spoadicdeviance

[spoadicdeviance]

As far as your question is concerned, I would like to point out a theory that suggests Ghirahim became Dark Link, or at least the Dark Link that's encountered in Ocarina of Time.

Basically, the theory goes that when Demise was defeated, Ghirahim didn't cease to be when his sword form seemingly dissipated into nothing, but instead, due to Demise's curse, became tied to every incarnation of the Hero as his shadow/"Dark Form".

Some evidence that supports this theory include the foillowing;

1) The area you fight Dark Link in OOT bears some resemblance to the area you fight Demise (and where you last see Ghirahim, physically) in SS.

2) The fact that Dark Link mimics Link's moves almost every time you fight him is similar to how Ghirahim was able to anticipate your sword swings in SS.

3) In the OOT fight, the more damage you deal to Dark Link, the darker he becomes. That mirrors how Ghirahim's body was more encompassed in black as the story progressed in SS.

4) Dark Link's red eyes match the red jewels on Ghirahim's outfit as well as the red jewel on the hilt/cross guard of his sword form.

This is, of course, just a theory and the evidence I presented here could all just be coincidences or simply the results of a long running series, like the Legend of Zelda, inevitably having motifs/concepts that continually show up with each new entry.

However, I do like this theory. One, because it gives Ghirahim more relevance to the overall series beyond being a Zant/Aganhim-esque, one-off, antagonist. And two, Dark Link gets some added depth beyond simply being an evil reflection of the Hero.

Reminds me I had a thought I wanted to float

I'm debating what position I want to take with my own writing and I'm curious what the general fandom thoughts are on the matter.

Please reblog with your ideas if you have more to say!

[spoadicdeviance]

I've been trying to get into Kamen Rider for a little bit, but I'm having difficulties trying to decide which series I should start out with. Based on series' descriptions, wanting to start in the Heisei era, and fan recommendations, I've limited my choices to these ones.

I would appreciate Kamen Rider fans giving me their thoughts on these series as an entry point for the franchise, not necessarily which one is your favorite. You can explain your vote in the comments or reblogs, if you wish to do so.

The results of this poll won't be the final say so in my decision, but it will help push me in a certain direction.

[spoadicdeviance]

Fun Fact: There are only six video games that received both a 10 out of 10 from EDGE and a 40 out of 40 from Famitsu.

The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time (1998)

Bayonetta (2009)

The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword (2011)

Grand Theft Auto V (2013)

The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (2017)

The Legend of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom (2023)

[spoadicdeviance]

You can explain why or why not (through comments or reblogs) if you want to.

[spoadicdeviance]

Happy 10th Anniversary to The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword!

Whether on the Nintendo Wii, Wii-U, or Switch, this game still stands tall as a testament to The Legend of Zelda franchise as well as the medium of gaming as a whole.

Skyward Sword not only brought new elements to the Zelda franchise that later installments would use, but it also innovated within the gaming landscape by being the first game to properly integrate motion controls into a full Triple-A gaming experience, showing the public how an (at the time) unproven control scheme can not only work but also truly enhance a gaming experience.

Yes, some people bash Skyward Sword while trying to label the game as the black sheep of the Zelda franchise. However, that’s to be expected when a video game forgoes the need to blindly follow whatever popular trend every other game is doing at the time, daring to take risks, and in the process give the gaming public an experience that no game before has ever delivered before and no game released afterwards has replicated since.

Skyward Sword is not only an objective masterpiece in terms of game design, presentation, and story telling, not only is the game one of the best games to be featured on every system it’s available on, not only was it my personal favorite game of the 2010′s, but The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword might perhaps be one of the greatest games of all time, period.

Happy Birthday Skyward Sword! May your legacy continue to soar high in the sky.

[spoadicdeviance]

Skyward Sword was initially released on November 18, 2011

[spoadicdeviance]

Well would you look at that.

It seems that despite all the cries of protest from those who disliked how Skyward Sword HD was sold at $60, as well as the amiibo debacle, saying how gamers should boycott the release and how the game will bomb, commercially, look at what is actually happening. 

The article states that while the second best selling game in the US, Call of Duty Black Ops Cold War, has both it’s physical and digital sales recorded for the NPD list, Skyward Sword is number one with only physical sales being recorded for said list.

And Skyward Sword was released on July 16, meaning Skyward Sword HD managed to sell more than every other game in America for the month of July while only being on the market for half of the month.

With the recent news of how Skyward Sword is selling in the US, as well as other parts of the world. It’s safe to say that Skyward Sword HD is a success in terms of sales.

Goes to show you that in spite of how vocal this group can be, Skyward Sword’s detractors clearly do not speak for the majority of gamers and Zelda fans.

[spoadicdeviance]

 ALTTP/ALBW Link: 🎵 You spin me right ‘round, baby right ‘round like a record, baby right ‘round, ‘round, ‘round  🎵

*Link catching bugs in a Zelda game*

Skyward Sword: I need a net to catch them!

Oot/MM Link: I need a bottle to catch them!

TP Link: Nah, I got this with my hands!

[spoadicdeviance]

In anticipation of the HD re-release of the game, I’ve just finished my 7th playthrough of The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword on the Wii. Not only can I still say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Skyward Sword is an objective masterpiece in terms of controls, game design, and story telling, but now I am 100% secure in saying that Skyward Sword is my favorite Legend of Zelda game, full-stop.

