Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

Here's another 5/5
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...rd-review.html

And a 7.5 from GameSpot
http://www.gamespot.com/the-legend-o...839?metacritic

The good elements do outweigh the bad in Skyward Sword, creating another engrossing experience in this venerable franchise. Strong visual design meshes the cartoony world of Wind Waker with the more realistic approach offered by Twilight Princess, and the riveting orchestral soundtrack brings back many classic tracks while offering a few tasty new ones. However, the formula is beginning to show its age. There just aren't enough new ideas to separate Skyward Sword from its predecessors, and the few additions come with mixed results. Even with many bright spots, Skyward Sword still feels like a nostalgic retread. Those yearning for something new will be disappointed, but anyone thirsty for another exciting adventure will find plenty to enjoy here

Bravo. I know that review is going to divide people and cause a shit-storm, but yeah. Compared to all the perfect scores, that is the most honest review I have seen based on what was written in the review compared to the score given. I mean come on. I've read 4 or 5 reviews that complained about the motion controls and then went on to give the game a perfect score.

[KillerGremlin]

I found this comment on reddit and think it is worth posting:

GamePro and Giant Bomb both gave it 4/5. GamePro said in their review that it is "Good". Giant Bomb said in their review that it is "Very Good". 7.5 on GameSpot's scale is also "Good".

So of course, in the comments sections on all three reviews people are freaking the FUCK out, because three reviews said it was Good to Very Good, but dared to say it wasn't great. The state of game reviewing is a mess, we would be so much better off if nobody used silly point scales and people had to actually read the reviews to discern the reviewer's opinion.

Right now the Zelda subreddit is amiss. People are pissed that Zelda isn't getting a 10 out of 10 from Gamespot. Lots of comments like, "Everyone else gave it a 10/10. So that means Gamespot is broken."

People comparing it to MW3....




Do we put too much weight into game reviews?


Edit: This is why Yahtzee is my favorite reviewer, btw. He doesn't spend time going over the formula, and BELIEVE ME. Everyone is familiar with the Zelda formula. Yahtzee tells you what is wrong with the game, and if it is remotely original. And he is funny. The number system is dumb. A 7.5 out of 10 is a 75%. A 4 out of 5 is an 80%. That's not a huge difference. All in all, the consensus on this Zelda title seems to be wonky controls from time to time, and not an innovative entry: just very polished. And those themes run through many of the reviews giving the game a perfect score. So not sure what you make from that.

[Angrist]

I dreamed there was a review in one of those free papers (Metro or so) and they really hated the game. It was like "the game isn't HD, it's released on a dying console, it has cartoon graphics... who would want to play this?"
And in the meantime they posted another article about Skyrim.

[Shadow Fox]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

That's the consensus after every new Zelda release. Wind Waker...Twilight Princess...

That's the first time I've ever heard such a claim.

Ocarina of Time has been, and always was regarded as the best in the series since it's inception almost 13 years ago.

How can one even make that reflection? OoT was never put on the "best game ever" pedestal until a few years down the road.

What is your source for THIS information, because it differs drastically from reality.

And it wasn't reviewers who elevated the game to legendary status

So the DOZENS of perfect scores the game got back then should be ignored?

But best Zelda game ever would have to be the game that really changed my life, paved nostalgia, and impacted gaming forever. Right?

Or, just be a really damn-good Zelda game, in which you've had more fun than any other Zelda.

C'mon guy.

[Vampyr]

I'm pleased with these scores. 7.5 is a great score, especially for a game that doesn't really bring anything new to the table, and isn't in HD like other modern games are. I'm still excited as hell for it.

@Angrist: What's with the jab at Skyrim? It's pretty much the most well received game released in the last several years. Pretty much everyone, reviewers and the audience, love it. I haven't seen a game this widely accepted as being good in a long time. Everyone loves it.

