#ocarina of time and twilight princess and majoras mask all offer me cool boss fights and compelling stories

[nimpak]

Skyward Sword Review

Personally, I really enjoyed Skyward Sword. Graphically speaking, it isn't the really the greatest looking game out there, but I feel that its impressionist art style is unrightfully criticized. I'm personally a huge fan of impressionism and think that it's a perfect fit for Zelda. I really hope that they'll explore this artstyle again in the future on a higher resolution console. The story is also pretty good, with tons of memorable characters that grow and develop through the game. Though I think that Wind Waker and Majora's Mask still have the best story overall. The music is also amazing and I'm kind of sad that Nintendo is not doing a fully orchestrated soundtrack for the next game. When it came to the linearity aspect, I honestly didn't mind it too much. I never really saw exploration as the main component to Zelda's gameplay as much as a compliment to it. Zelda games were designed to be adventure games as opposed to RPGs. Instead of building up your character through fighting monsters, you collected items and try to solve puzzles through trial and error. Of course combat and exploration are elements that add to that type of gameplay, like having puzzles you can do in any order in case you get stuck or combat to break up the monotony of puzzle solving, but I wouldn't say that those are what makes up the core Zelda experience like some are led to believe. Plus it really isn't an accident that each game got progressively more and more linear as soon as the first game. The second quest of Zelda 1 is a bit more linear than the first quest so they'd make sure you understood the mechanics of going through walls and the red and blue bubbles. Zelda games are naturally going to add newer and newer mechanics in each game which necessitates having to funnel players so they understand those mechanics. Also in my opinion A Link Between Worlds didn't do anything to prove the contrary. Zelda 1 and Zelda 3 succeeded because they at least had a few of those funnels and didn't just simplify dungeon design to only need one specific item and instead used items as a way to mark progress so when you can finally get the recorder the game knows that you're ready to go to a dungeon full of wizrobes. However, one criticism that I have to agree with is the hand-holdy nature of the game. While I don't dislike Fi as a character, telling me my battery and hearts are low is completely unnecessary. That said, one thing I have to defend it for, is the fact that the game never straight spoils puzzles when you asked for them. Instead hand-holding only happens as a way to mark the next point of progress, which might be helpful if you want to stock up on items and potions before you go. Thankfully, Skyward Sword lacks really major points of no return where that would be issue, unlike Ocarina of Time which forced you to complete the Forest Temple before you can go back to being a child and could even screw you out of a couple items if you do things out of sequence in the 64 version. Personally I prefer a game that's linear, but allows you to freely backtrack at any time, than a game that forces you to stay in an area just because the story dictates it. On that note, one defense/criticism I see for the linear nature of the game is that it is supposed to be narrative driven, which is totally untrue in my opinion. The story would be completely unchanged if you went to the fire dungeon before the forest dungeon. The reason why they make you go to the fire dungeon second is because they needed to make sure you learned the mechanics from the first dungeon. Combat is very interesting in this game. Personally, I don't think any Zelda game had amazing combat, but this is one of the few Zelda games that really focuses on enemy design and AI. Sword combat has a lot more options and enemies will react accordingly to defend themselves without really having an invincible state like in other 3D Zelda games. I also found that some enemies are actually a bit easier when you don't Z-target them, which I'm not sure whether or not is a good thing. Bosses I also thought were a improvement from some of the previous game, a few of them stray away from the typical dungeon item weakness, and aren't just glorified puzzles that can damage you. Some bosses even have multiple ways to be defeated. When it comes to items, every item in the game feels important even though there are fewer items than in previous Zeldas. Even the commonly underutilized slingshot feels more important than it's previous incarnations because you can upgrade them and aren't just a worst version of the arrows this time. You don't even get the arrows until way later into the game, unlike Twilight Princess which gave them to you as soon as the the second dungeon. That said, I still don't really use the slingshot all that much. The only problem with items is that you can't use more than one at the time and aren't really that good for combat compared to the sword. Motion controls are a very divisive subject on this game. Some people either have no problem with it and other people thought it was unnecessary and led to needless frustration. I personally had no problem with them once I've gotten used to them. It felt more intuitive than the combat in previous 3D Zeldas, and I liked that it added more options for the sword and it led to some interesting new game mechanics. Unfortunately, a lot of game critics and journalists don't try to take the time to get used to games that play differently and automatically write them off as bad, which is part of the reason why game studios tend to make the same games over and over. The motions controls aren't perfect however, there were a couple moments of needless frustration and some of the new game mechanics outside of the sword felt really clunky and not that well implemented. The harp minigame especially I felt was really annoying. Despite the fact that the world is divided up into separate areas, each area is very purposefully designed. I like how each area is laid out, and I had fun just running around and killing enemies. Areas also have multiple pathways and shortcuts with very few loading areas, so they still felt pretty open even though they were small. It was also interesting how they'd reuse the same areas, but would change it in some way to add a whole new challenge, making memorizing the layout of each area feel rewarding. Tougher enemies will even appear in earlier areas as you progress through the game, making each revisit to the same area a slightly different experience. I like it because it makes each area feel more realistic, the world is constantly changing and nothing is going to stay exactly the same just because you left the area. One criticism I'd have to agree with though is with the sky, it's just a worse version of the Great Sea from Wind Waker, and the fact that you have to return there every time you want to go to a different area can make exploring very tedious. Dungeons were also pretty cool. There's a good variety of them, with memorable set pieces and themes that are unique to Zelda. The puzzles were also pretty clever and original and didn't feel like they were too easy, and were just as difficult as any other 3D Zelda game excluding the Water Temple and Great Bay Temple. I feel like games with good puzzles in them are slowly being phased out due to lack of popularity. Some people either find puzzle-solving to be too hard and distract from the story-telling and others criticize them for being too static and offer very little replayablitiy. While I do agree that Skyward Sword has very little replayability, that doesn't mean that we should make puzzle-solving easier or get rid of them altogether and focus solely on combat. Personally, I prefer when game mechanics are applied to a puzzles as opposed to combat, because the game can be designed to make use of every game mechanic and gives them a practical application while being accessible to players with a lower skill level. I also think pretty much anything that can be programmed into a game can be designed into a puzzle, while combat is designed specifically around enemy AI. In conclusion, I think Skyward Sword is a really solid entry into the series that exemplifies more of what makes the series so good than what the people who are nostalgic for the classic Zelda games give it credit for. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the classic games, I think Zelda 1 is a fantastic game, it's just that nostalgia can often cloud people's judgment. Of course a lot of this is only my opinion and you shouldn't take what I say as fact. I know a lot of people are going to disagree with on some points and you're free to do so, I just wanted to get my thoughts out of the way and attempt to make a comprehensive, positive, review of the game from a gameplay perspective.