Skyward Sword

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I liked it, I thought their use of motion control was rather over zealous which may have resulted in Yahtzee's intense hatred of it. I'm not keen on motion controllers myself I think they take away from the experience rather than add to it. However, The game was good enough for me to soldier on and become more adept at the controls.

I have a feeling that he may have been more forgiving if he had been able to play it with a normal controller but I guess we will never know

Fi is clearly there to give help and not be a character in her own right but they could have given an option to tone her helpfulness down for more experienced players.

I'm not sure where this idea of Zelda being a free roaming game came from. It has never been a free roaming game, even in Wind Waker you were limited by item use. Ironically I found Twilight Princess to be overly linear (beyond even the overworld/dungeon scheme) and actually very claustrophobic in it's design so much so that it's my least favourite besides Phantom Hourglass.

Arguably you could say that Skyward Sword has more of an open environment due to it having 3 planes of exploration. There are the dungeons, the sky and the 3 lower world areas.

 

[bjj hero]

Seems to me you are overanalizing mate, it's exactly the same ordeal anybody getting into gaming through a normal pad has to go through, you actually have to relearn the interface now instead of just basing it on all your knowledge of gaming. That is the reason why a lot of people are initially all inclined to just say "if only I had a normal controller", it's what they know and by golly, it's the best thing ever.

If thats the case then why would you swap from a far more accurate pad or mouse and keyboard? There is no advantage to it. I'll keep my precise, much faster, lag free controls.

 

[Woodsey]

You know, I'd be interested to know how many people (if the number is even noteworthy) came to the Zelda series after their early-mid teens, and actually gave two shits about it.

I played Twilight Princess - which was rated much the same as SS - and I couldn't name a single redeemable thing about it. I guess everything works (controls not withstanding), which was nice of them. You could just feel that it was made purely for the people they'd managed to indoctrinate as kids and who they've managed to keep hanging onto the teat.

 

[Auron225]

Maybe I'm juat easily amused - I actually like most of the games I play. Its kinda nice that its rare Im disappointed with a game. I haven't finished it yet but Im 10 hours into it... I started it yesterday. Im having fun with it, did no-one else?

 

[Auron225]

i love Skyward Sword, it may not be my favorite game but it's certainly in the top 10

i dont see what all the fuss is about honestly. the controls work fine, at least for me, at best their precise controls that reward reflexes, at worst their just waggling, which i dont mind. they fail occasionally but nothing a quick recalibration doesnt fix. above all else the punishments for failure were never that immense, sure i tried swinging horizontally but ended up hitting an electrical stun gun, but i only lost one heart, and with a quick search around my hearts are back up again

as for the lack of more than three areas to explore, i honestly didnt mind. the traditional structure of Zelda games is to go to a new area, talk to a few people, and then tackle the local dungeon. but in Skyward Sword the lines were blurred, the way i saw it, the entirety of the surface was a dungeon, with puzzles to be solved, areas to explore, and treasures to find. sure other Zelda games had huge open maps but the space was an illusion. there was nothing, nothing to do in those huge sandboxes except kill monsters while on the way to the next enclosed area. especially in Wind Waker, where 90 percent of the map is just water, you spend most of your time sitting on your boat waiting for it to reach your destination. Skyward Sword has the sky area but if you spend more than 2 minutes flying to your destination, your playing it wrong.

and of course there is the tired old argument that all the games are basically alike. but in reality they arent, in every one of them the details are different. the hero has to save the princess, by collecting a list of objects, found in several dungeons across the land. from a story stand point, that is where the similarities end. every game has new puzzles, new obstacles. every Zelda game is basically a Reboot of the last one, all of them self contained stories, with gameplay that always brings something new to the table.

but that's just my opinion, i still enjoyed Yatzhee's review of the game, as well as this. i just disagree with every part of it (except for Fi, i agree 100 percent about Fi)

Thank goodness someone else liked it! =)

 

[The Mythmaker]

Nope.

YOU get to prove everyone else wrong, Yahtzee.

See, the beauty of this situation is that those who disagree with you didn't start the fire, you did. The burden of proving your own statements is on you, sir. It's not our job to find fault in your word, as if yours is the divine word of God and all others are wrong. You are a internet reviewer, and whether you're more popular than many or not is irrelevant. Your word does not pass as divine law, and so when you make wild accusations, it is YOUR job to prove them true or false, not ours.

Metacritic has already spoken in regards to Skyward Sword. Fan acclaim has, as well. You're the one who decided to rattle the cages with bizarre and provably false statements, and now you want people to rush to your side in sympathy because people fired back at you? Nuh-uh. Doesn't work that way. If you choose to tear down someone's work, you should be prepared to defend it, don't give us a sob story about how the fanboys are getting to you.

Don't get me wrong. I get it. You don't like the game and a lot of your review's expressed hatred was misappropriated. You didn't have time to highlight all the things that frustrated you so you vented on a general scale. And now that I've played the game, I can say that some of what you're upset about is fair enough.

Fi is not a good character. Her advice occasionally tends to be quite helpful, but more often tends to be absurdly stupid. There were many times where I'd complete some task and then turn to my brother and say "and now Fi will pop up and say 'I CONJECTURE THAT THE KEY YOU JUST FOUND GOES TO THAT DOOR'" or whatever would fit the situation, and lo, was I proven to be a natural psychic. Midna was definitely a far superior support character and had legitimate depth enough to get an emotional response from me. I actually LIKED Midna and I've never been able to say that about very many support characters, in any game I've ever played. Navi, though, I'll disagree with you on....she was always useless and she was probably about as weak of a character as Fi is. She's a barely concealed OOC help desk, and not even a very good one.

I'll agree that the world isn't very open and sections of the game feel very padded. I see what they were trying to do in some places: they wanted to condense things down so that you saw repeated use of different locations rather than visiting ten different places exactly one time like you tended to in OoT. But it doesn't work entirely in the game's favor and it bothers me that I have to keep running back and forth to different places in meaningless fetch quests.

I'll even add that the controls aren't always perfect. Many a time did a Beamos blast me in the face because the Wiimote interpreted my "stab" at its eye as a horizontal slash instead. And that got frustrating quickly.

BUT you didn't address the biggest problem with your review, dear Yahtzee, and that fact is not lost upon me. In your review (and others) you are quoted as saying that every console Zelda since OoT has been "the same exact game", and many MANY people were quick to point out that not only is that a measurably incorrect statement, in the case of SS it's *extremely* wrong because the differences between this and OoT are quite numerous indeed. Not only in mechanics and gameplay, but in story as well. SS's storyline takes a radically different approach to the world's pantheon and system of beliefs, not to mention the introduction of these "great dragons" and other elements which kind of muddle up a lot of the timeline of Zelda. Heck, the main bad guy isn't actually Ganondorf for once, or even Vaati!