I've been playing it since it released, and I can easily say it's the best game I've played all year, and probably in the last several years. It's simply stunning the breadth of content it has...and not only does it have an enormous amount of content, but it's high quality and engaging content. Even the side quests are interesting and full of back story.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I'm pleased with these scores. 7.5 is a great score, especially for a game that doesn't really bring anything new to the table, and isn't in HD like other modern games are. I'm still excited as hell for it.

@Angrist: What's with the jab at Skyrim? It's pretty much the most well received game released in the last several years. Pretty much everyone, reviewers and the audience, love it. I haven't seen a game this widely accepted as being good in a long time. Everyone loves it.

I've been playing it since it released, and I can easily say it's the best game I've played all year, and probably in the last several years. It's simply stunning the breadth of content it has...and not only does it have an enormous amount of content, but it's high quality and engaging content. Even the side quests are interesting and full of back story.

Really?

This year alone, I could think of Arkham City as a well received game both critically and commercially.

Edit: This is why Yahtzee is my favorite reviewer, btw. He doesn't spend time going over the formula, and BELIEVE ME. Everyone is familiar with the Zelda formula. Yahtzee tells you what is wrong with the game, and if it is remotely original. And he is funny. The number system is dumb. A 7.5 out of 10 is a 75%. A 4 out of 5 is an 80%. That's not a huge difference. All in all, the consensus on this Zelda title seems to be wonky controls from time to time, and not an innovative entry: just very polished. And those themes run through many of the reviews giving the game a perfect score. So not sure what you make from that.

I will say this, and its kind of a contradictory point.

1) There's no such thing as a perfect game.

2) a 10/10, 5/5, 100% doesn't mean a game is perfect. It means the sum of a game's parts is far greater than any one or two flaws the game may have.

[Angrist]

Uhm, who's jabbing at Skyrim? All I said was I had a crazy dream where a newspaper ditched Skyward Sword for another positive article on Skyrim.

I'm actually looking forward to playing Skyrim one day. On a better computer. I'll love exploring the gorgeous world.

[Shadow Fox]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Bravo. I know that review is going to divide people and cause a shit-storm, but yeah. Compared to all the perfect scores, that is the most honest review I have seen based on what was written in the review compared to the score given. I mean come on. I've read 4 or 5 reviews that complained about the motion controls and then went on to give the game a perfect score.

Now, let's apply that logic to Uncharted 3, Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham City, and The Elder Scrolls V.

Because clearly those games don't have "enough new ideas to separate them from their predecessors".

Seriously, Skyward Sword plays more like METROID now than anything else, and if "being the same" is the major reason the game is being slapped, then the hypocrisy wagon is in order.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Shadow Fox

What is your source for THIS information, because it differs drastically from reality.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Le...ion_and_legacy

Ocarina of Time was released to universal acclaim and commercial success. In 1998, it sold 2.5 million copies despite being released only 39 days before the end of the year. In Japan, it sold 820,000 copies in 1998, becoming the tenth-best-selling game of that year. During its lifetime, Ocarina of Time sold 1.14 million copies in Japan, becoming the 134th-best-selling game of all time, and sold 7.6 million copies worldwide. On its initial N64 release, Ocarina of Time received perfect review scores from gaming publications such as Famitsu, Edge, Electronic Gaming Monthly, GameSpot, and IGN. As of September 2011, the review aggregator websites Game Rankings and Metacritic both rank the original Nintendo 64 version as the highest reviewed game of all time, with average scores of 97.48% from Game Rankings and 99/100 from Metacritic. The reviews praised multiple aspects of the game, particularly its level design, gameplay mechanics and sound. Former GameSpot reviewer Jeff Gerstmann wrote that Ocarina of Time is "a game that can't be called anything other than flawless", and IGN called it "the new benchmark for interactive entertainment" that could "shape the action RPG genre for years to come". GameTrailers' editors called it a "walking patent office" due to the number of features that became "industry standard". After publication, Ocarina of Time was featured on a number of compiled lists of best or most influential games, including those of Electronic Gaming Monthly, IGN, and Nintendo Power. In June 2009, it was voted as the best game ever in GameFAQs' reader poll. Ocarina of Time has consistently been placed at number one in Edge magazine's "top 100 games" lists: a staff-voted list in January 2000, a staff- and reader-voted list in July 2007, and a list of "The 100 Best Games to Play Today" in March 2009. In May, 2011, IGN held a tournament style competition voted on by fans celebrating the 25th anniversary of the original Legend of Zelda's release, with Ocarina of Time being voted the greatest Zelda game of all time, beating Majora's Mask in the final round. It beat The Adventure of Link in Round 1, Phantom Hourglass in Round 2, and The Wind Waker in Round 3.

