General Zelda thread
-
-
Then as time goes on, the reception gets less universally positive and you have more people notice its flaws. The hype deflates, in a sense.
This right here is actually what annoys me about the video game fandom online. I see so many games getting picked apart bit by bit, pulling every little flaw out into the open, sucking their own enjoyment right out of the game. Half of these people only decide they hate a game because everybody else does too. Maybe I'm too simple-minded but if I enjoy the game the first time through, then it gets an auto 'good game' rating for me and I don't go seeking out flaws to make me feel intelligent and clever while at the same time ruining every game for myself.
Not to mention the ridicule anybody who admits they like a game gets. "HAHA LOOK, IT'S AN IDIOT WHO HAD FUN WITH A GAME!!"
-
@CCC:
Metroid Prime has a pretty good- oh wait Wags beat me to it :(
Uh. DK64 had a few good things going for it.
!
I've lost all desire to replay DK64 probably ever again, but Fungi Forest is the one part that makes me reconsider (that it was apparently earlier a Banjo Kazooie stage in some beta form probably explains that).
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
This right here is actually what annoys me about the video game fandom online. I see so many games getting picked apart bit by bit, pulling every little flaw out into the open, sucking their own enjoyment right out of the game. Half of these people only decide they hate a game because everybody else does too. Maybe I'm too simple-minded but if I enjoy the game the first time through, then it gets an auto 'good game' rating for me and I don't go seeking out flaws to make me feel intelligent and clever while at the same time ruining every game for myself.
Not to mention the ridicule anybody who admits they like a game gets. "HAHA LOOK, IT'S AN IDIOT WHO HAD FUN WITH A GAME!!"
Well Anti-Hype is a thing too.
-
@Monkey:
I've lost all desire to replay DK64 probably ever again, but Fungi Forest is the one part that makes me reconsider (that it was apparently earlier a Banjo Kazooie stage in some beta form probably explains that).
Agreed. Amazing layout and variety with neat gimmicks. Dogadon 2.0 is also the best boss in a game full of meh bosses (Mad Jack is a close second, though).
-
Fungi Forest and indeed most Rare 3D levels are more interactive and immersive than any of the three Skyward Sword provinces.
-
This right here is actually what annoys me about the video game fandom online. I see so many games getting picked apart bit by bit, pulling every little flaw out into the open, sucking their own enjoyment right out of the game. Half of these people only decide they hate a game because everybody else does too. Maybe I'm too simple-minded but if I enjoy the game the first time through, then it gets an auto 'good game' rating for me and I don't go seeking out flaws to make me feel intelligent and clever while at the same time ruining every game for myself.
Not to mention the ridicule anybody who admits they like a game gets. "HAHA LOOK, IT'S AN IDIOT WHO HAD FUN WITH A GAME!!"
There's value in what you say in that there's way too many people who just board a train and refuse to look at different opinions. If it becomes cool to hate a game, then good luck defending it, and likewise when a game is called a masterpiece it gets near impossible to critique it.
That said, the rest I don't quite agree with. People don't pull out flaws and issues with a game because they want to feel intelligent, or at least not most of them. Being a critic or a reviewer is about fully exploring and analyzing every aspect of a game's design to evaluate it, and that process genuinely helps a lot of people appreciate the game more and helps the market become aware of products that would otherwise be drowned by the competition.
And from a less money-oriented perspective, it's pulling apart games and seeing what works and what doesn't for each franchise that helps us realize what bits of brilliance have existed in the industry all these years and what we should be striving for the medium in the future. Just like other forms of creative production, game design needs reflection to grow, and the consumers also benefit from that reflection as it helps one appreciate the game even more.
I for one would be very angry if all the information I found about a game was based on someone wanting to have fun and figuring out they didn't want to make note of the bad design choices because then the fun would stop. Just because then they'd have to think and develop higher standards.
-
I for one would be very angry if all the information I found about a game was based on someone wanting to have fun and figuring out they didn't want to make note of the bad design choices because then the fun would stop. Just because then they'd have to think and develop higher standards.
I can see value in pointing out flaws (and good points) in the context of an unbiased review, for sure. What I can't stand is when I see 'game fans' on forums loudly proclaiming how bad a game is right in the face of others saying they liked the game - and the minute anybody defends an aspect of the game in most cases the response is WOW LOL YOU REALLY THINK THAT!? (and this is where I believe that the people saying things like this feel that they are really intelligent - 'I can clearly see what is wrong with this game and this person can't') Everything comes down to invidual enjoyment - if somebody legitimately didn't like a game, that's fine, but to insult somebody else who really did enjoy the game is childish and rude.
