By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is Skyward Sword HD worth $60?

Tagged games:

 

Has Skyward Sword HD been worth $60?

Yes 23 38.33%
 
No 33 55.00%
 
I'm not going to bother to find out 4 6.67%
 
Total:60
IcaroRibeiro said:
Agente42 said:

SS is the epitome of Aonuma Style, where the exploration/dangers of the Zelda Universe were substituted for puzzles and lock and key mechanisms. 

Legend of Zelda, Zelda II, Link of the Past, Oracles series, GB Zelda and Ocarina have more exploration/danger overworld/ skilled action than linearity/puzzle-oriented of the Aonuma Zeldas. 

With Aonuma in charge, Zelda became more Adventure of Lolo, than Legend of Zelda. Become more an Adventure game with action and less a blend RPG/Action game with an emphasis on exploration. 

I do like OoT but what has to explore on it for? The overworld is just empty, all the action is on dungeons

A Link to the Past (and I Link Between Worlds) and Oracle Series I agree there is a focus on the overworld and some myseries and secrets to uncover, but still that most of the fun on the gameplay is actually spent on the dungeons too. I personally never really liked the overworld and at most find it very annoying to explore, as you need to endlessly kill enemies you already beaten before again and again every time you pass somewhere, but that's just a matter of taste I guess 

The point is all those Zeldas made a very big deal on dungeons and puzzle solving. I don't get people on this forum (is really the only place I see this) being so vocal against puzzle-heavy Zelda games, even BOTW made sure to put a puzzle to solve in every corner 

And I advocate BOTW is far from being a skilled action game. Indeed I've beaten it 2 times and still having no idea how to fight properly on this game, I just runned away from most of battles (easy to do in a open world game) and level up on shrines until I had enough hearts and fancy weapons to beat divine beats. 

A Link Between Worlds was the same, I've beaten it fighting as little as possible you, mostly only on dungeons.

Thinking better, I've never mastered a single battle system in any Zelda game and always find fantastic how I could level up without even know how to battle properly, which is a very interesting game design choice and again goes AGAINST what you state about Zelda being originally an action oriented game. Could that be an action oriented game when you can skip so much action (besides boss battles) and what is really required to progres in story is actually... solving puzzles?

BOTW much like NES Zelda the puzzle-solving is part of exploring. It's very organic and BOTW expands on the idea of you can solve a puzzle with your own imagination. I remember solving a shrine puzzle without using the tools it gave me. I just used all my metal weapons to create an electric current to get around the tediousness.BOTW early game I ran straight for the castle killed that boss and got the Hylian shield I used the rest of the game. You can go the whole game and never get that. Plus I love when RPGs let me build a town.

In those other games it's you have to push the block in this specific way. The world has very defined entrances and exits. It became a very stale formula. SS removed all exploration.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network

A division definitely happened in the Zelda series at some point. I can’t exactly pinpoint when. I think it started with OoT. If you compare the first 3 Zelda games to a game like Wind Waker or SS you can clearly see that they are very different games.

Well, came across this excellent review of Zelda 1. It’s probably the best review of the game I’ve ever seen. https://youtu.be/3DfUQA6E-HA



Valdney said:

A division definitely happened in the Zelda series at some point. I can’t exactly pinpoint when. I think it started with OoT. If you compare the first 3 Zelda games to a game like Wind Waker or SS you can clearly see that they are very different games.

Well, came across this excellent review of Zelda 1. It’s probably the best review of the game I’ve ever seen. https://youtu.be/3DfUQA6E-HA

great review



mZuzek said:

Yeah, we get it, linear games are trash.

Jeez.

Nah. Just depends on the type of game. I would not want Devil May Cry to become the open world. Nex Machina or old arcade side scrollers. Some RPGs do better being linear to help the pacing of their story. Grandia II or The World Ends with You. Where Xenoblade works better in large worlds. Some games work in both like Strider. I love the arcade original and my fave game in the series Strider 2 on PS1. I also loved the Strider game on PS3 that was Metroidvania much like the NES game. I just feel Zelda began as an exploration game and it fits best with the series.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

They can get away with $60, so they went with $60. Probably should've been $40 at best.

SS is full of Aonuma problems, yet it's really wonderful experience, one I've enjoyed much more than blandness of BotW, which in its effort to go full open-world lost one of major Zelda mechanisms - key and lock (be it literal or metaphorical).

Both games stand on the opposite sides of Zelda pendulum swing - IMO, they should get back to middle ground of gated (literal or metaphorical) open worlds that allow for both exploration and puzzles, along with more structured stories.



Around the Network

The reviews have been clear and its only going to go downhill from here. The Nintendo bump is finally coming to an end and it only took 30 years.



DitchPlaya said:

The reviews have been clear and its only going to go downhill from here. The Nintendo bump is finally coming to an end and it only took 30 years.

Yeah, finally!



$60 in 1996 would be $104 today roughly. Many games were sold for more than $60 in 1996, some as high as $75-80 each in USA. So, $60 today would be at most $35 in 1996. Just for context.



However sales now are many times bigger in the 90's

Best selling system on the 90's was PS1 and its best selling game barely surpassed 10 million units. At least 12 games surpassed 10 million on PS4

Not to mention today we have all kind of stuff to exploit gamers, amiibos, special/commemorative pieces of hardware like special joycons, DLCs, add-on content, paying for services. The business model is the logic, you offer cheaper stuff for mass-market general public and offer more expensive premium for dedicated players. Just like paperback books aren't supposed to be as expensive as hardcover books, games in 2021 aren't expected to be as expensive as in the past, just because games themselves aren't the premium experience anymore, they are the mass market items, the premium product comes from the DLCs and paid content

Some people hate this business model, but I like it. You can get a game for a cheaper price, if you don't like it you only lost a bit of money. If you like it, you can spend more buying the expansions, it can end being more expensive than 60 USD? Absolutely, I've spend over 100 USD to buy all stuff from Civilization VI but I'm not complaining. Thinking how many games I've got for cheaper prices and never bothered getting DLCs I call this a great deal, after all I'm playing more games and overall paying much less 

Just for context too



Dulfite said:

$60 in 1996 would be $104 today roughly. Many games were sold for more than $60 in 1996, some as high as $75-80 each in USA. So, $60 today would be at most $35 in 1996. Just for context.

Most ten year old games are sold for $1 - $20 today digitally, not for full price again. Just for context.