sword is what I come to enjoy about every Zelda game. It tries something new.
The controls are obviously the biggest change, and one of the most polarizing. Personally, I had no problem with them. Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks brought touchscreen controls to the series, and this one brings motion controls (I don't really count TP as the debut of motion controls, with it being tacked on to boost the Wii's lineup). I thought the controls were done well, and I honestly don't understand all the trouble people seem to be having. "I swing this way, then can't swing the other way in time", "the enemies block too quickly to land a hit", etc. The idea was to make you work in combat, rather than stand there and wait for them to get close or expose a weak point before you hack the shit out of them. If that's what you want, the shield bash is there for you. Leaves them wide open.
I liked that I couldn't just stupidly swing a sword and kill something instantly. I liked having to approach enemies a certain way (especially the Stalfos knights with multiple limbs). I liked having to position my attacks, choose my spots, and not simply run away from an attack or play magical tennis with a boss until they leave themselves vulnerable.
You know what almost happened? I almost died fighting two Deku Babas. The first enemies you come across on the surface. I learned an important lesson; precision and timing matter. You can't blindly hack your way through enemies like weeds.
If anyone uses the word "waggle" in their complaints about the controls, I dismiss their argument immediately. I'm hardly the most coordinated guy when it comes to motion controls, but I didn't have these crippling issues with swinging a sword. The only problem I ever came across was thrusting in the second-last boss fight, and most of that was my own fault.
As for companions, I'll fully admit that Fi really slowed things down. Stopping to slowly tell you the obvious (with no option to really speed up the dialogue much) could be annoying. Her percentage calculations and deadpan dialogue made sense, since she was essentially an artificial life form; a 'living' record of the Goddess' memories meant to guide you. Still the least endearing companion, though. Say what you will about Navi, but most of her prompts were optional.
I also didn't mind much that there were "only" 3 areas in the game, because not only were they quite large (LaNayru is fucking huge), they change as you visit them throughout the story, you access new, farther areas as you progress, and there's not much wasted space.
Is it that big a deal that the Forest area includes the water area (and dungeon), without as much sprawling space to navigate to get there? Or that the mountains included the Earth and Volcanic regions? Would it have made much of a difference if the Forest and Water areas were separate? It sure didn't in Twilight Princess.
Twilight Princess had a huge, sprawling desert, with a dungeon at the far end, and fuck all else throughout it (Cave of Ordeals in the corner notwithstanding). If you're willing to trek across the expanse, you might find a small clearing in the rocks with, what? 20 rupees? Hyrule Field was a monstrous bitch, with very little to see. Climb the towering Death Mountain, or swim to the depths of Lake Hylia, again with little to see. That's not exploring so much as it is wandering. At least at Lake Hylia, there were a couple of games on land (though fishing was the only worthwhile one).
In TP, you visit an area, and then never again (unless you feel like a minigame). SS streamlined the wandering, and opened a region up farther as you came back to it.
As for 'revisiting the first dungeon', that's a bit misleading. What you actually do is travel through a heavily abbreviated first dungeon with a couple of new puzzles and a boss/miniboss fight. A few minutes, tops.
What I will fully admit is that SS leans heavily on the filler and backtracking. The point when you have to get a huge water basin, go talk to the person that owns it, and they just let you have it comes to mind. I can understand people's problem with that, but it didn't bother me at all. It didn't bother me in Majora's Mask or Wind Waker, it doesn't bother me here.
No, my main problem with this game is the same I have with pretty much every Zelda game. Rewards are pretty much useless. You get the Hylian shield for progressing through the boss rush, when pretty much the only thing left is the final battle. You get a stupidly huge wallet that holds more money than you could ever spend (late in the game, after you've bought everything you need), and once again, nothing worth spending money on. Sure, Beedle will fleece you for a few thousand rupees, but bug collecting is incredibly lucrative, and once that money sink is gone, you're left with thousands of rupees and nothing to spend it on.
Seriously, that wallet? 9,000 rupee capacity (9,900 with the optional upgrades). The most expensive item in the game? I believe it's the piece of heart, at 1,600.
And your "reward" for progressing through the boss rush all the way is.... 9,900 rupees. Keep in mind, you're right next to the end of the game by the time you can access the boss rush.