The changes in this game were pretty hard not to spot, and yet you quickly and cleanly say "same game, the end". And you provide no defense for that statement here, which tells me one thing: you don't defend it because you know you can't.

Look, I enjoy your reviews (though for comedy only, I've long since passed the point at which I could take your word on a game's actual value) and I'm not saying you can't go right ahead and rant or even exaggerate for comedy's sake. But don't blatantly LIE about something and then get fussy and upset when people point out how clearly wrong you are. It's childish, especially from a reviewer of your stature. Man up and admit to your faults and inaccuracies, or at least tone down the subjectivity of your rants so that viewers can make their own judgments on a game. But remember, some of your fans will follow like sheep, so when you make statements that are provably false, you should be well prepared for some people to call you out on it.

Paragraph by paragraph, since I'm not familiar enough with these forums to quote properly.

1) And how, per se, should he "prove" them correct? Should he post a video up to point out each and every sequence of "padding" to demonstrate that it's a chronic issue of the game? No, no one would watch it, and it'd be unreasonable to ask it. He can make a claim, like any reviewer, but I presume you don't hold every reviewer to the standard that they must "prove" their praise of the game. In any case, how does one disprove an opinion? If he makes claims, you can disprove them with anecdotal evidence, but you can't disporve an opinion because it's subjective. It seemed obvious to me, judging by his comments on bias in his article, that this was the point he was trying to make, by asking people to prove his opinion wrong. If that wasn't what he meant, the point still stands. And before you say that you didn't intend to challenge his opinion, citing Metacritic's opinion as opposing his is a clear case of this. If this isn't what you meant, I hope you can see why I might think that.

2) Tying in to point 1, it seemed less about him bitching about being heckled than the ignorance displayed by the hecklers. That seemed to be the subject of roughly half of it, at least, though you may be interpreting it differently, judging by your comments.

7/8) Structurally, how does the game differ from its predecessors? The same items (or their equivalents) are gained at roughly the same points in each game, (slingshot, then bombs, then boomerange [Beetle, fine, but it serves a very similar function], etc). Thematically, and in terms of plot structure, it is also extremely identical (helper character points the way, link as an every-man-ish person called by a deity-like figure to accept destiny, etc.). Puzzles solving has been shaken up with the inclusion of motion controls, but dungeons still have the same basis ( kill all enemies/find switch in a room to continue, find map and boss key to progress, etc). While the way you interact with the game has changed, the core gameplay mechanics haven't appreciably changed, and neither has the basic structure.

Storywise, you have a point, in that the plot differs, but the structure of the plot is very reminiscent of earlier Zelda games as well.

9) Where's the LIE? Because aside from your presumption of why he doesn't take time, in a 5 minute video, to address the point that has nothing to do with the game's stand-alone value with excessive specificity (presumably by removing more valid criticism and/or comedic segments to make room), that being that it's an opinion he only pretends to have, there's no "Lie". Your assertion is pure hyperbole. And again, given that you are saying that his "opinion" of the Zelda series is wrong, I refer back to Point 1, again.

 

[Mahoshonen]

I'd respond but you have said that anyone who does is a foaming mouthed fanboy. So I'm not going too. Well played Sir, well played.

I honestly don't know why I'm posting in this thread. I haven't played a Zelda game since 1994, I don't own a wii, and my emotional investment is nil. The only reason I've been posting is that the intensity of some of the reactions baffle me and I want to get a better understanding. Also, it's been slow at work with the holiday and all.

I have made harsh accusations to those arguing in support of SS's quality (wow, there's an abbreviation with all the wrong baggage). But to be honest, I'm not even trying to argue that the game is actually bad. I haven't played the game. I have no opinion either way.

So why am I even posting? I guess I have an amateur interest in how groups think and behave. I made the Penn State comparison a few times, and I think that's the root of it. Although in the Penn State example, its clear that those rushing to defend the honor of JoePa are delusional morons, while here I don't really have the facts ti make a judgment.

I guess this means I should stop posting, but my plans for the evening got torpedoed, so I'll go on.

You say that I've already said that anyone arguing with me is a frothing fanboy. Before I clarify what I said, I actually do admire the fact that you realized that this argument has no real point. No one is going to change anyone's opinions on this threads, and I'm happy that I'm not the only one to realize this.

So the "frothing fanboy" comment. I never made that comment, but I can definitely see how it looks like I implied it. So perhaps I should just start from the top.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with someone saying that Zelda: Skyward Sword is a good game. Or even a great game.

I do believe its reasonable to debate claims that Skyward Sword is a PERFECT game. "Perfect," carries a great deal of baggage and means different things to different people. It naturally invites debates, as the claim of perfection implies an absence of fault.

Of course, when a game is rewarded a perfect score, the unspoken message sent is that it's perfect. But that's another can of worms all together.

Here is what baffles me: the dehumanization of anyone whose overall opinion is negative. I mean I get it when some Packer fans refer to Bears fans as FIBs ("F#&king Illinois Bastards"). Because the Bears and Packers are ultimately competing for the top spot in the NFC North Division and ultimately the title of NFC champion and a trip to the Super Bowl. These are honors that are worth getting excited for by their respective fans. But I find it really baffling why Zelda fans are so completely obsessed with validating their object of admiration in the eyes of everyone. What do Zelda fans hope to get?

Allow me to use an example, because I haven't opened enough cans of worms in this post. I don't get what people see in the Twilight books. I also don't get what people see in My Little Pony: FiM to the exact same degree. Nevertheless, when putting their respective fan bases next to each other, I have more respect for the fans of Twilight than the fans of My Little Pony.

Why, because no matter how hard Twilight fans swoon over the garbage, I have never read comments from people that like Twilight that attack anyone making snide comments about the books, or trying to justify the books or movies to everyone and how they should all watch it because they are bound to love it, or immediately qualify their gushing by saying, "Not all Twilight fans are weirdos! Honestly!"

Now it could be that I'm just not reading the right forums. I don't go searching for people who will post at length about how great Twilight is. But the thing is, I don't go searching for people who will post at length about how great My Little Pony is either, and yet I've seen scores of posts where "Bronies" will try to shout down anyone who says their show is stupid.