-
I can see value in pointing out flaws (and good points) in the context of an unbiased review, for sure. What I can't stand is when I see 'game fans' on forums loudly proclaiming how bad a game is right in the face of others saying they liked the game - and the minute anybody defends an aspect of the game in most cases the response is WOW LOL YOU REALLY THINK THAT!? (and this is where I believe that the people saying things like this feel that they are really intelligent - 'I can clearly see what is wrong with this game and this person can't') Everything comes down to invidual enjoyment - if somebody legitimately didn't like a game, that's fine, but to insult somebody else who really did enjoy the game is childish and rude.
So long as people are giving discussion points, even in amusingangry ways, there really isn't a problem. We're on discussion forums, so this is a place to discuss. "It is my opinion that this is good" is no more of a conversation starter than "you're a loser nerd if you think it's good." Deconstructing why we love and hate these things, though, is the reason why we're here.
-
So long as people are giving discussion points, even in amusingangry ways, there really isn't a problem. We're on discussion forums, so this is a place to discuss. "It is my opinion that this is good" is no more of a conversation starter than "you're a loser nerd if you think it's good." Deconstructing why we love and hate these things, though, is the reason why we're here.
Except when deconstructing becomes blind bashing - which admittedly doesn't seem to happen as much here as it does on certain other forums that I have in mind
-
We should fix that.
Fi is a terrible character because I hate her.
-
Except when deconstructing becomes blind bashing - which admittedly doesn't seem to happen as much here as it does on certain other forums that I have in mind
This post help me realize something about my online friends. I recently wanted to talk to them about the Family Guy/Simpsons crossover, and I legitimately wanted to talk about the good and the bad. But it became 3 people bashing the special and making jokes about it, and never really trying to analyze it. And part of it, knowing of the guy's personalities he was too good for the special going in and so this was a way for him to feel smart.
So to be honest, I think Kirjava has a bit of a point. I don't know if people bash certain games to feel smart per-say, but it does feel good to be part of the in-crowd. And We have seen how the internet can easily jump into a hive-mind of popular opinions.
-
So after reading people's opinions of Fi i want to propose a question. Hypothetically, if Nintendo remade skyward sword in HD on their next console but kept and improved on the motion-controls, as the majority of the game is based around it like enemy design and the puzzles, however they added more side-quests and, more importantly, decreased the frequency that Fi appeared in gameplay leaving it only for crucial plot elements and if asked to appear like with previous partners would Skyward Sword be liked more by people and would Fi be more liked by everyone.
What i am getting at is how much of Skyward Swords negativity stems around the motion controls (which i had no problems with and thus, enjoyed the game)?
And then, how much of the hate for Fi comes from her constant appearances that stop the game flow, often for pointless comments, and how much is it just her personality? I'm sure i got annoyed at Fi at some points during skyward sword but her role in the plot and her overall personality, robotic as it was, was different and suited her. I enjoyed her character and that for me made her ultimately less annoying during the gameplay moments.
@Monkey:
So you might me mixing up two completely different games? And the relevant one is a four year old memory?
That's not what i said. I think i like Fi more now because she is likeable in Hyrule Warriors which i have been playing a lot of. But that does not mean it is overwriting my thoughts on Fi from Skyward Sword as i'm well aware of her role in that game. Hyrule Warriors just increased my like of her and did not turn her from a character i hated to one i liked.
Good god no. Why would you even ask that.
Because you definition of what the 'main' series titles are consist of console games made by Nintendo in house which four swords adventure is. Also unlike other spin-offs like crossbow training and Hyrule Warrios, Four Swords Adventure has: 'The Legend of Zelda in the title.
It's also not a Zelda style game structurally in virtually any way shape or form. It's a top down multiplayer beat em up for godsakes.
If we are getting technical here Zelda II has less of the Zelda Style structurally the Four Swords Adventures. The latter plays like a top-down Zelda and uses items to solve puzzles but has an added multiplayer element and a linear structure. Zelda II forgoes all of this with next to no puzzle elements, a 2D side-scrolling style gameplay and drops items for magic.