Yes, the game was received with warm criticism. It received a ton of awesome reviews, and acclaim. It received way higher scores across the board than this new Zelda title...by far.

But it was described more as innovative and revolutionary when it came out. I didn't see reviewers using hyperbole like "THIS IS THE BEST ZELDA GAME, EVER!" like IGN is doing today for Skyward Sword.

Furthermore, it is clear from the above info that Ocarina of Time has appeared on many "greatest games lists." But look at the dates. OoT came out in 1998. I see 2000....2007...2009...2011. The game wasn't elevated to "best game ever status" until everyone had a chance to play it + a few years down the road.

Which is why it is 100% retarded for a game reviewer to even utter those words. One game review website cannot determine if something is "the best game ever." That is ludicrous. It's not a decision that a game review website can make.

It's a combination of a bunch of reviews, sales, and what the players think. If you told someone back in 1998 that Ocarina of Time would be voted the best Zelda title ever in 2011.....do you think they'd believe you? They might, after beating the game and reflecting on it. That process alone has to push most gamers into the 1999 year.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Shadow Fox

Now, let's apply that logic to Uncharted 3, Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham City, and The Elder Scrolls V.

Because clearly those games don't have "enough new ideas to separate them from their predecessors".

Seriously, Skyward Sword plays more like METROID now than anything else, and if "being the same" is the major reason the game is being slapped, then the hypocrisy wagon is in order.

This is the problem with the number system. 7.5 is still a good score. You have to factor in that different people reviewed the games.

I can't speak of what score many of the above titles should get. But this is a bad defense. "MW3 got ________ score so Skyward Sword by definition should get __________ score."

Maybe they liked Modern Warfare or Battlefield more because of multiplayer? Who knows? And I heard good things about Uncharted 3.

I'm not sitting here defending Gamespot. I think Gamespot is broken. I think we probably agree when we get to the bottom of this discussion. I want to do away with the loony number system.

I'm just giving some credit to Gamespot.....many people have complained about having to recalibrate controls in Zelda....and then have gone on to give the game a perfect score and call it the best Zelda ever. I don't ever remember OoT or Wind Waker having control issues. That's all I'm saying.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I will say this, and its kind of a contradictory point.

1) There's no such thing as a perfect game.

2) a 10/10, 5/5, 100% doesn't mean a game is perfect. It means the sum of a game's parts is far greater than any one or two flaws the game may have.

Point number 2 is bullshit. If the game has control issues, no perfect score....

Control issues take you out of the game, even if temporarily. It would be one thing if the complaints about controls were unique to Gamespot, but a number of reviews touched on the controls being mildly distracting.

Why can't we give it an 8? or a 9? or a 9.5? Those are huge, top-of-the-class scores based on percentiles. A 9.5 isn't bashing the game....it's licking the game's asshole while reaching around to give it a handjob. It's a good score!!!!

I just want more honesty from reviews. I read reviews that complain about things...and then BAM: 9/10, 10/10, etc. This happens to AAA titles all the time. Games like GTA, Halo, Call of Duty, MW, etc.

Or do away with the number system. And get rid of the hyperbole. "This is the best game of all time!" Maybe for you, random review guy. For everyone else....test of time.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Point number 2 is bullshit. If the game has control issues, no perfect score....

Control issues take you out of the game, even if temporarily. It would be one thing if the complaints about controls were unique to Gamespot, but a number of reviews touched on the controls being mildly distracting.