That's what I see occurring this thread. My posts and arguments were an attempt to understand this attitude and point out the flaws in it. I'm guessing that this is going to be the last I have to say, being that its New Years weekend and I have more enjoyable options than arguing about a game I don't even own.

TL;DR: I don't get why people argue on the internet. And it's been a slow week at the office.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

I was addressing Yahtzee but I later changed my post as I thought that sounded a bit childish

Oh well.

I thought that Skyward Sword is decent game but it's certainly not perfect, no game is.

 

[Faladorian]

Here's an eye-opener... Without googling it, what was the name of the final boss?

Go ahead and lie and say you remember after having googled it, but you know and I both know you don't remember a damn thing.

A Zelda game where you can't remember who the last boss was... Awful.

Who the hell forgot? It's Demise. No I didn't google it. You may just have poor memory.

The game wasn't very memorable, I'll give you that, but to say that you forgot the name of the final boss (and so did everyone else) is steep.

 

[The Mythmaker]

@CriticKitten

Just going to directly quote, since this layering would get confusing otherwise.

"You clearly haven't read my recent posts at all. I encourage you to do so, as I've already addressed this point to death."

No, I haven't. I didn't feel the need to read over 200 posts for background to respond to one of yours.

"He's pulled the same routine before. He always picks the dumbest of the bunch to serve as his representative sample. He didn't address a single valid point from the VALID hecklers."

Of course he did. You expected a representitive sample? He's not hosting a debate, he's making a point. I don't hear him arguing about polite and well-reasoned hecklers, do you?

"First, and perhaps least importantly, the items are not obtained "in the exact same order".

Please restrain yourself to quoting things I actually said. It's hard for me to take your rebuttal seriously when you're responding to something I didn't say. What I did say was "roughly the same points", not "in the exact same order".

"And even if the order were identical, how is this a valid argument for why the games are "the same" exactly? They use a similar order for items, so all other changes to the game are meaningless?"

Strangely, I never made that case either. You've not only made my argument a strawman, but you've used only a fraction of my argument and are saying it should be the basis for the whole thing. Shall I tell you that your argument is invalid because the inclusion of the beetle is not enough to make the game different from Twilight Princess? No, because that's not the only point you made, and it would be grossly unfair. I'd appreciate you doing me the same courtesy.

"Secondly, the Beetle is functionally a lot different than the Boomerang. The Beetle is primarily an exploration and item retriver. And it becomes even more strategically useful as an item retriever and bomb/beehive dispenser later in the game for some very useful and amusing applications."

So let's see...it's used in order to collect items from far away, and to reach spaces and attack enemies other items can't. The boomerang, on the other hand, is used to collect items from far away, and to reach spaces and attack enemies that other items can't. I'm not saying that it's the same, since you brought up other ways the beetle is used, merely that it fulfills the same role; boomerang 2.0, as it were. To put it another way, what can the boomerang do that the beetle can't?

"Third, that has to be the most generic summary of any plot ever written. By the same token, every Diablo game is exactly the same plot-wise, because you play a hero who seeks to kill Diablo. Also, Star Wars movies are all the same, because they feature Jedi trying to defeat evildoers who are almost always Sith or connected to the Sith. And I can continue to sample similarly stupid examples until you get the point, if you'd like. But I hope you get the idea so I won't have to."

You only gave two examples (your condescenion is appreciated, by the way) of how generic such a comparison was, ostensibly because you didn't think it was necessary for me to get the idea. For the same reason, I didn't see the need to give a half-dozen examples to support every claim I made, because I assumed you'd get the GIST of my argument. In any case:

Non-human assistant giving directions
Link becomes a hero because it's his destiny
Zelda lost/kidnapped/trapped
Link must visit a series of temples as part of a quest
Link meets main villain early, but survives the encounter
Link must begin his quest in or around his home
Native species require Link's help to counteract presence of villain
Link has a strong emotional tie to his mount
etc.

I'm not saying they're the same, but I'm making the point that certain plot elements generally occur in each Zelda game.

"Fourth, I have to ask what exactly is "wrong" with the structure of dungeons that it merits a radical change of formula."

Nothing. I personally enjoy it. But I'm not making the case that it's a problem, merely that it is, in fact, similar in each game.

"Though I will say that you're wrong, multiple occasions have required being pretty creative to progress."

If I'd said I disagreed with that, I would be wrong. But I didn't, since I said something the effect of them having the "same basis", in that most rooms require you to hit a switch/switches or kill each enemy in the room to continue. Pervious Zelda games were not true to formula in every room either, even in games which came to extablish that formula, but the same elements were present in each game.

"Fifth, the core mechanics haven't changed? Exactly how deep are we talking when we refer to the "core mechanics", because you'd have to be ignoring a multitude of changes to claim such a thing. I've quoted it once before, but here it goes again. My friend's list of mechanical changes, with my additional comments in parentheses."

Looking over it, there are some things I agree with as being appreciable changes(stamina and upgrades) and some I don't (map [now a mix of compass and dungeon map] and hearts changes [more hearts, more damage, little difference]), but I'm not going case-by-case to address them all. Partially because they're mostly someone else's points, and also because I don't think we want to be trading back and forth a dozen extra points.

"What does that even MEAN? The plot is built the same as previous games, but it's also different from previous games? I think you knew what you meant to say, but it didn't come out right, because I can't make heads or tails of that. Please explain this."

The plot itself is different, but structurally, it is very similar. Ganon may not be the villain, but the new villain plays essentially the same role in the story, albeit somewhat more visibly. The temple-to-temple structure around which the plot is based is roughly the same. The way you gain access to each temple is also similar to previous iteration I'm not saying every piece of the plot is the same as in other games, with different characters and locations, but many serve a similar function.

"The "lie" is that SS is the same as OoT. This is not an opinion, this is a statement whose validity can be proven false....and has been on a multitude of occasions. Again, there is a difference between saying your opinion, and saying something that can be proven false. If I said "the sky is always orange", is that an opinion? No, it's a statement whose validity can be measured and tested. "This game is the same as a previous game", too, is not an opinion, it's validity can be tested....and has been proven false by every measure of the word. The only people who still believe that all Zelda games are exactly the same are the people who have no valid anti-Zelda argument to cling to."

I don't believe there's anyone seriously saying that they're the same game. People might cite similarities, even strong similarities, but no one but a moron would seriously claim that all Zelda games are exactly the same

"It's amazingly sad that I feel like I have to defend a franchise that I'm only even partially interested in. I won't touch Wind Waker or the handheld stuff, yet I'm being forced to defend the franchise like I was a full-on fanboi just to get the crazies who insist on calling these games "bad" to back off. It makes me want to take a shower. >_>"

*looks around* Hope you're not talking about me. I in no way inferred it was a bad game, or even offered a single scrap of criticism of my own.

