The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

[zephilicious]

mario galaxy 2 had best not be your idea of a good sequel.

[Nayrman]

Agreed, but how many sequels do we see that don't bring anything new at all to the core game?

Mario Galaxy 2 had the same concept and core gameplay of the first, but added new power-ups, Yoshi, and honestly had some neat platforming ideas that the first didn't have.

It is one of those rare times Nintendo took a good, but slightly flawed gameplay and just plain polished rather than tweaking the things that didn't need tweaking, while leaving the old, stock and cliche things alone.

However, taking out Rosalina because "she added too much plot" was just dumb. Ultimately, the gameplay in some of these series is fine, but some change needs to be made or else we're getting the same package every time. Which was my main complaint about Mario 3D Land. Complete rehash of everything we've already seen, just now on a handheld. This is why I get angry when another Mario game is announced yet Star Fox, F-Zero, or god forbid a new IP etc. are still painfully absent from the line-up. *shrugs*

[Doodle]

mario galaxy 2 had best not be your idea of a good sequel.

SM64->SMS->SMG is, though

[zephilicious]

SM64->SMS->SMG is, though

most definitely

[Hero_of_Darkness]

It is nice to have new stuff thrown in the mix to complement the core game. After several sequels without much change, things start to reek of "tired and familiar".

The problem is that the "core game" for the Zelda series is different for everyone, so everyone has different ideas about what needs to be changed. There's really no way to create a Zelda with "enough" changes without splitting that fanbase. Hell, Skyward Sword's changes split the userbase heavily.

To make matters worse, the series has stagnated so long that the first thing people look for when they start a new Zelda game is whether or not the  "formula" is still there. With each game, the standard for what must be changed is raised. Don't believe me? Tell me what the core of Zelda is to you and what needs to stay for a Zelda game to be a Zelda game. There will be conflict, even with the small number of people here.

[Super]

Agreed, but how many sequels do we see that don't bring anything new at all to the core game?

Mario Galaxy 2 had the same concept and core gameplay of the first, but added new power-ups, Yoshi, and honestly had some neat platforming ideas that the first didn't have.

Never played Galaxy 2, unfortunately.

[Zero]

mario galaxy 2 had best not be your idea of a good sequel.

Not necessarily, but IMO it was. Its a good intercourse ing game.

The problem is that the "core game" for the Zelda series is different for everyone, so everyone has different ideas about what needs to be changed. There's really no way to create a Zelda with "enough" changes without splitting that fanbase. Hell, Skyward Sword's changes split the userbase heavily.

To make matters worse, the series has stagnated so long that the first thing people look for when they start a new Zelda game is whether or not the  "formula" is still there. With each game, the standard for what must be changed is raised. Don't believe me? Tell me what the core of Zelda is to you and what needs to stay for a Zelda game to be a Zelda game. There will be conflict, even with the small number of people here.

Dungeons, puzzles, combat, new items, etc. Pretty much every Zelda fan can agree on this. I see what you're getting at though.

What would you like to see in a new Zelda?

[Hero_of_Darkness]

It's tough to say what "new" stuff it should have. Personally, I think that the next game should build off of Skyward Sword, mostly focusing on fixing the obvious flaws. (hand-holding, using motion controls in unnecessary places, lacking a connected overworld and towns, unnecessary short cutscenes, not enough creativity as far as use of the motion control in combat goes, less fetch quests, a way to access the hard mode from the start, useless backtracking that only serves as padding) From there, they can focus on new stuff. They need creativity, yet at the same time, they can't do something alienating, like the timer in MM. Something cool would be more dynamic and unpredictable dungeons. The same should apply to the overworld, which should still be dungeon-like. It could also stand to be a bit less linear, but should still have some structure. (Meaning, I don't want another Zelda 1 unless they make a "NEW The Legend of Zelda" game like they did with NSMB.)

By they way, you'd be shocked to find out how many people want an end to puzzles in Zelda. The first game didn't really have them, so they don't see puzzles as part of Zelda's core. On the other side, there are people who don't consider combat important. There are also people who don't like the act of finding an item in every dungeon.

I should note that I haven't actually played much of Skyward Sword, so my opinion might be a bit different a month from now. I'm just speaking from what I've heard.

