|
@Asriel- Epic analysis and I agree with everything you said. Thanks for the summary! |
Thanks--I suppose for anyone undecided about Zelda and who generally agrees with GT's reviews it's worth watching, but in my opinion it seems to be one of the poorer reviews out there in terms of content and its analysis of Skyward Sword. The score is definitely a very good one, but so much of what they say seems at odds with all the reviews I've read so far, as well as all the previews, interviews and features on the game in the months leading up to release.
I guess Skyward Sword is going to be a victim of the myth that Zelda as a series never changes--I'd argue the opposite is true, that no serie has evolved or changed as much from iteration to iteration. Of course, Twilight Princess and Spirit Tracks did nothing to help and everything to perpetuate this notion--Twilight Princess was the most 'traditional' Zelda since Ocarina and Spirit Tracks was a refined version of what was done in Phantom Hourglass. Despite following the Zelda template very strongly, Twilight Princess did include the forced wolf sections in the earlier part of the game, but it's fair to say it echoed Ocarina closely.
(Be aware there may be minor, generic spoilers--I've blanked out the only bit I'm certain some people won't want to read)
Now we have a Zelda unafraid to step apart from Ocarina, a game that solves the barren overworld problem, removes the horse, fixes the problems of an island based overworld as seen in Wind Waker with the smaller, denser Skyloft and SkyWing, makes Link play differently not just through motion plus but through the stamina meter and dowsing, and a story that moves completely away from Ganon as the great evil. POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN THE NEXT SENTENCE:
From what I've heard, it's not so much about rescuing Zelda because she's been kidnapped (she isn't kidnapped so much as stranded after her early disappearance), but more about following her through the game because she's your friend and you're worried about her. That's a very different dynamic to Ocarina, Twilight Princess, or even Wind Waker, in some ways.
The overworld is designed completely different--three seperate areas of the surface world designed like extended dungeons, a sky-world hub that acts as a retreat from the main quest and a base of operations, and dungeons that blur the line between overworld and dungeons as seperate entities--I've heard this become particularly pronounced as the game goes on. One reviewer even mentioned there are points where you'll wonder whether or not you've even entered a dungeon, or if you're simply still exploring the overworld or in part of a set-piece event. There's even item upgrades you can dig into if you want, treasure hunting and potion brewing--massive amounts of item collection available, character based sidequests, the hub changes as the game progresses, the surface changes as the game progresses. It isn't just a Metroid style "new items means new ways of heading through areas previously explored", but areas physically change at certain points in the narrative. The save system has been over-hauled--you can save at various specific points in dungeons, with later dungeons increasing the amount of save points to almost one a room, another step-up and refinement from what Zelda normally does. It might not be in keeping with the frequent auto-saves of other games, but is that really a bad thing? The game might constantly force you to think about your environment, think about the enemies you fight, make you utilise all your tools instead of a select few, but is that really a bad thing?
In fact, it seems to fix every major complaint that has been levelled at the Zelda series. The boomerang is gone completely!! The surface world is packed full of things to do, is eventful, surprising and challenging rather than mostly empty fields or space to simply be walked, sailed or galloped through. The dungeons are no longer reliant on item-specific gimmicks that appear nowhere else in the game, torch puzzles are gone, block puzzles reduced to a minimum. Bosses are more reliant on quick reflexes and observation rather than "hit with item found in dungeon times 3". Normal enemies require thinking and strategy to beat thanks to the emphasis on swordplay. Dungeons are no longer completely seperate to the overworld, and the traditional structure of field/dungeon/new item/boss/repeat 8 times has been altered massively. The town in the game is a hub full of real characters, with lives, problems stories and quests for you. Sure, you might still play as Link from a third-person perspective, you might still z-target your enemies, you might still be on a quest to save the world and the people in it, and yes, destiny and Goddesses might be in there too, and some ancient evil... But if all that went out the window, where would we be?? Not in The Legend of Zelda, that's for sure.
Obviously I've not played the game yet--but this is what I've picked up by reading every review source, every preview, feature or interview I could get my hands on, and by being a Zelda fanatic, having completed all modern 3D Zelda games multiple times. Maybe that's why it's easier for me to identify where Skyward Sword changes things, because I'm informed as to what Zelda has been, and because I don't fall to the illusion that Zelda never changes from iteration to iteration, whilst simultaenously being able to see the need for more substantial change. Maybe that's why Skyward Sword will recieve more reviews that can't perceive the changes--because you need to really know Zelda to know the differences. But then, if AREN'T that aware of Zelda as a series, who are you to say it hasn't changed?? Who are you to claim it's the same as it ever was?? I don't think you can make that claim, and then you simply have to judge Skyward Sword in isolation to the rest of the series--and it's clear Gametrailers don't do that. It's clear to me others won't be able to do that, and it'll recieve more comments of "it's the same so it isn't amazing", even though Zelda has rarely (Majora's Mask?) been this different.
I can't really conclude this rant, so I'll borrow from the end of Eurogamer's review: "Maybe you've played enough Zelda games by now that even that won't be enough to cleanse your palate. That would be a fair response, but if it's so, this game wasn't made for you. Like a tale told from one generation to the next, the point is to keep the tradition alive for others - and for them, Skyward Sword will surely be the greatest adventure money can buy."
Zelda is an ever changing beast--but it doesn't or shouldn't evolve to appease the ones who played Link to the Past, or Ocarina, as it tried to do with Twilight Princess. It should always try to be the defining adventure of its time, as Ocarina was, as Link to the Past was, as the original was. Hopefully more reviewers (like Edge, Eurogamer, Games TM, Metro) will pick up on this--that doesn't mean perfect scores to me, it simply means a thorough, well thought analysis of the game that recognises what this Zelda does differently, and makes it an adventure worthy of the 25th anniversary.
I'm going to shut up now, I've ranted long enough. One final point--the Gametrailers review is worth listening to because it provides sample of some of Skyward Sword's soundtrack. Even the snippets I heard sound utterly glorious.
EDIT: Having read the post above, I understand it may seem like I'm ranting at Gametrailers here, but this is a more general rant. I didn't find the Gametrailers review that informative, though I did try to point out the positives he mentioned. Apologies if I've given it a negative spin--note that I did mention the score was still an excellent one, it's just that I personally didn't find the review itself to be the type of review I find useful as a critique of the game. Reviews for me rarely affect my purchase of a game, I suppose because I've been doing a old-type, critically/academically minded literature degree and am in the post-graduate stage of it, I'm consistently wanting to engage with game reviews as forms of meaningful critique, rather than a simple "do or don't buy it", or "not as good as X game in the series". GamesTM gave the game a similar score for example, but I found the review much more useful, informative and well-thought out. I'm not trying to bash Gametrailers--if I were doing that, I'd be acting like fanboys I so often criticise. I'm just a passionate Zelda fan with a mountain of work I'm putting off, and am also in desperate need of a shower to clear my head.