 

[LobsterFeng]

Is it possible to completely agree with this and still like the game?

I think so. This game has flaws but I can't help myself from having fun when I'm playing it.

 

[aeroblaster]

I am a hardcore Zelda fan and I agree with Yahtzee completely. It struck me so weird that it was the smallest Legend of Zelda game I had ever played. The worlds in the handheld Zelda games felt much larger for Christ's sake. Now that's saying something, Nintendo definitely got lazy on this one, especially gameplay wise. At least they got the story out of the way finally, but even that seems like it could have been written so much better.

Also, it felt sickening to me how the whole game felt like a tutorial. That is not good. Fi had so much potential too, and they just made her as dull and uninteresting as a sheet of metal.

What really brought me the BIGGEST disappointment, was the Harp. It was downright INSULTING at that point. Wave to play it? Really? They dumbed down the game way too much. We need another Ocarina of Time soon or I am gonna lose it.

I am a diehard fan who loves Legend of Zelda games more than any other series of games, so you can easily tell how much I want to slap Nintendo for stealing my money, I trusted them to make good games, and they gave me that crap? The first 3 dungeons of Ocarina of Time were better than the entirety of Skyward Sword.

 

[Guffe]

I don't know how far into the game I am but I'll play it to the end in my own slow pace.
So far:
the assistant is a bit dull yes, TP and OoT had good assistants!
For me the motion controlls work nicely and I have yet only had one small nervous brakedown with them during the flight with the BombBugThing.
The "boss fights" are a bit easy but that might be because apparently Zelda games are also meant for a bit of a younger audience.
I like the bad guy with his teleporting away his clothes and weapons, and his attitude xD
So far I won't say too much but I thikn the game is OK, I've played better but I am enjoying myself.

 

[Razhem]

Seems to me you are overanalizing mate, it's exactly the same ordeal anybody getting into gaming through a normal pad has to go through, you actually have to relearn the interface now instead of just basing it on all your knowledge of gaming. That is the reason why a lot of people are initially all inclined to just say "if only I had a normal controller", it's what they know and by golly, it's the best thing ever.

If thats the case then why would you swap from a far more accurate pad or mouse and keyboard? There is no advantage to it. I'll keep my precise, much faster, lag free controls.

And my point completely and utterly went over your head. It's not the control is "bad", it's that you aren't familiar with it and you are having a hard time adapting to it since you are already entrenched in normal pad is better because it's what you have known for years and you have no intention whatsoever to learn something new. It's the reason why people who never played videgames get confused as fuck with a normal controller but get the wii mote a lot quicker. Hell, I started using mouse and keyboard very late in my life and I felt it was shit for me till I actually got the hang of it. It's not about "BETTAR" it's about learning to play again.

 

[ClanCrusher]

You know, reading this Extra Punctuation, I almost thought that Yahtzee had taken a few pointers from my own review of the game, except where I went on for two thousand words, he summed up most of my feelings in less than eleven hundred. But for those who are curious, feel free to check out my own self-styled rant.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/wii/960633-the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/reviews/review-148993

Perhaps the biggest and most glaring problem I find with this game is not so much with the game itself, but with people's reaction to the game. This...abomination currently has a metacritic score of 93, over 38 'official' mediums giving it at least the equivalent of a 9 of 10, and a legion of brainwashed fans who are ready to rant endlessly on the internet in defense of their favorite franchise.

Even if you can still say that you like this game due to some desperate hope that Nintendo actually cares about the loyalty of their fans, how anyone can say that this game is perfect truly baffles me. The lengths people go to defend this shlock also baffles me. Why Yhatzee even needed to dedicate an entire article to defend his five minute video is almost beyond me, since frankly he's probably done this same chant and dance with other Nintendo games. And even after painstakingly explaining himself in an article that probably shouldn't have needed to be written, people are still using the same arguments against him.

Quite frankly, and there's no nice way to say this, it's Bullshit.

It's almost akin to a circle of repetitiveness that I think Yhatzee nailed quite well in his review. Nintendo releases the same game, critics level the same criticisms, and fanboys level the same defenses. It's an almost never ending cycle of suck that is started, persisted, and advocated through Nintendo. Complain how you will about Bethesda, at least they give us different things to complain about with each installment.

And here's the part I like to call 'Quoting other arguments in a desperate bid for attention.' I mean really, who's going to look at page fifteen of the comments if I don't call them out first?

1) Yhatzee complains too much about motion controls.

On the motion controls thing: just him complaining.

Without exaggerating I can name about 20 or 30 flaws in Skyward Sword including some and even more of what Yahtzee mentioned. (Except the motion controls critics, those are just retarded).

I don't think there is a single person in this entire forum who has played the wii for any decent amount of time that can tell me that the motion controls to their games have always worked 100% of the time. Not one. Even the creators know that they're prone to faults, that's why they have the mechanic where you press up on the D-pad to recenter it. When I press a button on my PS3 remote, there isn't a 1/10 a 1/20 or even a 1/50 chance that it won't work. It always works. It always does what I expect it to when I press it. Motion controls fail sometimes, and in a game that is all about using the motion controller, it is prone to failure.

People say often that critics who complain about motion controls are 'retarded' in some fashion don't seem to accept the fact that in a game where motion controls dictate EVERYTHING, they are susceptible to criticism because they are part of the games core mechanics. Last time I checked, critics have a right to complain about something when it doesn't work. Deal with it.

2) Yhatzee complaining about how the Zelda games are repetitive is old news and shouldn't be relevant.

The formulaic argument fails simply because the plot device of "Destined to take the mantle of hero" is not formulaic. Yes, a sword. Yes, a princess. Yes, a green tunic. Yes, some demon or otherwise evil foe. That does not make it formulaic. If it always had the same enemies or the exact same items, it would be formulaic.

You criticize the "sameyness" of Zelda, and I attest that Skyward Sword is more fresh than Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Saints Row the Third, Uncharted 3, Gears of War 3, and so many others, even Skyrim. You say it doesn't change, yet I see a game with a totally new control scheme with motion-control that no other game, not just Zelda games, remotely has that's similar. I see a new world, with new characters, a new story, with new puzzles, dungeons, enemies, items, music, overworld layout, mini-games, bosses, RPG mechanics, a stamina meter, more robust item upgrading, a flying mount, a new save system, and even a totally fresh new final boss. Even the ART STYLE (whether you like it or not) is totally new to the series and extremely unique amongst games in general.

