Rol is not off completely. Skyward Sword is a great game, but it contains many tedious elements that could easily have been eliminated but Nintendo refused to do it. If you have played Xenoblade, you will know what I'm talking about, because that game did a great job at eliminating tedious elements that don't improve gameplay.

Your impression really surprise me. IIRC, your fav Zelda is A Link to the Past, and until now, I don't think any Zelda has surpassed it. Glad to hear many people is liking SS.

OP-Agree 100%. Game is fantastic.

The key is that you learn and you grow. Even if Skyward Sword has some problems with bloat, it at least begins to address and redefine combat, so re-establishing the core of the appeal of old-school Zeldas, and this game restores a veneer of customization that was practically absent through the 3D era

All that is needed now is some streamlining, the realization that length is not a good thing in and of itself, which unfortunately has seemed to have gotten into the Zelda team's collective head since Wind Waker

I flip-flop between ALttP and OoT. But SS is just. It feels incredible.

yea Skyward Sword does look pretty good

This.

Skyward Sword may still be a great game, IMO 9/10, but there are still these things that bugs the player. For example, the tedious screen showing you that you found a treasure. You'd ecpect after getting the same treasure 50 times you don't have to endure the screen again, but that's not the case. And I don't want to spoiler here, but there's a certain boss fight that feels somewhat repetitive...man, they sure screwed up that awesome idea.

*SPOILER*

And don't get me started on the two most awful minigames ever created: minecart and harp play.

*SPOILER END*

Wow thats a very bold statement. Majora's Mask was great and all but didn't live up to OoT and to my knowledge is not revered as one of the best Zelda titles. I mean all the Zelda games from Nintendo are amazing but MM is not widely considered to be one of the best. From what I played and what others have said I would call it a stretch to say MM was better then SS. Then again I guess thats your personal opinion and nostalgia probably plays a role as it does in many of your opinions.

Do you honestly think a huge team was working on Skyward Sword for longer then three or so years? If I recall the studio was pretty busy with other games and content. I doubt the full studio was working the whole five years on the Zelda title. Nintendo doesn't tend to throw their entire studio behind a game for months to a year or two into development. A quick look at the facts.

Nintendo's team was actually at work on two DS Zelda titles when Skyward Sword began one had just made it to market the other was about to be in development. In April 2008 Miyamoto specified that the Zelda studio would be "forming again to work on new games". and later in 2008 Miyamoto confirmed  that the team was working on a new Zelda title for the Wii.

Now I know the initial thought and basis of the new product came in five years ago. But the real development started in 2008 according to interviews and what we know. 2008-2011 is three years and the facts we have suggest the main development began during that time frame. Also the team brought out a Zelda DS title in 2009 so its resources weren't entirely being used for Skyward Sword. "A report of Official Nintendo Magazine pointed out that the developers were still in the planning stages in November 2008"

Look the five year life cycle works when its used. In this case all indicators point to the fact real development didn't begin till 2008. A 2011 release is more then efficient and considering the fact they released another game during that time period just shows how great the team is. it also shows how efficient Nintendo is. The one studio can pump out two major games in 4 years, as soon as one game wraps up the next one is already mid development finish that one and another one was started while you finished that one.

By doing this Nintendo can pump out a very high quality 3-5 year life cycle title every 2-3 years. Very efficient.

P.S- Sega said when DreamCast went down that they were shortening dev cycles. They announced that Sonic Heroes took 18 months and was that the high quality game you want? I mean yes it was good but Zelda good? All of the Sonic games released during GameCube on these shorter release schedules blew or at least fans thought they did. A good first party game takes at least 2 years to make and up to 5. This isn't inefficient its about creating a quality title. Microsoft isn't pushing out Fable or Halo within 18 months.

According to you yourself three years was more realistic. And to our knowledge Nintendo only began really working on the game in 2008 meaning a serious dev cycle of three years. Also these expectations of yours, it seems to have met everyone elses expectations I'm not really sure what you could have expected.

Nintendo did a great job with Skyward Sword, they're development process flows smoothly with very few flaws. Everyone's expectations seem to be met, but yours.

Opinions boldly stated as facts. Well done

Umm that is an opinion oriented statement I can't see how it can be taken as factual.

Also master pieces yes can you name a single title that has been more beloved then Super Mario Bros? If we go by sales and cultural impact etc...etc.. you can't find a single franchise and IP from any other publisher on earth that has made the impact Mario did. Nintendo's other franchises consistently sell well if not better then their counter parts at any first party publisher and better then almost every game from a third party publisher.

But again Master Piece is also an opinionated statement and not fact. Some people think Vincent Van Gogh is a master piece that nobody else could compete with, they would have a very good point but then you take a can of Heinz splatter some on a wall and leave the can laying next to it and that is called the master piece.

In the end both statements are and were opinion based statements made with some facts to back them. They may be seen as facts but they can't possibly be. Anyone thinking I stated them as facts obviously has to wonder if any factual statement could be made in that context.

Its sort of obvious I was not saying them completely factually. Just that it is the opinion I have and many others do as well, sales figures support that as do cultural impact. Plus right now none of the other publishers are capable of producing a title that could take down Mario, its not that I am saying Microsoft or Sony are bad just that neither has proven capable of creating a title of that caliber.

Peter Molyneux's put it best when he acknowledged to date he hasn't made a true AAA game. Microsoft and Sony both realize they so far haven't been able to create a master peice in line with Nintendo's best. Its nothing to be ashamed of it just shows that everyone is out to create a master piece on caliber with those that Nintendo has made. Meaning Nintendo better watch out because the day MS or Sony create an IP or franchise that can kick Mario's butt is the day Nintendo starts going down!

agreed game is fantastic. i am having a great time playing it as well.