[spoadicdeviance]

When “Anger Always Wins In The End”: The Story of X-Play vs Skyward Sword

Gather around the Barcalounger over by the fireplace friends, family, and those who only come to the Skyward Sword tag to bash the game in question. Old SporadicDeviance is going to tell you a tale that harkens back from the far distant past of 2011. It’s going to be a quite a long story, so you might want to get comfy.

The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword was making its rounds across the mainstream game review circuit, largely earning 9′s and 10′s across the boards. The game also ended becoming one of the very few games to earn perfect scores from both EDGE magazine and Famitsu. Talks of potential Game of the Year awards were already underway. 

Yes it seemed Skyward Sword would experience nothing but smooth sailing when it comes to the gaming media.

Enter X-Play; the TV show focused on game coverage airing on the network dedicated to gaming and technology (in the sense that MTV used to be dedicated to music) G4.

Starting in summer 1998, as GameSpot TV, and ultimately concluding its run by the start of 2013, this show was perhaps the most popular source of game reviews in its heyday. In fact, with the shows propensity to include heavy layers of snark and cynicism in their reviews, as well as having the tendency of preforming comedic skits based on the various games they covered, one could say that X-Play was one of the progenitors of various online independent game reviewers that started from around 2006 and continue to the present day.

“Why bring up the show’s history?” One may ask. Well its important to establish that the programs was very popular with a substantial viewership, even in its final years of broadcast.

Which brings us to the moment that X-Play and Skyward Sword crossed paths.

It all started with the shows review of the game and the program ultimately giving Skyward Sword an overall score of a 4 out of 5. This caused a bit of stir amongst X-Play’s audience.

Now, on the surface, a score like that wouldn’t appear to be anything to really harp on about. Sure, a 4 out of 5 score was on the lower end of the range of scores Skyward Sword was receiving at the time. Nevertheless, a 4 out of 5 was still overall a good score. 

However, as said before, this is all surface level. To get a full understanding of why some gamers were questioning X-Play’s review, you have to look at both how X-Play defines its rating scale as well as the content of the review itself, beyond the final score.

First let’s talk about X-Play’s ratings scale. In 2011 the program updated the meaning behind each of the five different ratings. For a game to earn a 5 out of 5, the game would have to “realize all ambitions of its design” while a 4 out of 5 game would only accomplish most of its goals.

Well Skyward Sword’s goal was to be the proof of concept on what the Wii’s intent was as a console. The game’s ambition was to show the world that motion controls not only be practical as the primary means of control for a AAA game but also in some ways surpass traditional controls in terms of immersion and practicality. Does that mean by giving Skyward Sword a 4 out of 5, X-Play thinks Skyward Sword didn’t fully accomplish its ambition?

No. They didn’t think Skyward Sword failed in that regard. In fact, in their review of the game, X-Play stated that despite initial skepticism on Skyward Sword going all in on motion controls, hosts Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb were pleasantly shocked with how good the controls felt, saying that the Wii-Motion Plus controls were fluid, responsive, seamless, and never frustrating. They also stated that if all Wii games controlled just was well as Skyward Sword then a large majority of complaints lobbied against the system would never have materialized.

So what caused the show to give Skyward Sword a 4 out of 5? According to X-Play’s 2011 rating system and game needs to have “minor flaws” on order to get a 4 out of 5 score. So what did X-Play think were said flaws?

Well X-Play used the trite “revisit certain areas of the game” non-criticism that I’ve already touched on in a prior post. It’s weird since games like Metroid Prime also used backtracking and X-Play still gave those games perfect 5 out of 5 scores.

They also said that there wasn’t much to do in the Sky overworld, which is outright wrong considering all of the goddess treasures and various sky islands that have their own minigames/sub quests to do. Yes its mainly side content but almost every Zelda overworlds are mainly used for side content and linking the various areas in the map. I think I’ll go more in depth on the whole “The Sky is too empty.” criticism in another post.

Then they complained about how your shield can break and you would have to go back to Skyloft in order to purchase a new shield. Seriously? This is like when people complain that in Banjo Kazooie, when you die, you have to recollect all the music notes. That’s the point. The game is punishing you for messing up during the combat. Also the game doesn’t force you to purchase a new shield. You can play the game without a shield if you choose to do so.

I would say the shield bit is the worst criticism in the review if it wasn’t for the frankly dumb, and hilarious in hindsight, critique of Skyward Sword’s crafting system. Adam called the system “grindy” and said that crafting doesn’t fit in a Zelda game. Considering how Breath of the Wild not only has a crafting system, but also, by X-Play’s standards, made it more grindy than it was in Skyward Sword, I think even Skyward Sword’s biggest detractors can call this assessment of Skyward Sword crafting system half-baked at best.

And those were the flaws X-Play found in Skyward Sword. Even if those critiques were legitimate, and let’s face it they’re not, it doesn’t seem like these flaws are enough to justify docking Skyward Sword an entire point in a 5 point rating system, does it?

Well according to a lot of fans of the show, it wasn’t. Fans were speculating that X-Play wasn’t really sincere in their giving Skyward Sword a 4 out of 5. Some thinking that they set out to not give the game a perfect score and were grasping at straws trying to find any justification for their score, rather than have their final score come naturally as they played/reviewed the game.