You considered Zelda II a main series Zelda game yet it is drastically different than Four Swords Adventures.
I think it was reasonable to assume you could tell what a Zelda style game is, but ok here goes.
When I say a "Main mario style game for SNES" this surprisingly involves the sidescrolling platformers and not Mario is Missing.Ok i see your point but here is a counter. When you say a "Main Zelda style game for SNES" you must be referring to a Link to the Past which has a top down perspective, Dungeons and Puzzles, items and a story and you consider this a main Zelda game. Yet Minish Cap, which contains all of the elements of a link to the past but is on a handheld, is not a main zelda game.
So the question begs, do you see New Super Mario Bros as a main series mario game? It contains all of the elements of a "Main Mario style game" with the one exception that it is on a handheld. If you don't, then what about New Super Mario Bros Wii which is on a console, and also has multiplayer in mind, but is exactly the same in all other regards to the DS game.
You've wildly missed the theme of "big budget showcase" in my description.
They are treated as less important by Nintendo itself. They are not lavished with the treatment of the 3D ones.
This isn't even subjective, too bad I guess that it bothers you.
This is important to what we're actually talking about because the expectation then involves less sales.Your description defines that only the big, important Zelda games were on the console and that Nintendo were not bothered about the handhelds which is why Capcom did them. Yet if Capcom were not there to do the handheld Zelda's that does not mean that Nintendo would not do them. This is evident by Phantom Hourglass onwards where Nintendo have done all involvement in making handheld Zeldas. Having Capcom doing Zelda just means that Nintendo can focus more on the console games but development shifted to Nintendo because Aonuma decided that making two games at the same time would help improve both games equally.
And if that is not enough Miyamoto expressed massive interest after Ocarina of Time 3D for the next Main Zelda title after Skyward Sword to be a sequel to A link to the past. He got his wish and we got a Link Between Worlds but not on the Wii U, on the 3DS. Saying that less time goes into the handhelds because they expect less sales is completely inaccurate (especially in Nintendo's case where their handheld consoles have always sold better than the home console that they released at the same time). Nintendo do not half-heartedly make any main Zelda title because they know that the fan-base would go mad over it, they aim to put in 100% and sometimes it shows and other times not as much.
How does Hyrule Warriors not count if you count an extended party game like Four Swords lol.
As i have stated above (and especially in Hyrule Warriors case) it isnot put under the 'Legend of Zelda banner that four swords has and Nintendo have constantly stated that it is NOT a main series title. In fact, it does not even fit into the supposed lore of Zelda which four swords and Adventures does fit into.
Congratulations for proudly announcing you're using a logical fallacy.
This is all fascinating but are you actually gonna attempt to prove Fi is popular anywhere in anyway? And not vaguely suggest her presence in some side game means something? How about some sort of character poll in Japan or US or wherever. Fucking Rwanda will do. Something of substance.I have no choice in this regard because i do not work for Nintendo and unless they come out with why Fi was included we won't know if i'm right or not. However i have not just said something without justification but used observation and what has been stated by the developer. I cannot say 100% that popularity decided on Fi but it is certain that popularity affected the choice of characters
Hyrule Warriors does not count lol. Hey there were fairies in the Cdi games too! This is relevant because
This is a conversation on fairy partners, not just fairies in general. It is also incredibly trivial because Ciela is there which still proves my point that there are more fairy partners than Tatl and Navi.
The game having by far the blandest art design of all five 3D Zelda's does the dungeons a massive disservice when it comes to the experience as exploring strange places. And they were mostly too easy and straightforward in terms of design.
I would disagree with this. I actually think Ocarina of Time has the most blandest art but that mainly coming down to having a lack of style as most Zelda's do (cartoon look with Wind Waker for example). But if we only include the ones with a purposed style then i would say twilight princess. Everything is just dark with the colour pallet consisting of dark Yellow and black. But this is a very opinion based and it all depends on what people like in atmoshpere and design (as i know plenty of people like the dark and 'gritty' design).
Atmosphere? You're kidding right?
The plot was a disaster. Please detail to me what the plot was in your own words.The game does not have the best atmosphere in any Zelda but it does have some.
The plot however is very good for a Zelda game. A simplified version of it is: Zelda as the reincarnated goddess must work to seal away a great evil that almost destroyed the world years ago. Her best friend Link is trying to find an alternative way of defeating this great evil because Zelda's way will ultimately end in him losing her forever.
