"It's not a very good point if he's not going to address the valid criticisms of his review and is only going to focus on the froth-mouthed fanbois."
His post seemed less a general response to his critics than a condemnation of those self-same froth-mouthed fanbois. Unless he feels his opinion was invalidated by points other people made, he's likely to defend it. And while some people might have brought up valid, thoughtful points, I doubt that those were the comments that drove him to make his post in the first place. None of the arguments that you yourself have made are ones that he mentioned in his follow-up (those being that his argument is invalid because it's stale, not because it's wrong; that his opinion is invalidated because he is biased against motion controls; and that he is biased against the Zelda series as a whole).
"My problem with your point wasn't the notion that the items are in similar locations, but that this is somehow important. Why does it matter what order the items appear in?"
In your original post, you said "the differences between this and OoT are quite numerous indeed. Not only in mechanics and gameplay, but in story as well." My point was that one could make the case that the similarities between SS and OoT are quite numerous as well. Not to the point that they're the same game, obviously, but to the point someone could look at the two games and say "these are quite similar."
"The Boomerang (at least in OoT) was a device used to stun enemies and reach items that were far away. The Beetle is a fly-by-wire tool used for exploration and reaching far away items, and later can be upgraded to retrieve bombs and other items from unreachable locations and drop them on targets. It has no such "stun" feature and is functionally useless in combat, whereas the Boomerang can buy you time in combat to retrieve a weapon that can actually deal a killing blow. It's similar to comparing an airplane to a helicopter and asking "what's the difference" on the grounds that both of them can fly. There are an abundance of functional differences, and the practical applications of each are very different.
The difference between seemed more to be a case of these games having a different approach to non-sword combat. Most of OoT's weapons were ones which had a strong combat-focus. The slingshot, for instance, I found to be very unsuited, and generally an inferior choice, for general combat in SS, while in OoT, it was the preferred method for deeling with certain enemies (Keese and skultulas, for example). The same can be said for items like the hookshot. Mostly, the use of tools in OoT was not just as a tool, but as a weapon as well. SS focuses on a more strategic use for them. Slingshots to hit certain targets (vines, switches, etc), hookshot for platforming, and bombs for opening paths. Rarely do you encounter an enemy where the sword is not the easiest way to defeat them (they do show up, but rarely).
The boomerang wouldn't fit into this dynamic, as it was both a combat and practical tool. The beetle is designed similar to the boomerang, used to enter unreachable places and hit enemies in awkward places, to act as a slower projectile with unlimited ammo, and to retreive items. The beetle fills a similar role, except that, like other items, it has had its active combat role removed, and replaced with the ability to drop items.
"It's similar to comparing an airplane to a helicopter and asking "what's the difference" on the grounds that both of them can fly."
A more appropriate comparison would be a traditional bomber and a drone bomber. Clearly different, but interchangeable in some situations.
"That's pretty typical of any hero story honestly, not just Zelda. And while I can certainly agree that it might be nice to see some of these things not appear or appear less, I'm certainly not going to begrudge the game for using them."
Same here. My favorite parts of SS are the parts closer to the "core" Zelda experience (if you'll forgive the term). But just as I don't begrudge the game using them, I won't begrudge someone else for saying that the repetition bothered them.
"As many points as you've presented here, you have to admit that they're all really rather shallow. They're certainly not worth picking at."
Of course they're shallow. Frankly, most of them don't bother me a bit (most of my problems with this game arise from what has changed, not what has stayed the same). But I know it bothers some people, and they aren't "wrong" for thinking that way. They just have different priorities.
"Then why bring it up?"
To point out that there is a case someone can make, however little I think it matters, that these games are similar. Logical, clear-minded people have made the case to me that these games are too similar for them to personally want to play more than one. Their loss, IMO, but that's their opinion. *shrugs*
"But again, that's being much too generic and seems to be faulting the game's genre for its similarities to previous titles. A lot of things do, and should, carry over from game to game because otherwise you're not in the same genre/subgenre any more. *shrug*"
No quarrel from me. For the record, I don't agree with the opinion that these games are too similar.
But I don't see it as an invalid opinion which is "provably false" either. You might hold the opinion that there were enough changes for this game to stand alone as its own creation (as I do), but there's nothing wrong with someone's head if they believe that there weren't. Their standards might be unreasonably high, but that doesnt mean they're lying, which is the case you make.
"If he just wants more Zeldas like Okami or WW, then he should just say so. He shouldn't instead decide to keep claiming that each new Zelda is identical to OoT and that they are progressively worse and worse....that's not attacking the right point and it just makes him look dishonest."
As he said of Windwaker "the fighting engine worked well, there was an epic free-roaming world to explore and the cartoony visuals will ensure that it never ages poorly." These are things he pointed to as being good, and that he believes SS has been moving away from. He's free to say that the older elements of the game (including those carried over from OoT) are not aging well, and that he thought the direction of WW was a fresh one that the series should have emphasized more. Maybe I'm not making the case he would here, but it's an example of how the two philosphies don't contradict one another. There is nothing necessarily dishonest about it.
"That makes more sense and it's a fair point, but once again it seems to be blaming the genre for being too samey. While I certainly don't mind acknowledging that yes, a lot of what Zelda games do is similar, I hesitate to suggest that they are "the same" (as Yahtzee indicates) and a lot of it ties back into the game being of a particular niche, and trying not to go too extremely far from that niche."
There's nothing wrong with preferring the game stay in that niche, any more than wanting the game to move out of it. Some people liked the direction that Other M took, and if many did not, it was a valid direction to take, and there was an auience for it.
"For someone who doesn't believe it, Yahtzee sure seems to say it an awful lot. And while I might believe that it's just trying to piss off fanbois the first or second time, it's when you keep repeating it that I start to think that maybe you really believe it."
Hyperbole, perhaps? Even a moron would be hard pressed to defend complaining about what changed, as well as claiming that they are the "same game," and everybody realizes that "same game" is an exaggeration of an opinion he actually holds to. I seriously doubt that Yahtzee would seriously floss himself to death if he paid 70 dollars for an expansion pack, or eat his own ass if Silent Hill 5 was any good.
"It makes me feel as if no one actually grasps what makes a game "good" or "bad" anymore, and we're all just broken into little loyalty camps around specific development teams and don't dare venture beyond ze designated borders between each camp."
Honestly, there really can't be a consensus about what makes a game good. People who like Kirby's Epic Yarn and people who like Dark Souls probably have different ideas of what makes a game entertaining (likely "fun" and "challenge", respectively). And a game doesn't have to be "good" to be either. The game I've played most on my Xbox 360 has a Metascore of 46, and even I admit it's a piece of crap. But I actually have more fun playing it than other, better games.
