Trick or Treat! The new Assassin's Creed? Bleh, keep it. Give me the rest of October's releases!

Except that one of those games is Skyward Sword.

Skyward Sword was bloody excellent, shut up.

Halo, Zelda and Transformers are all must-haves for me. I reckon I might pick up a shovel knight at some point but not right away necessarily.

Balladeer wrote:

Except that one of those games is Skyward Sword.

*anxious breathing*

masofdas wrote:

Update

We now have video also The Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel is listed as 4th of December.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s

Why must fate do this to me?  Jrpg of the year vs overall rpg of the year.  How can I choose between these two!?    The only good thing about this is Zestiria no longer has any competition.

Balladeer wrote:

Except that one of those games is Skyward Sword.

The eternal Skyward Sword debate. I remain on the side of things for the game: the stamina meter, the sheer nostalgia, the neat puzzles, the reason Wii MotionPlus was invented, Groose, the expansion/explanation of Zelda lore...

It is a great Zelda and my favourite Wii game, actually who part from Balla doesn't like it.

Let me guess Andy.

'ey? I loved SS, not as much as TP but it was pretty snazzy. Not like it was an N64 game

Everyone knows that Skyward Sword is one of the best Zelda games, and better than Twilight Princess.

In fact only Link's Awakening and Ocarina of Time have it beat.

I didn't mind Skyward but I also didn't finish it

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Everyone knows that Skyward Sword is one of the best Zelda games, and better than Twilight Princess.

In fact only Link's Awakening and Ocarina of Time have it beat.

That's not how you spell Wind Waker


So it seems only Balla doesn't like Skyward Sword then, that debate is over it seems Zero.

I might throw my un-asked for opinion on Skyward Sword in here and mention that while I don't actively dislike it, it is to this day the only Zelda game I've not only never beaten, but never even gone through the second dungeon.  

As they say the opposite of love isn't hate, it's absolute apathy, and I have that in spades for Skyward Sword.  

Also Majoras Mask > Wind Waker >>> all other 3d Zelda games.  

And while I'm spouting unpopular opinions of Zelda, I don't consider the 3d and 2d Zelda games to be the same series because of how drastically different they are, and on top of that the 3d Zelda's are far superior to their 2d cousins.  Meanwhile Phantom Hourglass on retrospect is one of the worst video games I've ever played, and Spirit Tracks was fantastic.



This has been another vocal tactless opinion by Athrun888.

Athrun888 wrote:

Meanwhile Phantom Hourglass on retrospect is one of the worst video games I've ever played, and Spirit Tracks was fantastic.

hahaha I thought you were serious until you said this!

8^)

Does this look like the face of someone kidding?

I wonder if Athrun played a 3D Zelda first as I've always prefered the 3D ones but I think that's because my first Zelda I played properly was Wind Waker but they are still similar. Start with nothing get sword & shield, enter dungeon, solve puzzle get item which will beat boss and be used in next dungeon and repeat, save the princess & defeat the villain be in 2D or 3D.

The premises are similar, however their executions vary from reasonably different all the way to completely different.

I should probably point out that when I say series there's a difference between something being a series and a franchise. All Zelda games are part of the same franchise (well, outside Those That Shall Not Be Named), but the 2d and 3d games are completely different executions of the same foundation, to the point they, as far as I'm concerned, cease to be the same series. It would be like calling the Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games the same series as the main games.

But all the Zeldas part from a odd few are in the same timeline.

In addition to myself and Athers (although, ST a masterpiece? Really?), I know that Jimbob doesn't like the motion controls in SS. I'm pretty sure that O_R and others have discussed this with me ad infinitum, but basically it boils down to a lack of variety in enemies and dungeons (two time ones with the same foes, two fire ones with the same foes, Ghirahim repeated, Imprisoned repeated), as well as the sky being the lousiest overworld in a 3D Zelda.

I know that O_R disagrees with that latter bit, but, well, he's wrong, so ner.