That is a very simple description of the plot however and while it does not have any big plot-changing twists i do not think any of the Zelda games have. The sheik twist for instance is not a big plot-changing twist but helps for the characters development which skyward sword has a lot of. Zelda and Link's relationship is brilliant; Link's and Fi's (while not as good) develops well; Impa's personality and relationship to Zelda and Link is also obvious and develops. Groose alone is one of the greatest Zelda characters ever-made. Heck even the relationship of Ghirahim and Link changes as the game progresses.
-
I didn't really have any problem with the motion controls. Excepting the most demanding and finnicky enemies (Ghirahim battles…), they worked just fine.
Fi's robot gag just gets old really quickly, and the constant interruptions are old from minute one. Makes Navi look like a shrinking wallflower. The interruptions are symptomatic of the pace-slowing de-immersiv...ification hand-holding that plagues the entire game, making every segment feel like Mario-style obstacle course instead of parts of a cohesive world, as we've come to expect from Zeldas.
And honestly there's little to no blind bashing going on here. Everyone's giving detailed reasons for their opinions in a good spirited debate. People disliking a game shouldn't ruin it for you if you liked it ("enjoyment" is typically too personal and ersatz a concept to be boiled down to rationally explicable bullet points), and people liking it doesn't make the rest of us bitter or anything. Just more raring and ready for debate ;)
-
So after reading people's opinions of Fi i want to propose a question. Hypothetically, if Nintendo remade skyward sword in HD on their next console but kept and improved on the motion-controls, as the majority of the game is based around it like enemy design and the puzzles, however they added more side-quests and, more importantly, decreased the frequency that Fi appeared in gameplay leaving it only for crucial plot elements and if asked to appear like with previous partners would Skyward Sword be liked more by people and would Fi be more liked by everyone.
What i am getting at is how much of Skyward Swords negativity stems around the motion controls (which i had no problems with and thus, enjoyed the game)?
And then, how much of the hate for Fi comes from her constant appearances that stop the game flow, often for pointless comments, and how much is it just her personality? I'm sure i got annoyed at Fi at some points during skyward sword but her role in the plot and her overall personality, robotic as it was, was different and suited her. I enjoyed her character and that for me made her ultimately less annoying during the gameplay moments.
The motion controls themselves weren't the problem to me. I've got a bunch of different issues with the game as a whole.
I think that there is an issue with the motion controls, but it's not just the controls themselves (the mere fact that people have had such inconsistent experiences with them is am issue, too, though). My problem is with how they're forced into the game. What I mean is that it's logical and even cool to be swinging around Link's sword, but then to challenge this, the game keeps drawing from this bad standard set of pieces, like having every enemy block on 45º angles. What's funny is that I felt the motion controls on TP were a lot more immersive than the SS ones, even if they weren't even close to 1-to-1 action (just waggle = sword swing), just because I wasn't fighting all of these challenges that were specifically made for the motion controls. SS gives me that feeling that you get when you watch 3D movies and you see an object pop out at you that you know they put in there to justify the 3D. It's just forced and unnatural. Furthermore, it's a restriction on the freedoms that the motion controls are supposed to grant you. This new mechanic that lets you choose how you can swing your sword is met with a bunch of challenges that tell you how to swing your sword and it feels a little insulting.
I guess that's part of why I hate SS the way I do: it's just insulting. That's why I hate Fi. Her constant barrage of unskippable slow hints that tell you how to think before you get the chance to are insulting. It's like they don't trust me to play the game the way I want to. That's the handholding nature of the game and the problem with it. Gameplay should be about giving the players the right amount of liberties to come to the right answer, not restricting them until they can only come to that answer.
Even when you take out those insulting bits, though, you're still left with a bland game. The puzzles are all too easy and littered everywhere, it is utterly lacking in atmosphere (bad music direction, art and level design that somehow makes exploring this lost world seem safer than walking through the local park), the sidequests are all boring at least (throwing in more wouldn't make them better quality), everything is too linear to let you feel like you've got control and too easy to be satisfying to play. The only aspects I did like were maybe the look of a couple dungeons, Koloktos (which I will say is one of my favorite Zelda bosses and a sparkling gem in this turd), Groose (who still had a really disappointingly limited character arc) and the Lanayru time shenanigans.