Why can't we give it an 8? or a 9? or a 9.5? Those are huge, top-of-the-class scores based on percentiles. A 9.5 isn't bashing the game....it's licking the game's asshole while reaching around to give it a handjob. It's a good score!!!!

I just want more honesty from reviews. I read reviews that complain about things...and then BAM: 9/10, 10/10, etc. This happens to AAA titles all the time. Games like GTA, Halo, Call of Duty, MW, etc.

Or do away with the number system. And get rid of the hyperbole. "This is the best game of all time!" Maybe for you, random review guy. For everyone else....test of time.

And I wasn't talking specifically about Zelda. All I know is nearly every review site, will argue that a perfect score doesn't mean a perfect product.

Having to recalibrate your controller, which is simply pressing down on the D-Pad doesn't seem like a major deal breaker to me.

And how often does it happen? Every 5 mins? Once every play session? That would be more telling than just saying having to recalibrate so controls= broken.

[KillerGremlin]

Some random testimony from people on the Zelda subreddit. These are folks sucking down the Zelda kool-aid, so these are folks who pretty much sing only praise:

The controls do have problems. But seeing as that's an unpopular opinion, I'll go into detail with just the problems I had in the first couple of hours. (A note: I pre-ordered this and it arrived early, but I also played it on PC before my copy arrived, these problems were present on BOTH versions and not just a problem due to emulation etc.)

2 or 3 out of every 10 sword swings are not in the direction I'm actually slashing at. While this doesn't sound terrible it's actually kind of grating especially during the many battles where slash direction is important.

Tightrope walking is balls. It's not hard, but instead of being fairly sensitive and precise the only method I can get to cross properly without ever falling is if I like spaz in a turning motion in the opposite direction. I can see what they WANTED to do there, but really it's just annoying. Especially since they managed to get more sensitive controls for the beetle controlling.

Constant resetting of the pointer. I have no idea why the hell it unaligns so much. Sure it's a button press but sometimes I click my sling and I'm looking at another direction wildly until I re-adjust. Sure I can re-adjust in a section but again. It still gets grating.

It's to me, no different then fighting with camera controls in some 3d games, I think it's a valid criticism and should certainly be held against the game. The first thing any game should do right is controls. Motion control CAN be done right. Hell I have a Wii and ps move. I -LIKE- motion controls but I still feel Skyward Sword has problems.

Edit: I actually thought it was my controller that was kind of off at first (My kid likes to play too) but once I received the game I'd been using the new fancy one with the same problems.

Tightrope sucked. beat game. Good but wtf it would be 25 hours if I just did plot leisurely. I'm nearly 100% at 37 hours.

I think this is the exact mindset that is hurting the gaming industry itself right now. The fact that being a "fan" of a game or series correlates into having to think it was the "greatest" thing ever. Why can't the reviewer be a fan of the Zelda franchise but simply think the formula is getting old and tired? I myself am a huuge fan of the metal gear series but I think as a series it is constantly trying new things and pushing the envelope. I think a series like metal gear does a lot of things right; consider metal gear solid 4 game play with metal gear solid 1, the difference are drastic. Can you really same the same thing about skyward sword and its predecessors? I think that is the heart of the reviewers article and I think he does a more that adequate job at reviewing it. I think there has to be some accountability on the game-makers behalf and the only way to so this is not to be complacent with just whatever they give you (i.e modern warfare 3).

On the subject of Modern Warfare 3 being a copy-sequel and getting a higher score than Skyward Sword on Gamespot:

Let me say this:

Almost every Zelda game since the first has been derivative of LoZ. They haven't changed much. I'm okay with that. They change enough to make me happy. But certainly TP is quite like OoT which is quite like ALttP. Do you think that those games deserved their high scores? That they were good games? I imagine so--my point is that a game that is derivative is not necessarily bad, so long as it is enjoyable. When it stops being enjoyable is purely subjective opinion. You can't try to discredit Gamespot's (two different reviewers, no less) opinion on what is too derivative and predictable and what is not.