By all accounts, Skyward Sword seemed to have been more deserving of a 5 out of 5 score rather than a 4 out of 5, according to a lot of X-Play’s viewership. 

Viewer response to Skyward Sword’s 4 out of 5 score might have been the primary reason X-Play revamped their ratings scale the following year, using “half-stars” in its ratings (ultimately making the rating system a 10 point scale) as well as reworking the conditions for a 5 out of 5 score. Now for a game to achieve a 5 out of 5 a game doesn’t have to achieve all of its design ambitions and merely not have any “issues” which would result in a 4 out of 5.

My suspicion that the viewer response to the Skyward Sword review was the catalyst for the change is only strengthened by the fact that X-Play used Skyward Sword as their example of a 4 out of 5 game in their new ratings system. 

But despite all that, the backlash to X-Play’s review was relatively minor, especially compared to the backlash a certain other professional reviewer got for giving Skyward Sword a lower score compared to X-Play, but that’s a tale for another time.

This isn’t the main part of the the story. X-Play’s review of Skyward Sword and the viewer response to said review were all the primer for the centerpiece of this tale.

It’s now time for the awards season. All the various gaming publications were nominating and awarding the best games of 2011. Skyward Sword managed to get itself plenty of nominations, including Overall Game of the Year from publications like EDGE.

But what about X-Play? What awards did they nominate Skyward Sword for?

Did X-Play nominate Skyward Sword for Game of the Year? 

No.

Did X-Play nominate Skyward Sword for Best Action/Adventure Game? 

No

Did X-Play nominate Skyward Sword for Most Innovative Game? 

No. .

Did X-Play nominate Skyward Sword for Best Story? 

No.

Did X-Play nominate Skyward Sword for Best Art Direction? 

No.

All Skyward Sword was nominated for were Best Soundtrack and Best Motion Controls.

And you want to know the really messed up part; Skyward Sword only won for Best Soundtrack and lost the Best Motion Controls award to Dance Central 2. Let that sink for a beat. DDR Kinect 2 Dance Central 2 apparently had better motion controls than Skyward Sword according to X-Play. This despite of all the praise the show gave Skyward Sword’s controls in its review. This is like when the Queen bio-pic, Bohemian Rhapsody, won the Oscar for “Best Editing”. Are you kidding me?! But I digress.

Needless to say, if viewers were just a little peeved with X-Play’s review of Skyward Sword, they were outright mad with how the show basically snubbed Skyward Sword from its award show. 

The vast majority of gamers felt that, even if the game would ultimately not win many awards, Skyward Sword should have at least had more than two (relatively minor) award nominations and should have been nominated for Game of the Year. X-Play was being called out, rightfully so, for not giving Skyward Sword its fair dues.

But all was not lost for Skyward Sword, for while X-Play would have full control on which games were nominated and which game would win the majority the awards, the fans would have their own say for one certain award.

G4 decided to do what they called a “Videogame Deathmatch”. This was basically a tournament consisting of 32 games released in 2011. 

Each round would have multiple games paired off to face off against each other. The general public would go online and vote for one of the two games in each match to go on to the next round. The first round had people vote between 16 pairs of games. The next round would have 8. Etc. Etc. This would culminate in a final round where the two winners of each side of the bracket would face off and the people would vote between these last two games to decide which game would win the tournament and would receive the Viewer’s Choice Award at  X-Play’s Best of 2011 Award Show.

Skyward Sword was one of the 32 games selected for the tournament, whether it was because G4 honestly thought the game deserved a chance to win or they were simply trying to placate fans of the game.

I would say the latter because the side of the bracket Skyward Sword was on was definitely the more competitive side of the two. How more competitive? Well while the side of the bracket Skyward Sword was on had games like Portal 2, Minecraft, Uncharted 3, Batman Arkham City and The Elder Scroll V: Skyrim, the game that would become the finalist for the other side of the bracket was Assassin’s Creed: Revelations. Does that answer your question?

So Skyward Sword faced some stiff competition. It really seemed like G4 and X-Play did not want Skyward Sword to win this tournament so they made sure it would go head to head against some of the most popular games of 2011. It was going to be a miracle if Skyward Sword made it to the final round.

Well let me tell you something; a miracle did occur that year.

In round 1, Skyward Sword went up against Uncharted 3, the flagship PS3 title of 2011, and the fans voted for Skyward Sword over Uncharted 3.

In round 2, Skyward sword went head to head against Fifa 12, the latest entry of the videogame series based off of the most popular sport in the world, and the majority chose Skyward Sword over Fifa 12. 

In round 3, Skyward Sword faced off against Batman Arkham City, the game that is considered to be one of the greatest superhero games ever made (if not the greatest), and Skyward Sword got more votes than Batman Arkham City.

In the semi-finals, Skyward Sword went one on one against The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, one of the best selling games of all time, and the gamers chose The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword over Skyrim.

Needless to say when Skyward Sword went up against Assassin’s Creed: Revelations, a game that even fans of the Assassin’s Creed franchise don’t hold in the highest regards (at least it’s not Unity?) in the final round, the vote went overwhelmingly in Skyward Sword’s favor.

The end result was that Skyward Sword won G4TV’s Videogame Deathmatch: Best of 2011 Tournament and was awarded the Viewer’s Choice Award for 2011.

Now when it came time to officially announce the winner of the winner of the Viewer’s Choice Award during the televised award ceremony, how do you think the hosts handled the situation?