-
I can see value in pointing out flaws (and good points) in the context of an unbiased review, for sure. What I can't stand is when I see 'game fans' on forums loudly proclaiming how bad a game is right in the face of others saying they liked the game - and the minute anybody defends an aspect of the game in most cases the response is WOW LOL YOU REALLY THINK THAT!? (and this is where I believe that the people saying things like this feel that they are really intelligent - 'I can clearly see what is wrong with this game and this person can't') Everything comes down to invidual enjoyment - if somebody legitimately didn't like a game, that's fine, but to insult somebody else who really did enjoy the game is childish and rude.
Honestly, I agree with you to an extent. Every time Skyward Sword bashing becomes the topic here, the way people go about bashing it DOES make me feel like they're trying to make anyone who likes it (IE: Me) feel bad, and I'm always less inclined to defend it. I mean, it's clear nothing I say is going to make any difference, so why be involved in the conversation and look like an idiot to them?…
-
The thing is, you can't just remove annoying things like Fi and motion control issues to fix Skyward Sword. At it's core it's just not something I'd call a solid zelda game, or at least not something I feel compelled to play through.
Why is the sky so bare? Makes it feel like there's no overworld.
Why do I have to keep going to the same three areas over and over again? Makes it feel like they got lazy and went with default forest, volcano and desert. Sure, at least the third one was a bit more interesting with the time switches and all that, but repeating it doesn't make it any better.To me those are just huge blocks. The world doesn't feel alive or interesting enough for me to care, the dungeons are for the most part not memorable enough for me to care.
So to answer the question, no, I don't think an "HD" remake could fix this game for me. It can still appeal to others and probably does, just not me.
-
So after reading people's opinions of Fi i want to propose a question. Hypothetically, if Nintendo remade skyward sword in HD on their next console but kept and improved on the motion-controls, as the majority of the game is based around it like enemy design and the puzzles, however they added more side-quests and, more importantly, decreased the frequency that Fi appeared in gameplay leaving it only for crucial plot elements and if asked to appear like with previous partners would Skyward Sword be liked more by people and would Fi be more liked by everyone.
Good God, no. Perhaps less hated, but certainly not more liked.
And a lot of what you're asking really is some real fundamental and structural changes.
What i am getting at is how much of Skyward Swords negativity stems around the motion controls (which i had no problems with and thus, enjoyed the game)?
I enjoyed skyward sword, but I have serious greviances with
- NOT the motion controls which didn't frustrate me
- the design of puzzles (especially handholding in some cases)
- the music
- the characterization
- the plot
- the lack of any actual substantive depth to the world
- the ill fated attempt at recycling areas
- the lack of sidequests. And the ones that are included really blow.
- the harp
- tadpole tunes
- the design of forest and volcano islands
- a majority of the bosses
- Incredibly unremarkable art style for design of the dungeons
- Scorpionmaster gets reused. As a mini boss fight (and was already an incredibly lame boss fight)
- Fi
To even things up so I don't sound like "gee hermit I thought you liked the game!"
- The sensation of flying
- Waggle combat can be fun sometimes and tbh it's as well designed as it's going to be.
- Groose
- Ghirahim (but not his series of boss fights which could have been used for other bosses)
- Some enemy design
- The impressionist art style (especially when watching people do it on dolphin upscaled)
- Running
- Sitting
- Time stone gimmicks
- The desert, mine carts, sand ship
- The final dungeon
- The final boss
- Koloktos
- Skyloft
- the sacred realm droplet gathering thing would be fun as a side quest, eh on making it part of the actual quest
But when it comes to the meat of a lot of why I like zelda games, SS is definitely lacking.
And then, how much of the hate for Fi comes from her constant appearances that stop the game flow, often for pointless comments, and how much is it just her personality? I'm sure i got annoyed at Fi at some points during skyward sword but her role in the plot and her overall personality, robotic as it was, was different and suited her. I enjoyed her character and that for me made her ultimately less annoying during the gameplay moments.
Describe Fi's character without mentioning anything she does or any scenes she is in.
I mean I'm sure my toaster is loyal and robotic but I'm not going to praise its personality as "one of the best" partners and/or appliances I have.
Hyrule Warriors
Seriously dude? This is like saying that Pirate Warriors is canon for One Piece stuff when Hyrule Warriors is just an aggregation of the series favorites.