That's one thing Nintendo can't seem to get right. Their rewards suck.
I could go on, but I'll stop here. I'll finish for now by saying that SS is not perfect, and it has its share of flaws, but I thoroughly enjoyed the game in spite of them. It's not my favourite in the series (an honour shared by OoT and LttP), but it's not far behind. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fazermint
Shameless Pirate
Level 10: Dark Bat
Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 336
712
|
Fazermint Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Freedan wrote: | What I liked about Skyward Sword is what I come to enjoy about every Zelda game. It tries something new. |
New game, new gameplay. While I certainly want Nintendo to preserve the Zelda feel, I welcome new stuff. The game must go on, and continue to evolve. I didn't think that SS lost the Zelda feel.
Freedan wrote: | I thought the controls were done well, and I honestly don't understand all the trouble people seem to be having. |
Agreed.
Freedan wrote: | I liked that I couldn't just stupidly swing a sword and kill something instantly. I liked having to approach enemies a certain way (especially the Stalfos knights with multiple limbs). I liked having to position my attacks, choose my spots, and not simply run away from an attack or play magical tennis with a boss until they leave themselves vulnerable. |
This. Combat in a Zelda game has never been more entertaining.
Freedan wrote: | I also didn't mind much that there were "only" 3 areas in the game, because not only were they quite large (LaNayru is fucking huge), they change as you visit them throughout the story, you access new, farther areas as you progress, and there's not much wasted space. |
I actually had the feeling that SS was larger than other games. Including Hyrule field in the equation is a bit redundant, since, as you were saying, it's empty and pointless.
Freedan wrote: | That's one thing Nintendo can't seem to get right. Their rewards suck. |
Zelda has never had good rewards There's only heart pieces and rupees, and the occasional upgrade.
Freedan wrote: | I'll finish for now by saying that SS is not perfect, and it has its share of flaws, but I thoroughly enjoyed the game in spite of them. |
And these words of wisdom needs to be passed around _________________ Hey. I'm Fazermint. And I'm Juicy!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tay120n64
The Koholint Knight
Level 19: Soul Blazer Rank: Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 3186
7,572
Location: North Castle, Hyrule
|
tay120n64 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Freedan wrote: | What I liked about Skyward Sword is what I come to enjoy about every Zelda game. It tries something new. |
I am not opposed to this, however, what they did new this time I did not care for, and I hope in the next game they do something else.
Freedan wrote: | I thought the controls were done well, and I honestly don't understand all the trouble people seem to be having. [...] The idea was to make you work in combat, rather than stand there and wait for them to get close or expose a weak point before you hack the shit out of them. |
Maybe I enjoy button mashing? Maybe if I want to play an Action game, I'll play an Action game. The thing I like about Zelda is that it does a lot of things well without focusing on any one thing (Dungeon Crawling, Adventuring, Puzzle Solving, Action, Story, Collecting). If you were to take each of these design ideals independently, we could all think of games that do them WAY better, but no game does them all simultaneously with the same quality. Which is to say, I like the balance Zelda has when it doesn't focus on one thing over the other.
Freedan wrote: | You know what almost happened? I almost died fighting two Deku Babas. |
That happened to me too. I'm not against challenge, I just don't see why the Zelda series needs this sudden focus on combat. Wind Waker was perfect, Twilight Princess was better or worse depending on how you look at it, so why change it this much?
Freedan wrote: | I also didn't mind much that there were "only" 3 areas in the game, because not only were they quite large (LaNayru is fucking huge), they change as you visit them throughout the story, you access new, farther areas as you progress, and there's not much wasted space.
Twilight Princess had a huge, sprawling desert, with a dungeon at the far end, and fuck all else throughout it (Cave of Ordeals in the corner notwithstanding). If you're willing to trek across the expanse, you might find a small clearing in the rocks with, what? 20 rupees? Hyrule Field was a monstrous bitch, with very little to see. Climb the towering Death Mountain, or swim to the depths of Lake Hylia, again with little to see. That's not exploring so much as it is wandering. |
You know what that is, though? It's called PACING. Twilight Princess had EXCELLENT pacing right up until the hunt for the Sky Characters, where things start to get rather narrow as you realize that there isn't anything else to do in the game except for the last three dungeons. Skyward Sword had wretched pacing, because all there was to do in the game were things related to the story. Yeah, there's no wasted space, but it's that empty area that makes landmarks, well, landmarks.