Well take a look for yourself with this Youtube video archiving X-Play’s award show that year. (Timestamp 34:04-35:25)

They start out by saying how close the matchup between Skyward Sword and Assassin’s Creed: Revelations was, despite the fact that by accounts of those who participated in the voting process, Assassin’s Creed never got more than 40% of the votes in the final round, but that can be chalked up as theatrics for the audience.

When they reveal to the audience that Skyward Sword won the final round and in turn won the Viewer’s Choice Award, you can juts tell that Adam Sessler is not happy with the results. The way he’s moving his body. His tense face and pursed lips. The sarcastic tone in his voice as he calls Skyward Sword “Nintendo’s love letter to motion controls”.

Adam is not happy that the game he and the rest of the staff at X-Play snubbed from their award ceremony not only won the Viewer’s Choice Award but also beat two of their nominees for Game of the Year, including their choice for overall Game of the Year, in the process.

At this point, most people think it would be best for Adam to just accept the results for what they are, give Skyward Sword a proper congratulations, and move on with the next award of the night, in spite of Adam’s personal feelings towards the situation. Just be professional. That’s all Adam needed to do.

Most would think that, but Adam Sessler is not most people.

As the hosts were talking about Skyward Sword’s win, Blair Herter made a passing comment saying that the Nintendo fanbase being “enraged” over Skyward Sword not being nominated for Game of the Year helped Skyward Sword win the Viewer’s Choice Award.

Adam immediately jumped on that by adding with and I quote;

“Enraged? That’s a-th-th-that’s a nice term. It was close race, but ANGER always wins in the end.”

Wow. I mean wow. Not even the Red Sea is as salty as Adam Sessler was with that comment.

He couldn’t just take the L like an adult and move on. He felt like he had to get the final word on the matter. 

It’s like Adam wants to say the Viewer’s Choice Award doesn’t really count because the vote didn’t go the way he wanted. This is, ironically, the kind of immature fanboy behavior Adam is trying to make fun of. It makes it seem like Adam thinks he’s above the “unwashed masses” that participated in the Videogame Deathmatch voting process. 

Regardless on if you think Skyward Sword deserved to win the tournament, you must admit that this was bad look on Adam’s part.

Now I don’t want to end this post on a bittersweet note so I want you to think about what actually happened. 

Skyward Sword is so beloved by the majority of gamers that when a review show as big as X-Play tried to downplay the game’s quality as well snub the game from its best of the year award show, the gamers respond by making sure Skyward Sword won the title of the Viewer’s Choice awards.

And this is one of several time where when major reviewer publications/programs reached out to their audience, the gamers, to get their take on what game they felt was the best game of 2011, and The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword was chosen by said gamers as the the best game of that year.

It’s funny because whenever I bring up that point, the minority of Skyward Sword detractors try to make up some excuse to delegitimize Skyward Sword winning the viewer’s choice award.

When I mention Skyward Sword winning IGN’s viewer’s choice award, or when Skyward Sword was voted the number one, best game of 2011 by the fans of ScrewAttack, they say “Oh that’s because fans of Skyrim, Batman Arkham City, Portal 2, and so on were divided amongst themselves while Nintendo fans were united in their support for Skyward Sword. If the poll wasn’t a free for all, Skyward Sword wouldn’t win.”

Well here’s another instance of Skyward Sword winning a viewer’s choice award; Skyward Sword had to go one-on-one against multiple games in order to win the viewer’s choice award. Skyward Sword got more votes than some of the most popular, well reviewed, and highest selling games of that year. More gamers preferred Skyward Sword over Uncharted 3, Arkham City, and Skyrim.

I think all of that, along with how Skyward Sword was considered the best game of 2011 by ScrewAttack and IGN users, and how people are hyped for the HD rerelease, it’s safe to say that despite what some vocal people may try to say otherwise, The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword is a game that is far more beloved by gamers than it  is “divisive”. 

[spoadicdeviance]

“Hooray! Skyward Sword HD is now making all the hints optional and you can ignore Fi!”

Um...almost all of the hints in Skyward Sword were already optional and outside of the tutorial. Fi only gave advice if you directly called on her.

“Yeah but now this extends to the opening section of the game. You can now skip the tutorial”

In the original version, you can already skip a good chunk the tutorial including, but not limited to, Fi’s explanation on dowsing, the remlit rooftop rescue, and the sword combat tutorial. It’s nice the remaster extends that optionality to the rest of the tutorial, but are we really going to pretend it “fixes a major flaw with the game”?

“Well the fact that the original version of Skyward Sword forces any part of the tutorial on the player is bad game design.”

That statement is dumb on so many levels. How dumb is it? Let me count the ways.

1. Multiple games have mandatory tutorial segments. It’s been standard for most modern games. Even adult games like Elder Scrolls and Grand Theft Auto have mandatory tutorials. Even other Zelda games like Breath of the Wild and Twilight Princess.

2. The late great Stan Lee once said that every comic book is someone’s first issue. I like to think that extends to games. It can range from a toddler with a Sesame Street game or a grown man starting out playing Call of Duty with his work buddies. Any video game has the potential to be someone’s introduction to the medium. Designers are aware of the abstract nature of interactive entertainment can be to a newcomer, regardless of age. So they want to make sure that the players are aware of the rules and limitations of their games. This makes sure the player is never confused to the point of frustration and in turn hamper said player’s enjoyment. Granted, having a tutorial doesn’t stop a select few from being terrible at playing games (*cough cough* Arin Hanson *cough*).