You cannot discredit reviews this way. They are very different games.

Seems like it could just be the Wii. Maybe the hardware isn't quite as evolved yet:

Honestly, I'm having issues with them as well. It may be the posture when playing, the distance from the screen, or preconceptions about how to interact with the game that are making it hard for me.

He's right, at least from my experience, that the calibration gets off somewhat regularly, requiring a readjustment. I've also had issues swinging the sword as reacting quickly swings the sword instead of reorienting it. For example, if I'm posed for a horizontal strike then the enemy opens up for a vertical one, the quick adjustment required to reorient the blade for a vertical strike causes Link to do a horizontal slash that knocks me back and makes the enemy change stances. Maybe I'm just bad at it, but it seems I'm not the only one.

It's also worth noting that the IR seems to be turned off. To select things on menus, it uses the motion+ movement to select items. If the menu opens when you're holding the remote at a weird position, it can require some awkward movements to point to the right menu item. It works, and it's not a huge complaint, but I always find myself asking "why?" for that design choice when the analog stick or directional pad would work much more smoothly.

Again, they aren't entirely game-breaking issues, but for me it keeps the game feeling as effortless as Ocarina of Time or A Link to the Past. It feels more like work than the joyride I'd hoped for.

Mind you, the above comments are coming from people on the Zelda subreddit which is full of kool-aid drinking Zelda and Nintendo fans.

There were complaints of controls across numerous reviews: professional reviews and unprofessional reviews.

Add in the subjective factor of originality....and well I don't know what to say.

I'm not trying to knock the game. I'm really not. I'm sure it is a stellar game. I bet you a million dollars it is better than Twilight Princess, and I'm sure it is up there with OoT and WW.

I am trying to knock the review system and the websites that throw perfect scores and hyperbole exaggerations at every triple-A title that comes out. If you write a review...and spend time criticizing the controls and talking about how the game has a "classic Zelda feel," it shouldn't get perfect scores for controls or originality. In sum, the game shouldn't get a 10 out of 10.

Unless we all agree that a perfect score is now a diluted measure.

[Angrist]

Doesn't it also depend on the interscale it uses? I know Eurogamer only gives full numbers. So it was either a 9 or a 10.
IGN could have given a 9.9 and I think nobody would have complained. Unless they also gave Twilight Princess a 9.9 (which would have been stupid), then people would compared the scores...

[KillerGremlin]

Which is why the number system is silly.

What's the difference between a 9 and a 10, really? The 10 is more polished, maybe pushes the envelope of originality, etc.

So maybe Skyward Sword is that proverbial 9 with some issues regarding hardware, or originality.

But then, even a 7 or an 8 is a really good score. It means the game is very solid.

It makes much more sense to read the actual review. I would like to see some reviews that are more condensed and have a simpler format. Again, another reason I like Yahtzee. He keeps things short and on point. For what it is worth, this could be the Skyward Sword review:

"Classic Zelda refined, Skyward Sword is a mesh of the art design that made Wind Waker great and the game design that made Twilight Princess great. Skyward Sword flows smoothly from start to finish with gameplay that feels more integrated than previous Zelda titles. Taking a page from Metroid Prime, Skyward Sword has a more unified world with Temples blended into the over world. Although Skyward Sword features wonderful gameplay, the controls can be frustrating at times. This may just be a limitation due to the Wii's hardware, but having to recalibrate your controller in the middle of a high-energy fight does occasionally hinder the flow. Control issues aside, this is another stellar entry in the Zelda series."

See? That takes two minutes to read, is sharp and to the point. And it says a lot more than a stupid number score can. Video game reviewing is big business. If people were less concerned with numbers, IGN and Gamespot would go away. The minute people stop fighting over 7.5 vs. 10 is the day that IGN and Gamespot see a decline of visitors on their website, lose their ad-revenue, and cease to exist. People visit these sites primarily for reviews. So it works in Gamespot or IGN's favor to push the number system. In effect, it creates a very strange game culture.