In truth, every game needs to evolve if they have such a storied franchise as Zelda does. If you compare it to how Mario evolved from Sunshine to Galaxy it becomes more apparent. In my opinion, the series did evolve, mostly with how the control scheme worked. Not many games can say they got a 93% aggregate score using motion controls only. Actually, I think SS may be the only game that can.

Honestly I thought it was a fantastic game. Once you played it enough though, you notice the flaws and want to tell people what those flaws are. Since people have been unanimously placing Zelda into the action-RPG category, at best, it should take some notes from Skyrim/Xenoblade and make a vast open world that feels like a major undertaking. Put saving Zelda on the backburner and allow Link to do whatever he wants. Though I doubt it will evolve that far haha.

I think SS just showed the limitations of the Wii. If SS released within a year of the Wii's life, it would have been heralded quite heavily. I think it was a bad move for Nintendo to release it so late in it's life. Zelda really did make motion controls seem like second nature. If only it did then devs would know how to make motion controls work. But then again, it probably took Nintendo too much time actually getting the controls to work as they wanted them too.

I may be one of the few, but I really enjoyed the controls of the game, and hope they continue to use them in future installments, but allow the player to choose which control scheme suits them best. Here's to looking at the next iteration of Zelda for the Wii U will heavily rely on the tablet controller.

A lot of franchises need to evolve, Zelda needs to CATCH UP first. We're not in 1998 anymore...

In the sense the article is talking, i dont see zelda franchise evoilving that way while keeping itself open to new young comers. What they achieved was a balaced mix of not fully developed ideas in the zelda formula. It evolved for what i think but forgot some of its appealing features, the latter could be blame of the hardware tough. I still think its an example that series can change without losing their core gameplay.
Good game at the end.

A fair critique. The problems of Skyward Sword were macro problems, as the critic suggested, whereas in each individual instance (that is, the dungeons, or any one of the tasks you are set to throughout the game, aside from that damned escort mission) the game is excellent and well-tuned, the transitions between things were made more jarring.

I like that s/he remarked on Lanayru Desert. That area, and just the design of each of the three areas in general, was very well done, it was getting between them and the reassignment between instances that felt messy. If they had just scrapped Skyloft and plopped a town down in between those three areas, many of the games problems would have been solved.

Which brings back the other point, that the problem is easily solvable. The ideal Zelda would have Majora's Mask's world design with Skyward Sword's dungeons and areas.

Some good points, but the fact is it's still a great game, as they say. And the series did evolve in Skyward Sword, sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the bad.

The new dungeons and overworld areas, and the items and the control schemes, and the characters and the items, were all excellent. However, the transition between these areas, and the game could have done with another city or two, say...one in each area, making 4 in total.

All they needed to do was put a rudimentary field area in between, like in Majora's Mask, for example. Also add the quest log from Majora's Mask, and maybe another dungeon or two and you'd have had a perfect game from me, and from many others. As it is, it's still my favourite Zelda, but it's true it could have been that bit better with such minor alterations.

I honestly thought that last dungeon was a revolution for game design, especially showing how much they can do to further the series as a whole.

The reception for SS bugs me to no end.

From what I remember last fall it was getting rave reviews from everywhere...then a few months later I look online and the response is nothing but lukewarm from many sites & people.

I'm gonna buy it to see for myself now...since I have not really disliked any Zelda game I can't see how it'll be a waste of money.

I think the discrepancy is explained by the fact that it is a joy to play, because the experience on the micro-level is so well-polished and clever, but when you really sit back and reflect on the game, the problems become fast apparent. It's easy to be hyped for a game you're currently playing moreso than games you're not, and Skyward Sword does a very good job of being very fun to play, and generally a good job of distracting you from its structural flaws.

This is where I'm at with Skyward Sword as well. I enjoyed exploring each area, and I think they really nailed what they set out to achieve with them (that being the areas themselves felt like mini-dungeons), but flying around the sky to move between those areas was nothing more than a chore. This was only amplified through the fact that there was very little to do or find in the sky outside of opening up the goddess chests that you unlocked.

"Explore" is a pretty big word when most islands cover about 25 square feet.