And as for arbitrary rewards, well... What do you expect? At least in Twilight Princess there were plenty of expensive things early on to spend your money on. I do like how in Skyward Sword you can't get items from grass, though. My wallet was empty throughout the whole game because I actually used the shop to buy supplies. I haven't used a shop like that since... Christ... Zelda 1.
Freedan wrote: | As for 'revisiting the first dungeon', that's a bit misleading. |
Misleading, my ass. You are required, by the story, to enter a Dungeon AGAIN. No creative or innovative gameplay, you're just forced to take part in a fetch-quest there. It's bullshit, it's stupid, don't try to justify it. This is the kind of thing that is killing Zelda.
Freedan wrote: | [Filler and backtracking] didn't bother me in Majora's Mask or Wind Waker, it doesn't bother me here. |
Majora's Mask was a game where side-quests were the main game and the main game was a side-quest. In that game, filler and backtracking was done elegantly. Wind Waker's filler was nightmarish, what with all the sailing and the Triforce Hunting. If it didn't bother you, consider yourself lucky. I love Wind Waker, but it's super draining to play.
Freedan wrote: | I'll finish for now by saying that SS is not perfect, and it has its share of flaws, but I thoroughly enjoyed the game in spite of them. It's not my favourite in the series (an honour shared by OoT and LttP), but it's not far behind. |
Much like Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass, and my first play-through of Wind Waker, the flaws were just to pervasive for me to ignore. The focus on Action, while something I did not like, was implemented very well. I totally understand why the design team wants to keep it around. But the underlying issues of progression, exploration... pacing in general, really, just KILLED Skyward Sword. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Freedan
Level 19: Soul Blazer Rank: Resident
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 3856
10,167
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Freedan Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tay120n64 wrote: | You are required, by the story, to enter a Dungeon AGAIN. No creative or innovative gameplay, you're just forced to take part in a fetch-quest there. It's bullshit, it's stupid, don't try to justify it. This is the kind of thing that is killing Zelda. |
I'm not trying to justify it, it was a waste of time. I only mean to point out that I fail to see why spending 5 minutes revisiting an area is such a game breaker when there are bigger wastes of time that are totally ignored. Why is trekking across an empty desert in TP "excellent pacing" while revisiting a dungeon (which, again, is not entirely old ground) is "killing Zelda"?
Regardless, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree, since we differ wildly on our opinions of some games. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
tay120n64
The Koholint Knight
Level 19: Soul Blazer Rank: Moderator
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 3186
7,572
Location: North Castle, Hyrule
|
tay120n64 Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You didn't think trekking across the desert and coming upon the Bokoblin camp was cool? I mean, it takes a while to get anywhere since you don't have your horse, but I thought it was a lot of fun.
The pacing breaks a little there, yeah, but that's the nature of exploration. In those moments, the pacing is controlled by you. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fazermint
Shameless Pirate
Level 10: Dark Bat
Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Posts: 336
712
|
Fazermint Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tay120n64 wrote: | You didn't think trekking across the desert and coming upon the Bokoblin camp was cool? I mean, it takes a while to get anywhere since you don't have your horse, but I thought it was a lot of fun.
The pacing breaks a little there, yeah, but that's the nature of exploration. In those moments, the pacing is controlled by you. |
Isn't justifying this the same as Freedan justifying the insignificance of the dungeon revisits?
In the end it all comes down to personal opinion. The way I see it, if you look for flaws in a game, you'll find them. I get the idea that you spent a lot of effort on looking for flaws. That's hardly a healthy way to approach a game. If my assumption is wrong, I apologize. _________________ Hey. I'm Fazermint. And I'm Juicy!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
inferiare
TerraEarth Historian
Level 20: Guardian of Pandora Rank: Administrator
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6801
14,521
Location: Under a rock, which is under a bigger rock...
|
inferiare Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Only way to make desert trekking in a game fun is if you do it Breath of Fire 3 style, sorry to say. Running aimlessly for longer than you should ever have to, unless it's an open-ended game, should NEVER be in a game, rpg or otherwise. _________________
Presia firle anw faura,
van futare parge iem...
Melenas. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|