3. This point is one I need you all to remember; Skyward Sword, as well as all Zelda games and even the majority of Nintendo titles are designed primarily with kids in mind. Even the the T-rated titles. Yes adults can enjoy these games and being designed for kids doesn’t inherently mean a game is simplified and dumbed down. However you have take in mind the skillset of a kid playing games for the first time. You remember when you were a kid and you first started playing games. Heck have ever played games with a younger sibling, kid cousin, child you had to babysit, or maybe your own children. Trust me when I say outside of a select few prodigies, most kids are terrible at playing video games, and that’s okay. Nintendo knows that kids will make up for a large chunk of their audience and they have to accommodate for them. 

Yeah it’s nice for a game to have its tutorial be entirely optional, like in Banjo Kazooie, but if a tutorial isn’t skippable I’m not gonna call it bad game design. I call it what it really is; an innocuous feature of modern game design used to help young/inexperienced players get into the game.

Even if you don’t need the tutorial that doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t need the tutorial.

Skyward Sword doesn’t pull a Final Fantasy XIII and have its tutorial go as long as 25 to 30 hours. Plus Skyward Sword already has a fair amount of it’s tutorials optional already. So I don’t think the select parts of the tutorial that were mandatory, as well as the entire opening section, from the original game are not this unredeemable sin Skyward Sword detractors make it out to be. 

Also I know same detractors don’t really think tutorials are inherently bad, they only exacerbate their frustration to make Skyward Sword seem worse than it truly is while simultaneously ignore when games they like (Such as Breath of the Wild) not only do the same thing the complain Skyward Sword does it, but in some cases does it more overtly compared to Skyward Sword.

Then again Skyward Sword detractors don’t care about consistency or earnest thought in their critiques of video games. They care more for low effort hot takes and misconstruing what they don’t personally don’t like as “bad game design”. So what are you gonna do?

[spoadicdeviance]

Come on BOTW/Game Grumps fans that blindly bash Skyward Sword. Tell me how I’m wrong and how Skyward Sword’s Dowsing is somehow nothing like BOTW’s Sheikah Sensor. I dare you.

Because any excuse that you’ll use for the Sheikah Sensor can also be applied to Dowsing. Also any criticism that you try to use on Dowsing not only applies to the Sheikah Sensor, but in some cases, the Sheikah Sensor is even more “guilty” of whatever crime you may accuse Dowsing of doing. Mainly because BOTW is more focused on exploration and a game like BOTW using a feature like the Sheikah Sensor/Dowsing should be considered a more egregious offense than if it was used in a game like Skyward Sword.

I don’t even dislike either Sheikah Sensor or Dowsing. I’m just pointing out one of the many, MANY double standards Skyward Sword’s detractors employ when they “critique” the game in question.

You guys aren’t even being consistent, much less objective, in your assessment of Skyward Sword. If you were, you all would either admit that BOTW is just as (if not more) flawed as Skyward Sword or that Skyward Sword is not nearly as flawed as you try to make it out to be.

[spoadicdeviance]

The funny thing here is that takes BOTW as much (if not more) inspiration from Skyward Sword as it did from the original NES Zelda. Stamina wheel. Item durability. Upgrading items through crafting with various material collected in the game. Consumables being the only means of healing (SS Hero Mode). More overt puzzle elements in the overworld. Boss Battles outside of the dungeons. Limited Inventory that the player had to expand. The Sheikah Sensor being basically Dowsing but more expansive in its capabilities, the fact that player can use it as a passive ability unlike dowsing, and that the Sheikah Sensor is used in a game that’s more focused on exploration.

Heck, based on the recent trailer, it appears BOTW 2 seems to be taking even more influence from Skyward Sword by having the Sky be a major part of the overworld.

It’s almost as if BOTW and its sequel are made largely by the same team that made Skyward Sword. Or if Skyward Sword’s director and writer was the director of BOTW 1 and 2.

Oh wait! Both of those statements are true.

Its almost as if BOTW fans who don’t like Skyward Sword don’t really care about how a game is made ore how it plays as a whole and either focus on bashing games that focus heavily on motion controls and/or blindly believe the criticisms from one of the only men on Youtube who rivals DarksydePhil with the amount of “This Is How You Don’t Play” compilations dedicated to him.

Weird. Isn’t it?

Re: the new E3 trailer.

I know what you're all going to say. Don't say it.

[spoadicdeviance]

My honest opinion when it comes to the A Hat in Time vs Yooka Laylee debate (years after the release of both games and having completed both games multiple times).

I know it’s not a popular stance to have, but personally, while I really like both games, I feel like A Hat in Time is just not as good as Yooka Laylee.

For one thing, A Hat in Time is way too short (particularly if your copy of the game doesn’t have the DLC) and too easy (even with the challenge mode DLC). Yooka Laylee had plenty of content and a lot of challenge to finding every collectible and completing the various tasks. 

The fact that Yooka Laylee had some challenge seems to be the thing that the game’s detractors appear to dislike the most apparently, but I’ll address that later.