[Zero]

Not enough creativity for motion controlled combat? That's completely asinine. I'd like someone to try coming up with some creative ideas that aren't already a part of SS's motion controlled combat. It's pretty much as cut and dry as it gets. There really isn't much you CAN do.

So far I really haven't found any "unnecessary places" where motion controls were used, and everyone that's been whining about the whole map issue where the pointer is off clearly hasn't tried pressing down on the Wiimote's d-pad to center the cursor. Just do it every time you open your map and it works fine.

Also, linearity doesn't really = bad. For a game like Zelda, it works. No one can say they haven't gotten lost at one point playing A Link to the Past or Zelda 1, just saying. Every 3D Zelda gives you the illusion that it isn't linear, but they are anyway. No one ninnyed in the 90's about linearity, you know.

The first game hasn't aged well and anyone arguing that puzzles should be removed because the first game "didn't have them"(you had to push blocks and poop, sort of counts) should be sterilized. That's a terrible argument.

So basically Hero you wouldn't mind seeing Nintendo pull a 3D Dot Game Heroes? I'll admit, that'd be pretty sweet.

EDIT: [spoiler] Just got the propeller back. It took all of 45 seconds because I remembered spotting it by the Earth Temple entrance. So...this backtracking was pretty unneccessary.[/spoiler]

[zephilicious]

Not necessarily, but IMO it was. Its a good intercourse ing game.

Its a good game only because its a rehash of another excellent game. the first galaxy was a perfect sequel that brought just enough new to the series to keep it fresh without alienating fans. and it was executed darn near perfectly. galaxy 2 may have been executed even more perfectly but compared to galaxy it brought nothing new to the series. therefore its a rehash rather than a good sequel.

So far I really haven't found any "unnecessary places" where motion controls were used, and everyone that's been whining about the whole map issue where the pointer is off clearly hasn't tried pressing down on the Wiimote's d-pad to center the cursor. Just do it every time you open your map and it works fine.

Having to press down every time is the issue when the console hardware is designed to prevent this. the game could easily use the sensor bar to recalibrate when it can and take over with motion plus when it cant find the sensor bar. best of both worlds.

the flying controls absolutely should not be motion based when none of the other movement controls are. using two different control mechanisms to achieve the same thing is just bad design.

the same issues with the pointer control every time the pointer is used which accounts for at least half of the motion controls.


and 3d dot game heroes was certainly better than most recent zeldas depite being a blatant ripoff.

[Zero]

It was exactly what I expected though. I wanted more platforming like Galaxy's and I got it. It still brought enough that wasn't in Galaxy for it to stand out from its prequel. In that sense, I feel its a good sequel.

Yeah I get what you mean, but it really isn't that difficult or time consuming to push a button. Of all the problems SS has, it's pretty minor.

At first I didn't like the flight controls but as I got used to them it became pretty easy and sort of fun. I'd imagine it gets old towards the end of the game, but for now I don't really feel its unnecessary. Nintendo just gets a raging boner when they get the chance to put motion controls on something flight based.

[Hero_of_Darkness]

Having to press down every time is the issue when the console hardware is designed to prevent this. the game could easily use the sensor bar to recalibrate when it can and take over with motion plus when it cant find the sensor bar. best of both worlds.

If you're talking about using projectiles, you're doing it wrong. You need to get the controller into position before selecting the weapon. If you do that, you don't need to recalibrate.

On the linearity point, I just meant less linearity, not a full-on do-whatever-you-want deal. Basically, it would be like if TP were changed so that you could do dungeons 5, 6, and 7 in any order, but 8 and 9 are still done in order and the game tells you everything you need to know to get to the dungeons.

[zephilicious]

If you're talking about using projectiles, you're doing it wrong. You need to get the controller into position before selecting the weapon. If you do that, you don't need to recalibrate.

once again, the wii hardware is specifically designed to avoid situations like this.

[Doodle]

once again, the wii hardware is specifically designed to avoid situations like this.

the whole point of it was so you didn't have to rely on the sensor bar
there's no need to avoid "situations" like that because the center is whatever the hell you want it to be

[zephilicious]

as i explained several posts up, the motion plus could have been used to take over when the sensor bar is out of range, increasing reliability without removing the wii's existing and very intuitive input mechanism.