I fail to see how you can claim the game is still so similar when it's by far more fresh, original, and different compared to nearly every other game franchise and their sequels on the market.

Formulaic (Dictionary): A method, pattern, or rule for doing or producing something, often one proved to be successful.

Um...yeah. I shouldn't need to explain this one any further. If you honestly can't look at the Zelda series and spot any reoccurring themes or patterns based upon their previous formulas of success, then you need to (inappropriate comment removed). Even the most die-hard fans can admit that much.

Trishbot does raise a valid point though. Zelda does seem to 'innovate' a lot more than the year of sequels, but just how much of this is the 'right' sort of innovation? Can one really qualify a new art style to a tried and true formula as innovation? Is a new control scheme all you need to be 'new'? You see, there are many games that do all that you're saying with pre-existing titles. They're called expansion packs.

But you know what? The simple argument that the game is more innovative than others doesn't excuse the fact that it isn't nearly as original and 'fresh' as people would like it to be. You want innovation? How about a Zelda game where Ganondorf isn't the ultimate bad guy, but rather an anti-hero? How about a game where Link doesn't use a sword? How about a game where your companion can fight with you instead of just providing advice? How about a plot that isn't just simply good versus evil? Innovation is a broad term. Technically, anything new introduced into a game is considered 'innovation' but are you really going to settle with the meager offerings of new items and a coat of paint?

If you have any true love for the series, you should demand more than that. The fact that this 'sameyness' argument has been made before doesn't excuse the fact that it's still right.

3) Yhatzee is a meany head who doesn't like the games I like.

Yahtzee resorting to middle school antics with "if I don't gush it with praise, zelda's fanboy army will attack me" is really fucking pathetic. Use your brain for a minute. People aren't mad because you "pointed out a flaw" but because it's actually horseshit that isn't really a flaw, one you contrive or one you don't explain. You've been doing this for how long and you can't accept criticism yourself?

Before I watched his review, I told my girlfriend that Yahtzee was going to hate Skyward Sword, and his chief complaints would be motion controls, the graphics, the game structure, and the fact that it has the same ur-narrative (save Zelda). I said he then usually goes, "Look how mad Nintendo fanboys are! I must be correct!"

This is elitism plain and simple. You can't accept the fact that people are not as pretentious and have absurdly high standards as you and therefore have to generalize everyone who doesn't agree with the actual fanboys. Seriously, I'm done with Yahtzee as far as Nintendo games go. I'm only watching the stuff from the other companies he reviews from now on because if he's not biased against Nintendo then he clearly is obsessed with enhancing his standards on how he critiques games whenever that company is under the chopping block. And I hate it when anyone does that to any company.

Flamers. Got to love them. Notice in particular that the third quote directly proves the counterpoint of the first quote and the second quote proves Yhatzee's over-reaching point. Frankly it's rather humorous just how contradictory these flames are sometimes. One calls him elitist, the other calls him a Middle Schooler. Frankly, considering that he said 'fuck you' to all the fanboys, he probably expected this, but by responding to him has outed you as a fanboy. See the catch-22? Congrats, you three have just had your true natures revealed.

But I digress. If you fanboys, and I'm talking about all fanboys, not just the Skyward Sword crowd, have yet to realize Yhatzee's general opinion towards mainstream gaming after OVER A HUNDRED EPISODES, you're never going to learn. Just like you're probably never going to learn that it's better to argue using logic and counterpoints rather than simple minded insults and blind loyalty.

And to end on a lighter note, I decided to respond to a few of my favorite posts in this thread.

Is it possible to completely agree with this and still like the game?

Nope.

Without exaggerating I can name about 20 or 30 flaws in Skyward Sword including some and even more of what Yahtzee mentioned.

Name them.

The "flaws" that Mr. Crosshaw mentioned aren't flaws at all, because I did not notice them and they did not hinder my enjoyment in any way whatsoever.

Well, since you asked, here they are in no particular order.

1) Dowsing with a sword is quite possible the stupidest thing I've ever seen in a Zelda game.
2) Much of the game is filled with fetch quests that do little to advance the story.
3) The only character given a decent arc is Groose.
4) There are only three designated questing areas.
5) Motion controls don't always work. In a game almost entirely motion controlled, that is inexcusable.
6) The beetle can't corner well and moves too slow.
7) The whip is useless in combat.
8) The hook shot can't grab items.
9) Enemies focus more on blocking patterns than actually fighting you.
10) Flying is a time waster.
11) There are very few places in the 'world' that are actually worth exploring outside of treasure hunting.
12) You have to fight Girahim three times. Two of those times, you have to do it in place of Dungeon bosses.
13) You have to fight Demise three times.
14) The harp playing is busywork and is absolutely no challenge whatsoever.
15) Trying to use bomb flowers before you get the bomb bag and wrestle with the wii-motion is frustrating.
16) Fi breaks the fourth wall by telling you your batteries are low in your wii-mote.
17) There is a pointless mini-puzzle where you fit the boss key into the lock.
18) Time travel plot holes.
19) Girahim could have easily just stopped you from stopping Demise early on, and would have won.
20) Using the stab motion with your sword is prone to misinterpretation by the wii.
21) Girahim's dart attack in which you must swing your sword a certain way in order to break the darts before they hit you is silly, considering he could just outright throw the darts at you.
22) Everyone tells you to find your own bird instead of helping you look for it. Not even the guards help.
23) Zelda is a reckless daredevil who should have just waited for Link to help her instead of running headlong into danger with no way to defend herself.
24) Impa is a condescending ***** who blames you for Zelda's recklessness.
25) That annoying beeping sound from low health is still annoying.
26) Electric stun-sword enemies could easily be countered with rubber gloves.
27) The only way they could make the final boss challenging was to give them the 'electric' gimmick.
28) Shield durability is needlessly annoying.
29) Considering there is a single island where everyone lives, there doesn't seem to be much at stake.
30) Fi is annoying, intrusive, repetitive, and has no character. Frankly she should take up five points on this list.

And believe me. I have more.

Best part about Yahtzee reviewing Wii games is the state of comment section afterwards. I never get tired of it.

You and me both.