Yooka Laylee also accomplished the impressive task of simultaneously recapturing the magic of games like Banjo Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64 while also maintaining an identity of its own with its own unique mechanics. A Hat in Time was kind of schizophrenic in it’s game design. Did the game wanted to be the next Mario Sunshine? Psychonauts? Spyro? Sly Cooper? The gameplay was all over the place. This combined with the game’s short length resulted in A Hat in Time not really having a consistent gameplay identity of its own.

There are other, relatively minor, things that factor into why I personally think Yooka Laylee is superior to A Hat in Time, but those are the primary reasons.

I also want to point out that while I understand why some may prefer A Hat in Time over Yooka Laylee, I do not see the logic behind saying A Hat in Time is “What Yooka Laylee should be” or stating that Yooka Laylee is a bad game. That’s mostly because the majority of critiques towards Yooka Laylee don’t really hold up to much scrutiny. 

A lot of the criticism thrown Yooka Laylee’s way seem to stem from issues that were largely fixed with the pre-release patch, borderline misinformation like how Yooka Laylee has almost three times the amount of collectibles/content compared to A Hat in Time and yet is somehow considered the “empty one” of the two, or just simply not understanding what a collect-a-thon platformer should be.

The fact that people complain that it’s too hard to find some of the collectables in Yooka Laylee does not show me that the game is flawed. It shows me that the game successfully challenged the player. The main crux of platformers like Banjo, DK64, and Yooka is having the player figure out how to navigate every level and complete various tasks in order to get each collectible.

Saying that games like Yooka Laylee and Donkey Kong 64 need features like a map screen/mini map showing where the player needs to go is like saying that beat-em-up action games should have a feature where an A.I. takes control of the player character and does the fighting for you or that a puzzle solving game that just gives you the answer to each puzzle with the press of a button. Way to miss the point by a country mile everyone.

Look, it’s one thing to simply find a game like Yooka Laylee to be not your personal cup of tea. But to say the game is outdated and that the “medium of gaming has evolved beyond the late 1990′s”, your head must be so far up your own ass, you’re getting a second helping of your last meal, alongside your own words.

I want to reiterate that I like both A Hat in Time and Yooka Laylee. Both games are objectively great, no matter how much some of you may quote Jim Sterling or Videogamedunkey’s terrible, half-baked, reviews of Yooka Laylee. If you prefer A Hat in Time, that’s fine. You’re more than free to have your opinion just like I am more than free to have my own. And in my opinion, while certain aspects of A Hat in Time prevent me from calling the game an outright masterpiece, Yooka Laylee is perhaps the best new 3D platformer to come out in over 10 years.

[spoadicdeviance]

A Tale of Double Standards: The Real Reason Why Some People Dislike Skyward Sword

TL;DR If Skyward Sword truly is as “flawed” as certain people say, then various critically beloved games in both the Zelda series, as well as gaming at large, are also just as flawed. Skyward Sword’s very few detractors criticize the game for one specific aspect of its design, and that criticism comes from a subjective point of view.

Every game has its fair share of fans and detractors. Some games have more fans than detractors and other games vice-versa. The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword is a game with far, FAR more fans than detractors.

Despite what some people online may say otherwise, the game is far more beloved than it is “divisive”.

Skyward Sword received high marks from the majority of review publications and is one of the few video games to be given perfect scores from publications such as EDGE magazine and Famitsu. The game received multiple game of the year awards, including winning various user based polls conducted by IGN, G4TV, and Screwattack for Best Game of 2011. Also, upon the announcement of Skyward Sword HD, the remaster became the highest selling game on Amazon within less than a day. 

With all of that, and more, I would say that the detractors of Skyward Sword are the minority here. They just happen to be the very vocal kind of minority.

But why does the game have detractors in the first place? 

Well considering how the game was designed from the ground up to be played using motion controls and how some gamers just don’t like motion controls in general, it would be logical to assume that Skyward Sword was bound to draw ire from at least a small percentage of gamers. No matter how good Skyward Sword actually is, some people just wont like it based on their personal preferences.

“NO!!!” the small group of Skyward Sword haters cry out, “That’s not the only reason why we don’t like the game. Don’t delegitimize our distaste as merely subjective preference for traditional controls. Skyward Sword has many flaws in its design. You’re just turning a blind eye to them.”

Well that’s certainly a hot take there. But there’s a tiny issue with that line of thinking;

Almost all of those alleged faults of Skyward Sword could also be found not only in a lot of other well regarded games, but also in other Zelda games, including fan favorites. However, none of Skyward Sword’s detractors will even acknowledge that. So let’s actually look at the main criticisms thrown Skyward Sword’s way. Shall we?

I already made a post detailing how the “Handholding/Too Many Tutorials” argument not only doesn’t hold up when actually analyzing Skyward Sword, but how other Zelda games have those same features that various online personalities and video essayists say resulted in “too much forced assistance” in the case of Skyward Sword. Some Zelda games go even more overboard in some aspects when compared to Skyward Sword. 

The linearity criticism is laughable at best. Not only because Skyward opens up the farther you get into it. Not only because various other critically acclaimed action adventure games, such as the Uncharted series and some of the Prince of Persia titles are just as (if not more) linear as Skyward Sword. But also because almost all Zelda games have some form of linearity to them.

Even the original NES Zelda has a specific order of how the player should complete the game. The dungeons are numbered for crying out loud. Also you can’t complete, or even enter, certain dungeons without having to get an item from another dungeon. So the whole “item-based roadblocks” non-issue people have criticized Skyward Sword (as well as 3D Zelda) for have been a part of the Zelda series since the beginning.