Ghirahim is one of the best boss battles in Zelda history though, and fighting him multiple times builds him into a greater villain/adversary. It's like complaining that you battle your rival multiple times in Pokemon.

The skyworld only falls down as an overworld when you go into the game with a set expectation of what the overworld should be. It works perfectly as a linking mechanism and as a world hub.

Ocarina of Time has two fire dungeons. No one complains about that. And you're also dismissing the outside of dungeons which, moreso than any other Zelda, actually serve as extensions of the dungeons.

...I could go on

I know, because you already have.

Nobody complains about OoT's dungeons (bar the Water Temple) because that's the only pair that are similar. SS only had six proper dungeons, including two that were essentially variations on previous dungeons. That's four themes, and four sets of enemies (no new enemies were introduced in the Fire Temple or the Sandship, ignoring bosses).

As for Ghirahim, his first and second battles were far too similar for me. Third one was fine, and indeed a blinder. And no, it's nothing like your rival in Pokémon! Turn-based games thrive on story and characters. A real-world game, especially one with Zelda's history of bosses, needs to stimulate me with new ways to beat them. But Ghira wasn't a big problem I had with the game, not compared to the other two.

I have an idea of what an overworld should be like, I like that, it's a good idea, and what the sky did (making everything feel disjointed) was a worse idea - in my opinion, natch. Same applies to Peach's Castle in Partners in Time compared to the Beanbean Kingdom. Overworlds > hubs, hubs where you can do more > hubs where you can do less.


Despite all this, I must say that I did still like SS, and it's my tenth favourite Wii game. Many of the things ZJ said were great, I also found great. The motion controls, the stamina, the bloody stealth sections, all of the fourth dungeon... I just didn't like it as much as most other 3D Zeldas (still preferred it to MM, but that's because I fundamentally didn't like the time system idea). Had they come up with new ideas and new enemies for dungeons five and six, I'd probably even have been able to forgive them the lack of overworld!

But they didn't so I can't.

masofdas wrote:

But all the Zeldas part from a odd few are in the same timeline.

Something can be linked in that way while still not being strictly part of the same series.  Take Star Wars for example, for the longest time we had the Expanded Universe which was simultaneously its own series, part of the same timeline as the movie series, and also its own thing.  

Given how "deep" the Zelda series stories are I don't see viewing them as separate series as some sort of problematic issue for the timeline.  



Also Balla, you might wanna recheck my post about Spirit Tracks, nowhere did I call it a masterpiece.  

There are only three games ever I'd actually refer to as such, Persona 3, Majoras Mask, and Metroid Prime Trilogy (and I don't even like that last game, too unsettling and it always gives me headaches to boot), Spirit Tracks wouldn't make the term in my wildest dreams.  It was a fantastic and fun game however, and was everything its predecessor wanted to be, it was ultimately the perfect example of a direct sequel in that it took what the original did right and fixed the wrongs of the predecessor to boot.  

The demon trains were rubbish though, never defending those and how pointless outside key sequences they were.  Made up for by Zelda  being a present and awesome character the entire game though.

masofdas wrote:

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Everyone knows that Skyward Sword is one of the best Zelda games, and better than Twilight Princess.

In fact only Link's Awakening and Ocarina of Time have it beat.

...

So it seems only Balla doesn't like Skyward Sword then, that debate is over it seems Zero.

Didn't Vido also dislike the game? I'm sure there was someone else.

Also, dead happy the debate isn't actually over. Once we get beyond the "My opinion is different from your opinion, which is therefore wrong" stuff, we can get to explaining our opinions. The only goal of a debate for me is to understand where your 'opponent' is coming from.

Zero, both Athrun and I counter-claimed Mas' suggestion. So the debate as to whether it's only me who "dislikes" SS (a gross exaggeration in itself) is definitely over.