 

[Kaitengiri]

You know, reading this Extra Punctuation, I almost thought that Yahtzee had taken a few pointers from my own review of the game, except where I went on for two thousand words, he summed up most of my feelings in less than eleven hundred. But for those who are curious, feel free to check out my own self-styled rant.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/wii/960633-the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword/reviews/review-148993

I read the title of the article and immediately backed out. I'm really tired of even knowing about pre-biased reviews, let alone reading them. It's all exactly the same thing. "Oh, well I didn't really like Wii controls to begin with, but when I played this game, I found out that I didn't really like Wii controls at all! What the hell!" It's like playing a Zelda game and giving it a bad score and then afterwards admitting "Well I've never actually liked the LoZ series at all". Why are you even playing this then?

Perhaps the biggest and most glaring problem I find with this game is not so much with the game itself, but with people's reaction to the game. This...abomination currently has a metacritic score of 93, over 38 'official' mediums giving it at least the equivalent of a 9 of 10, and a legion of brainwashed fans who are ready to rant endlessly on the internet in defense of their favorite franchise.

Even if you can still say that you like this game due to some desperate hope that Nintendo actually cares about the loyalty of their fans, how anyone can say that this game is perfect truly baffles me. The lengths people go to defend this shlock also baffles me. Why Yhatzee even needed to dedicate an entire article to defend his five minute video is almost beyond me, since frankly he's probably done this same chant and dance with other Nintendo games. And even after painstakingly explaining himself in an article that probably shouldn't have needed to be written, people are still using the same arguments against him.

Quite frankly, and there's no nice way to say this, it's Bullshit.

Yahtzee having to do this AGAIN and having the same arguments used against him AGAIN are because he keeps having the same problems AGAIN. It's a persistent problem, obviously, when he writes a gaming review that he likes to consider "professional" and then exaggerated almost every point he made in the video and often times about points that aren't even really there and just shows a serious lack of trying on his part to enjoy the game.

It's almost akin to a circle of repetitiveness that I think Yhatzee nailed quite well in his review. Nintendo releases the same game, critics level the same criticisms, and fanboys level the same defenses. It's an almost never ending cycle of suck that is started, persisted, and advocated through Nintendo. Complain how you will about Bethesda, at least they give us different things to complain about with each installment.

I'm really tired of this "same game" nonsense, especially when you go on and further state that:

Complain how you will about Bethesda, at least they give us different things to complain about with each installment.

Are you serious? Skyrim is just oblivion with a Norse Mod and Dragons. It's fun, sure, but it's not even different gameplay save shouting and two handedness which really just makes an aspect of oblivion PLAYABLE, rather than adding anything really NEW to the gameplay. It's still the same old song and dance of go on this quest, explore the land, etc, etc. Just in a new environment, but it's not even a bad thing about the game, either. That's the point of a sequel.

But to suggest Nintendo releases the same game every time even though each experience is VASTLY different from the last is rather shocking at how little you pay attention to gameplay elements and theme.

1) Yhatzee complains too much about motion controls.

I don't think there is a single person in this entire forum who has played the wii for any decent amount of time that can tell me that the motion controls to their games have always worked 100% of the time. Not one. Even the creators know that they're prone to faults, that's why they have the mechanic where you press up on the D-pad to recenter it. When I press a button on my PS3 remote, there isn't a 1/10 a 1/20 or even a 1/50 chance that it won't work. It always works. It always does what I expect it to when I press it. Motion controls fail sometimes, and in a game that is all about using the motion controller, it is prone to failure.

People say often that critics who complain about motion controls are 'retarded' in some fashion don't seem to accept the fact that in a game where motion controls dictate EVERYTHING, they are susceptible to criticism because they are part of the games core mechanics. Last time I checked, critics have a right to complain about something when it doesn't work. Deal with it.

I'll admit that they don't work %100 of the time, but I can safely say the work 95% of the time for me, and my friends, and everyone else I've spoken with about this game. And in that rare percentage that they don't work, Nintendo not only acknowledge the fault ahead of time, but were so kind enough to place 2 second fixes to any issue of de-synching which doesn't even take anything away from the experience to be honest with you. And usually when it de-syncs with my movements, it's usually cause I was doing something really strange with my arm. I've never actually had the controller de-sync in a situation that caused me any grievance or unfair blows against Link. I can say, with 100% confidence, that ANY damage I took in this game over 100 hours of gameplay (counting hero mode) was completely MY fault. Not the game's or the controllers.

What really gets my goat is when people come out in public areas and try to convince other people it was the fault of a control system that they openly admit to hating every example of, simply because they've never really tried to figure out how to use it properly. It was like back when Majora's Mask came out, people openly hated the game, but when I got to talk with these people and find out what they really didn't like about it, it turned out that they saw Link in the Deku mask in the first part of the game, said "I don't want to play as this gay little deku scrub the whole time", then turned if off and never even tried. Because it wasn't cool. They didn't even get past the first cycle of the game, a cycle that takes less than a full hour, and they complained about the whole game. A little effort will go a long way.

2) Yhatzee complaining about how the Zelda games are repetitive is old news and shouldn't be relevant.

Formulaic (Dictionary): A method, pattern, or rule for doing or producing something, often one proved to be successful.

Um...yeah. I shouldn't need to explain this one any further. If you honestly can't look at the Zelda series and spot any reoccurring themes or patterns based upon their previous formulas of success, then you need to (inappropriate comment removed). Even the most die-hard fans can admit that much.

Trishbot does raise a valid point though. Zelda does seem to 'innovate' a lot more than the year of sequels, but just how much of this is the 'right' sort of innovation? Can one really qualify a new art style to a tried and true formula as innovation? Is a new control scheme all you need to be 'new'? You see, there are many games that do all that you're saying with pre-existing titles. They're called expansion packs.

But you know what? The simple argument that the game is more innovative than others doesn't excuse the fact that it isn't nearly as original and 'fresh' as people would like it to be. You want innovation? How about a Zelda game where Ganondorf isn't the ultimate bad guy, but rather an anti-hero? How about a game where Link doesn't use a sword? How about a game where your companion can fight with you instead of just providing advice? How about a plot that isn't just simply good versus evil? Innovation is a broad term. Technically, anything new introduced into a game is considered 'innovation' but are you really going to settle with the meager offerings of new items and a coat of paint?

If you have any true love for the series, you should demand more than that. The fact that this 'sameyness' argument has been made before doesn't excuse the fact that it's still right.

You DO understand the point of a sequel in the game world, right? I mean, you already implied you played Bethseda games, so you must have looked at Morrowind and Oblivion and said "I want more of THIS" in order to convince yourself you wanted Skyrim, right?