Even Breath of the Wild confines the player to stay within the Great Plateau until said player completes every tutorial shrine and receives either a heart container or stamina vessel from the goddess statue. So even Breath of the Wild isn’t 100% open world as some say it is. It would be one thing if the game pulled a Banjo Kazooie and had the option for Link to tell King Rhoam’s spirit that he doesn’t need to do the shrines, and in the process have the player skip the tutorial, but that’s not the case with Breath of the Wild.

If all these Zelda games, as well as games outside of the series, have at least some semblance of linearity to them, and some of them are even more linear than Skyward Sword, yet are considered by the majority of gamers to be classics, then perhaps a video game being linear is not bad, in and of itself.

Revisiting various areas in the game. This pseudo-criticism, to put it simply, is not something that makes a game inherently bad. If that was the case, almost every Metroid game would be considered “travesties to game design” with how many times the player backtracks through the various planets/sections of the map in those games.

Also, as far as the Zelda series is concerned, this aspect of game design isn’t exclusive to Skyward Sword.

Ocarina of Time has you revisit various areas you explored as Child-Link, only this time you are Adult-Link.

Majora’s Mask due to it’s 3-Day mechanic, is centered around having to revisit the same areas, over and over again, especially Clock Town (which is basically Majora’s Mask version of Skyloft).

Wind Waker has you revisiting plenty of islands and areas during the main quest of the game, like the Forsaken Fortress.

Twilight Princess has you go back to Ordon Village and the surrounding Faron Woods area WAY MORE times than Skyward Sword has you revisit any of it’s sections. In the prologue alone, before you can even enter the Forrest Temple, you go through the same forest map like three times.

The Dark World and Lorule overworlds of A Link to the Past and A Link Between worlds, when you really look at them, are basically re-skins of their respective Hyrule Overworlds. The only major things that differentiates them are the tougher enemies and that some sections are more isolated compared the more connected Hyrule overworld. 

The repeat boss fights against Ghirahim and The Imprisoned. Again, like the previous revisited maps section, reusing boss fights is not an inherent flaw. 

Almost every Megaman game has a glorified boss rush mode in their final levels, where you have to beat all of the previously defeated Robot Masters. Where’s the righteous fury there people? 

How many times has an RPG make you fight the same boss, only for the fight to have the stipulation that the bosses are more powerful, the boss is in a group of clones/other bosses, or give the player some sort of disadvantage? You all never once encountered repeat boss fights in any Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy game?

But let’s bring the focus back towards the Zelda series here.

A Link to the Past and A Link Between Worlds does something similar to the Megaman games; Having the player fight previously beaten bosses in their respective final dungeon. The only difference is you don’t fight all of them, just a select few.

How about Breath of the Wild? How many times did you fight against various Taluses, Hinoxen, Moldugas, and Lynels? (I don’t know if all of those are the correct plural forms of the boss names. This is just an educated guess) Plus considering how similar a lot of the Blight-Ganon fights are, in certain aspects, one could say that the majority of boss fights in Breath of the Wild are rematches.

I say that considering how despite how the rematches against Ghirahim and the Imprisoned differ from their previous fights (particularly the final fight against Ghirahim being entirely different from the first two Ghirahim fights), Skyward Sword’s detractors still say that’s not enough to excuse the repeat boss fights. By that same (lack of) logic, BOTW, ALTTP, and ALBW are also guilty of same “crime” as Skyward Sword and should also be demonized by those people that criticize Skyward Sword.

Even recently, with people complaining about how the HD remake will lock a fast travel feature behind an amiibo paywall. First off, Skyward Sword already has a feature where when you reenter one of the three provinces, you can fast travel to any activated bird statues. With that in mine, wouldn’t having the ability to fast travel to the Sky from any part of the surface seem like overkill? Isn’t that more of that so called “hand-holding” Skyward Sword detractors hate so much? Why complain about not automatically gaining access to a feature you wouldn’t even, since you’re too hardcore for hand holding and all?

But aside from that, where were the same fans when the HD Zelda remakes and Breath of the Wild used the same amiibo paywall practice when it came to distributing extra armor, weapons, items, and even new dungeons. That seems to me to be just as, if not more, of an egregious offense.

There are other nitpicks some people have against sections like the Tadtones and the Silent Realms (although since the criticism for those sections seems to boil down to “it’s too hard” so I don’t think that holds up to much scrutiny) as well as how there are supposedly too many fetch quests (Which all Zelda games have an abundance of fetch quests, especially Breath of the Wild). However every game, movie, book, and what have you can be nitpicked to death, so I don’t consider nitpicks to be true, major flaws with any given piece of media, just personal issues an individual may or may not have.

But now we come to the fact every Zelda game has the same “issues” that Skyward Sword (apparently) has, in some way or form. So if we were to hold every Zelda game to the same scrutiny that Skyward Sword’s detractors have when they “analyze” Skyward Sword, almost all of them (including fan favorites) are either outright bad, or at least too flawed to be considered great. 

Since games like Ocarina of Time, Breath of the Wild, A Link to the Past, and several other Zelda games, as well as plenty of other games outside of Zelda, don’t get backlash from the group of people who bash Skyward Sword, it appears as if those so called “flaws” aren’t truly flaws at all; just innocuous, widely used, aspects of game design that detractors highlight in a vain attempt to make Skyward Sword seem worse than it objectively is.