Balladeer wrote:

Nobody complains about OoT's dungeons (bar the Water Temple) because that's the only pair that are similar.  SS only had six proper dungeons, including two that were essentially variations on previous dungeons.  That's four themes, and four sets of enemies (no new enemies were introduced in the Fire Temple or the Sandship, ignoring bosses).

Skyview Temple = Forest themed
Earth Temple = Fire/Earth themed
Lanayru Mining Facility - Robot/Factory themed with time switching
Ancient Cistern - Water themed
Sandship - Sailing ship themed with time switching
Fire Sanctuary - Fire/Castle themed
Sky Keep - A temple where the entire dungeon can be moved and shifted as a puzzle

I would not say those are only 4 themes or repetitive, with the Earth Temple and Fire Sanctuary coming closest (but they are still quite different).

The Sanship is also one of the best dungeons in all of Zelda in my opinion, and I don't think a lack of new enemy types hinders it at all. After battling through the Pirate Stronghold to learn its location, you chase it down across a sea of sand, engaged in canon fire, before boarding the ship and entering the dungeon proper. Fighting your way through the run down and overrun ship, you then have a great fight against the pirate captain miniboss on the front of the ship, earning yourself the bow. Cue plunging back into the past to a fully functional ship, restoring power, rescuing the crew, coming under attack from a kraken-like beast, and eventually ending with a battle against the creature on deck. It's awesome.

Balladeer wrote:

As for Ghirahim, his first and second battles were far too similar for me.  Third one was fine, and indeed a blinder.  And no, it's nothing like your rival in Pokémon!  Turn-based games thrive on story and characters.  A real-world game, especially one with Zelda's history of bosses, needs to stimulate me with new ways to beat them.  But Ghira wasn't a big problem I had with the game, not compared to the other two.

Skyward Sword also thrives on story and characters. One of the standout moments from the game is when Ghirahim is chasing down Zelda and both Sheik and Link jump in to block him. Multiple fights reinforced the player's progression and helped the narrative.

Balladeer wrote:

I have an idea of what an overworld should be like, I like that, it's a good idea, and what the sky did (making everything feel disjointed) was a worse idea - in my opinion, natch.  Same applies to Peach's Castle in Partners in Time compared to the Beanbean Kingdom.  Overworlds > hubs, hubs where you can do more > hubs where you can do less.

Skyward Sword, unlike any other Zelda, is a linear, story-driven action-adventure game. A busy overworld with too much going on/to explore would harm the pacing. Instead we got the characterful and densely packed Skyloft, which offers several great sidequests that can be carried out on your regular returns to the central hub before setting off on the next part of the adventure.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

The Sanship is also one of the best dungeons in all of Zelda in my opinion, and I don't think a lack of new enemy types hinders it at all.

Then we're going to have to disagree on that one.  I found the sand sea a nice idea that was tedious in its execution, the ship a repeat of the Lanayru mine thing with the exception of the skeleton, and the boss ugly and generic after the brilliant Koloktos (a writhing mass of pink tubes with one eye, which of course you have to shoot).  I preferred every single dungeon in TP apart from the tedious fire one to that.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skyward Sword also thrives on story and characters. One of the standout moments from the game is when Ghirahim is chasing down Zelda and both Sheik and Link jump in to block him. Multiple fights reinforced the player's progression and helped the narrative.

For a game that "thrives" on characters, it was dreadfully hit and miss in them.  Groose and Ghirahim hits, Zelda (to use a Mas-ism) muh, Impa and Fi sore misses.  As for the end boss and his previous forms...  Nah.  

So, did it add to the story?  Norralot to add to in my opinion.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Skyward Sword, unlike any other Zelda, is a linear, story-driven action-adventure game.

You say that like it's a good thing. I like a linear progression in games, but I also like a connected overworld to join up the areas.  For Zelda to scrap that was a faux pas on the level of FFXIII's infamous corridors.

We've gone waaaaay off-topic now, but this last exchange raises a subject that I'd like to bring up in the Random Gaming Thoughts thread...