In fact, as I read this over again, it becomes apparent to me that you're not actually asking for anything new from a gameplay perspective, but rather a narrative one. And yes, it's all the same narration. Collect several trinkets from numbered dungeons so you can fight the big bad guy, save the girl, and save the world. Pretty much every time.

But I don't come here for the story.

I come to play the games. If I wanted a story with a different narrative, I would read a book. I come here because I want dungeon crawling, side-quest, swordplay, item collecting, and grass-cutting action. And each time it's almost a vastly different experience, but retains all of the core traits that make me say "Yes, this is a Zelda game".

Have Ganondorf be an anti-hero? What does that have to do with dungeons?
Link doesn't use a sword? If I wanted a Zelda game without a sword, I would play Batman.
Companion fight for me? Why would I even want that?

Everything you call innovation is simply just changes in narration. I want the GAMEPLAY to be innovative. And guess what? It is.

3) Yhatzee is a meany head who doesn't like the games I like.

Flamers. Got to love them. Notice in particular that the third quote directly proves the counterpoint of the first quote and the second quote proves Yhatzee's over-reaching point. Frankly it's rather humorous just how contradictory these flames are sometimes. One calls him elitist, the other calls him a Middle Schooler. Frankly, considering that he said 'fuck you' to all the fanboys, he probably expected this, but by responding to him has outed you as a fanboy. See the catch-22? Congrats, you three have just had your true natures revealed.

But I digress. If you fanboys, and I'm talking about all fanboys, not just the Skyward Sword crowd, have yet to realize Yhatzee's general opinion towards mainstream gaming after OVER A HUNDRED EPISODES, you're never going to learn. Just like you're probably never going to learn that it's better to argue using logic and counterpoints rather than simple minded insults and blind loyalty.

blind loyalty

Heh.

Well, since you asked, here they are in no particular order.

1) Dowsing with a sword is quite possible the stupidest thing I've ever seen in a Zelda game.
2) Much of the game is filled with fetch quests that do little to advance the story.
3) The only character given a decent arc is Groose.
4) There are only three designated questing areas.
5) Motion controls don't always work. In a game almost entirely motion controlled, that is inexcusable.
6) The beetle can't corner well and moves too slow.
7) The whip is useless in combat.
8) The hook shot can't grab items.
9) Enemies focus more on blocking patterns than actually fighting you.
10) Flying is a time waster.
11) There are very few places in the 'world' that are actually worth exploring outside of treasure hunting.
12) You have to fight Girahim three times. Two of those times, you have to do it in place of Dungeon bosses.
13) You have to fight Demise three times.
14) The harp playing is busywork and is absolutely no challenge whatsoever.
15) Trying to use bomb flowers before you get the bomb bag and wrestle with the wii-motion is frustrating.
16) Fi breaks the fourth wall by telling you your batteries are low in your wii-mote.
17) There is a pointless mini-puzzle where you fit the boss key into the lock.
18) Time travel plot holes.
19) Girahim could have easily just stopped you from stopping Demise early on, and would have won.
20) Using the stab motion with your sword is prone to misinterpretation by the wii.
21) Girahim's dart attack in which you must swing your sword a certain way in order to break the darts before they hit you is silly, considering he could just outright throw the darts at you.
22) Everyone tells you to find your own bird instead of helping you look for it. Not even the guards help.
23) Zelda is a reckless daredevil who should have just waited for Link to help her instead of running headlong into danger with no way to defend herself.
24) Impa is a condescending ***** who blames you for Zelda's recklessness.
25) That annoying beeping sound from low health is still annoying.
26) Electric stun-sword enemies could easily be countered with rubber gloves.
27) The only way they could make the final boss challenging was to give them the 'electric' gimmick.
28) Shield durability is needlessly annoying.
29) Considering there is a single island where everyone lives, there doesn't seem to be much at stake.
30) Fi is annoying, intrusive, repetitive, and has no character. Frankly she should take up five points on this list.

And believe me. I have more.

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

 

[Trishbot]

Trishbot does raise a valid point though. Zelda does seem to 'innovate' a lot more than the year of sequels, but just how much of this is the 'right' sort of innovation? Can one really qualify a new art style to a tried and true formula as innovation? Is a new control scheme all you need to be 'new'? You see, there are many games that do all that you're saying with pre-existing titles. They're called expansion packs.

I do think a new art style can be very innovative, especially if it supports and augments the experience. Wind Waker was innovative in a way no other game at the time was with an art style that allowed for more expressive characters than nearly any other game on the market could possibly compete with, all due to its art style. The same could be said for the art style for games such as Okami, Killer 7, Viewtiful Joe, Jet Set Radio, El Shaddai, and many other games that not only employ unique art styles but also THRIVE on them.

Just in the same way, a totally new way to experience the game I would call innovative. I would definitely call the shift from third-person to first-person for Metroid Prime to be an innovative move that changed the way we experience and interact with the game, just as I believe a new controller with new features can lead to innovative ways to use them and their features (be they wireless connectivity, analogue control, motion control, gyroscopic sensors, rumble feedback, or in some cases, even solar-powered energy.)

But you know what? The simple argument that the game is more innovative than others doesn't excuse the fact that it isn't nearly as original and 'fresh' as people would like it to be.

A sound argument, though most people (unlike yourself) just say they want change, get it, and then say that wasn't the change they wanted. Though I'll address your points below.

You want innovation? How about a Zelda game where Ganondorf isn't the ultimate bad guy, but rather an anti-hero?

Many Zelda games (nearly half) lack Ganondorf as the ultimate bad guy in the game. The man is a villain through and through, however, but even then he is not without some sympathetic qualities. Wind Waker in particular showed us a Ganondorf that was almost pitiable, relatable, and understandable. It took great strides in showing us a glimmer of his past, how and why he wound up a broken and cynical man, and how he was dealing with his unkind fate in juxtaposition against the bright and happy future Link and Zelda were to experience. It was a nuanced portrayal of the "main villain" that did far more to humanize him than most games ever do for their monstrous adversaries. While he may not have been an anti-hero, I could see how his ambitions would be seen as heroic, noble, and praise-worthy by the people he led, the very people he grew up watching die off.

How about a game where Link doesn't use a sword?

Link's Crossbow Training. Lol. But, actually, you can beat the entire Zelda 1 and even Ocarina of Time without ever using your sword. In fact, many people like to do the "no sword" challenge in Ocarina of Time (instead using Deku Sticks, the Megaton Hammer, and their other weapons... you can even deflect Ganondorf's energy blasts using ordinary bottles).