So why do Skyward Sword haters not apply the same scrutiny to other games?

What sets Skyward Sword apart from the rest of the Zelda franchise? Almost everything in Skyward Sword can be found in at least one other Zelda game. Even a lot of the experimental aspects of Skyward Sword that separated it from past Zelda games were re-used in Breath of the Wild.

From my point of view the only thing that makes Skyward Sword truly standout from the other Zelda games is the fact that Skyward Sword went all in on an experimental control scheme. A control scheme based on motion controls.

Motion controls; a concept that some gamers were either never on board with, even before the launch of the Nintendo Wii, or got burned out with after various failed motion based games on the Wii, Playstation Move, and (especially) Microsoft’s EyeToy 2 Kinect. So if a game were to come out that’s fully designed around motion controls those same gamers, based on their preconceived biases, were already bound to hate said game and they would never give it a fair shake-AHA! 

So now we come to the real truth.

It’s the motion controls. Skyward Sword’s detractors just hate the fact that the game is designed around motion controls. 

And it’s not because the motion controls don’t work or aren’t implemented properly. Skyward Sword’s motion controls not only work, but they work phenomenally well.

Heck, when Gamespot’s Tom McShea tried to spin the narrative that Skyward Sword’s controls were faulty, at best, in his review of the game, various people online rebutted his point by demonstrating that the controls do work as intended and said that either McShea was either not playing the game right or was deliberately misleading his readers. It got to the point where Gamespot had to redact the part of Tom’s review that said the controls didn’t work. 

The fact that so many people called out Tom’s review as an unfair representation of Skyward Sword, to the point where the publishers of Tom’s review had to concede on some of the criticisms thrown the game’s way, is more evidence that Skyward Sword has far more fans than detractors. But I’m getting off track here.

Plus the upcoming HD remaster of the game will have the option for the player to use button controls. So now you can’t even use the argument that Skyward Sword “forces motion controls on you” anymore. I just hope that Joycon drift does not come into affect with Skyward Sword HD.

And you can’t say that Skyward Sword is flawed in other regards because, as stated in this post, said flaws are either nitpicks and every game can be nitpicked (because no game is truly perfect), are aspects of design found in other games (including various Zelda games), or a combination of the two.

Practically all reasoning that some may use to explain why said “flaws” found in other Zelda games can “be excused” can also be used in the case of Skyward Sword so don’t even try to spin this as “Skyward Sword just does it worse” because you know for a fact that’s not the real truth here.

I’ll more than likely go into greater detail on each of those “criticisms” against Skyward Sword in other posts, like I already did with the false claims of handholding, but I feel like my point has been made here.

If you are one of those people who will say that all of the games I mentioned here are “just as flawed” as Skyward Sword, I’ll disagree with you, but I’ll commend the fact that you are at least consistent with your arguments and standards.

However if you still try to say that games like Breath of the Wild, A Link Between Worlds, Ocarina of Time, and countless other Zelda games don’t share those aspects of Skyward Sword’s game design you claim are “flaws” and either claim that Skyward Sword is the only objectively flawed Zelda title, or the most flawed Zelda title, well then you’re just being intellectually dishonest, and there’s no two ways about that.

Listen, at the end of it all, this post is really about having consistent standards when analyzing games and knowing the difference between subjective opinions and objective analysis.

I am not saying that you are wrong if you do not like Skyward Sword. If you don’t care for the game because you don’t like motion controls, or you don’t like action adventure games, or you simply don’t care for Zelda (or at least 3D Zelda games that aren’t BOTW. Or maybe you hate BOTW too. I don’t know.) then that’s more than valid because that’s your opinion and no one can legitimately argue against an opinion. 

There’s nothing wrong with having subjective opinions. You are more than within your right to like and dislike whatever you want to like and dislike. 

However, you have to realize that just because you may not like something, that doesn’t automatically make said thing objectively bad. This is especially the case when the thing in question, Skyward Sword, is objectively fantastic. When you try to reframe subjective opinions as objective criticism, you’re just going to find out that your criticisms wont hold up to any form of scrutiny, no matter how badly you wish otherwise. 

While Skyward Sword may not be for you, it does not change the fact that the game is objectively a masterpiece in game design, motion controls and all.

[spoadicdeviance]

“Skyward Sword HD is too expensive! $60 for just a remaster of a 10 year old game? What a rip-off! The game’s not even that good, because internet funny man said ‘Bomb-Bowling’ a bunch of times! Look at all these remastered collections of games that are being sold for much less! There’s no way an already divisive game like Skyward Sword will sell wel-!”

Odd. Seems like the most vocal, and rather petulant, people on the internet do not appear to speak for the majority of people. It’s almost like Skyward Sword’s detractors are just relegated to said small group of online personalities and social media posters and the game is not as hated as they want others to believe. 

Because from what I’m seeing, people seem to be tripping over themselves to get a copy of Skyward Sword HD. Almost as if the game was really good and most people love it so much, they’re willing to pay full price for a rerelease, to point where pre-orders are selling out fast.

Funny that. Wouldn’t you agree?

[spoadicdeviance]

The Legend of Zelda - Through the years

↳ Happy 35th Anniversary! (02.21) (1986-2021)