How about a game where your companion can fight with you instead of just providing advice?

Spirit Tracks. Zelda is with you every step of the way, and certain enemies can actually only be killed by her or paths opened up by her. She doesn't give you advice at all (because she's just as in the dark), but she proves to be a valuable ally from the beginning all the way to the end where she herself helps you deliver the final blow.

How about a plot that isn't just simply good versus evil?

Link's Awakening. There is not world-threatening evil. The entire plot of the game is simply Link struggling to find a way to escape the island he has been marooned upon. Actually, even, the lines of good and evil are blurred when you realize that awakening the Wind Fish, and escaping the dream he's trapped you in, means everything and everyone you've come to love in the game will disappear, including the beautiful girl who saved your life at the beginning. It's not so clear cut on good versus evil, and there is no persistent ultimate evil badguy threatening the world. It is just you, Link, trying to find his way back home.

Innovation is a broad term. Technically, anything new introduced into a game is considered 'innovation' but are you really going to settle with the meager offerings of new items and a coat of paint?

Innovation (noun) - Something new or different introduced.
I could name over 100 things that are innovative about Skyward Sword compared to every other Zelda game, from the way the game plays to how it sounds to how it looks. I believe Skyward Sword is irrefutably innovative... but rather, innovation is NOT the problem.

Different for different's sake most certainly is. Other M is innovative in a way no other Metroid game was before it... and yet most ardent fans of the series have a very negative opinion of the game, yet they are much happier with the equally innovative Metroid Prime. The difference is the changes Prime made to the series worked very well while the changes Other M brought were very regressive and harmful to the experience. Innovation does NOT mean quality, and I think that's the problem many people, including Yahtzee, fail to understand on a core level.

I once heard it described that a great video game is like a good bar of soap. Why would anyone ever change the formula for a bar of soap? It serves a specific purpose and nobody is out there demanding we re-invent soap. Sure, we can get different colored bars of soap with different fragrances, maybe even different shapes, but soap is soap. Much in the same way, a good video game formula can endure, and the best video game series have tapped into those formulas and reiterated, not reimagined them, for years. Mario is fundamentally the same type of character now in the same type of games as he was over 25 years ago. Same with the Zelda series, Metroid, Pokemon, Street Fighter II, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and others.

I think it would be a big mistake to take the soul and roots of a series and toss them out entirely, yet for many people that would be the only way a game could be "innovative" enough for them... if it became a completely different game, even genre, altogether. I found it interesting when they were making Resident Evil 4, and an early draft was just so action-driven they realized it wouldn't work... but they changed the name of the game, gave the hero white hair, looked at it from a different perspective, and created Devil May Cry from that foundation. They could have kept it a Resident Evil game, but its roots, its soul, was too far removed to be a true sequel in the franchise.

I think Zelda games are some of the most daring games to come out; they take bold risks with everything, from the way they look (Wind Waker), to how they play (Phantom Hourglass, Skyward Sword), to who the main villain is (Spirit Tracks, Minish Cap), to the age of Link as either a child (Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Spirit Tracks) or adult (Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword), to whether Zelda is even in the game at all (Majora's Mask, Link's Awakening) or if she's even a princess (Wind Waker, Skyward Sword), to how Link travels the world (on foot, by horse, by boat, by bird, by bear, by dinosaur, by kangaroo), to how games connect (Oracle game connectivity, Four Swords GBA connectivity), to whether Link is even human when you play the game (Majora's Mask, A Link to the Past, Twilight Princess), to whether they're single or multiplayer (Four Swords, Tetra's Trackers), to whether they're top down (Link to the Past), side scrolling (The Adventures of Link), 3D (Ocarina of Time), linear (Twilight Princess), free-roaming (Zelda 1), randomized (Four Swords), to even when and where they take place in time, either as direct sequels (Link's Awakening, Majora's Mask, Spirit Tracks) or prequels (Skyward Sword, Minish Cap, Ocarina of Time). I can't name any series, not Call of Duty, or Final Fantasy, or Metal Gear, or even Mario, that has gambled with so many essential parts of their formula yet always manages to keep the spirit of the series alive from iteration to iteration, from controller to stylus to motion controls, from 2D to 3D, from realistic to cartoony to painterly, from 8-bit Midi music to orchestral mp3s, etc.

If you have any true love for the series, you should demand more than that. The fact that this 'sameyness' argument has been made before doesn't excuse the fact that it's still right.

And here's where I attest that the claim that the series is too similar is "right" is entirely objective. Beyond the fact I don't believe that to be true (and mentioned only a few examples out of many as to why that is the case), compared to any other series on the planet, I see almost no series dare to innovate as often or frequently as the Zelda series does. Most series play it far too safe and make only miniscule improvements (usually just graphics, not gameplay). I already mentioned several games, but even the biggest games this year, like Uncharted 3, Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, Dead Space 2, Assassin's Creed: Revelation, Resistance 3, Call of Duty: MW3, Batman: Arkham City, and even Skyrim, all follow the templates of their predecessors while doing nothing more than offering meager cosmetic upgrades (better looking, bigger environments, different locations), a few new items or weapons to use, but at heart they're the exact same games played in the exact same way as their very first iterations, examples of evolution instead of revolution...

... And that is NOT a bad thing, mind you. They do what they do very well. But I find it strange how Zelda in particular, despite not looking, playing, sounding, or even feeling much like any of its predecessors, is still called out as derivative of these same predecessors while other big-name games hardly get as much focus, attention, or criticism.

I think, and this is my personal opinion, the only reason for this is because standards and expectations for every new Zelda game are so inhumanly high that no matter what it does, no matter who different or well-executed its ideas may be, the slightest ounce of familiarity is latched upon and attacked as if that similarity dismisses all the other novel ideas it brings to the table. Yes, you will probably have a sword, go to dungeons, solve puzzles, get keys, find items, and kill bosses (usually getting a heart piece), and you might even save the girl (though you certainly did not in Link's Awakening... even Twilight Princess doesn't exactly have its titular heroine rescued). But that is also the stuff we love doing, much in the way a core Mario game will always have Mario in overalls wearing red, jumping on enemies, and will often fight Bowser to save Princess Peach. They are what they are, just as people don't tell Bugs Bunny to act like Mickey Mouse or why people don't want Batman to get superpowers and become just like Superman.

You can still innovate, but don't lose sight of what made your series great. I, personally, think Zelda pushes the envelope many times with just how much change they can get away with yet still be true to the franchise's respected roots. That's my take on it, anyway.