If we are getting technical here Zelda II has less of the Zelda Style structurally the Four Swords Adventures. The latter plays like a top-down Zelda and uses items to solve puzzles but has an added multiplayer element and a linear structure. Zelda II forgoes all of this with next to no puzzle elements, a 2D side-scrolling style gameplay and drops items for magic.
You considered Zelda II a main series Zelda game yet it is drastically different than Four Swords Adventures.
It still has the core Zelda structure even if style is different, and more importantly it is not a party multiplayer game where you collect rupees.
This is a conversation on fairy partners, not just fairies in general. It is also incredibly trivial because Ciela is there which still proves my point that there are more fairy partners than Tatl and Navi.
Ciela does not prove your point when PH itself is an incredibly mundane game in and of itself. And the best part is that even then, Ciela still has more character than Fi.
The plot however is very good for a Zelda game. A simplified version of it is: Zelda as the reincarnated goddess must work to seal away a great evil that almost destroyed the world years ago. Her best friend Link is trying to find an alternative way of defeating this great evil because Zelda's way will ultimately end in him losing her forever.
It literally boils down to:
Link's "really good friend" Zelda gets kidnapped and so he must go to the underworld to rescue her. And it turns out she's a goddess. Ganondorf also shows up as the ultimate evil.
I also don't recall Demise almost destroying the world years ago. More of the usual evil conqueror thing that ganon already does (and has done…!!). And "Zelda's way will ultimately end in him losing her forever?" First, that sounds like a soap opera. Second, that isn't really true? Unless you're tlaking about when she crystalizes herself to seal off Demise longer, but that's not really her "way". Either option, just a usual super lady saving deal.
That is a very simple description of the plot however and while it does not have any big plot-changing twists i do not think any of the Zelda games have. The sheik twist for instance is not a big plot-changing twist but helps for the characters development which skyward sword has a lot of. Zelda and Link's relationship is brilliant; Link's and Fi's (while not as good) develops well; Impa's personality and relationship to Zelda and Link is also obvious and develops. Groose alone is one of the greatest Zelda characters ever-made. Heck even the relationship of Ghirahim and Link changes as the game progresses.
Plot twists a good plot does not one make. Like that's a big problem with your analysis here is that you think we care about having some big twist, but it's just the fundamental bearings of the actual plot that really matter.
Groose is great and Ghirahim serves his role as an asshole but none of the characterization you listed is really substantial in any regard. Zelda does get more depth than most outings, but I feel she didn't have enough breathing room to establish your relationship with her to say "damn straight I'm losing my best friend here!" Could have been designed into Skyloft with small things here and there to give room or something. Impa is pretty much in the same boat. Like that's why when I look back on the game, when it comes to those two characters I think "Gee, the emotional moments with those two sure were incredibly forced."
-
This post help me realize something about my online friends. I recently wanted to talk to them about the Family Guy/Simpsons crossover, and I legitimately wanted to talk about the good and the bad. But it became 3 people bashing the special and making jokes about it, and never really trying to analyze it. And part of it, knowing of the guy's personalities he was too good for the special going in and so this was a way for him to feel smart.
Your mistake was wanting to talk about Family Guy. And thinking there was any good to discuss.
-
Honestly, I agree with you to an extent. Every time Skyward Sword bashing becomes the topic here, the way people go about bashing it DOES make me feel like they're trying to make anyone who likes it (IE: Me) feel bad, and I'm always less inclined to defend it. I mean, it's clear nothing I say is going to make any difference, so why be involved in the conversation and look like an idiot to them?…
I used to be like that with alot of things(regrettably so), until someone once told me that you should never really identify yourself with a thing or person you like. Those words actually changed how I approached differing opinions on boards. If you are going to jump in the middle of people criticizing a video game to play the role of "wronged victim that should feel bad for actually disagreeing and actually likes the game", then the subject is no longer about the game you like anymore.
It's sorta like people that bring up pointless factors in the middle of a debate, like "this game's content is great because it sold a billion copies". Because well… you are talking about the people buying it and other possible factors that lead to a game's success... rather than just what the product is, and what people think about it.
So yeah. Relax.
-
Groose should've been in Hyrule Warriors over Fi.
There, I said what we're all thinking.
-
@Cyan:
Groose should've been in Hyrule Warriors over Fi.
There, I said what we're all thinking.
You're the hero this thread needs, not the one it deserves
-
So after reading people's opinions of Fi i want to propose a question. Hypothetically, if Nintendo remade skyward sword in HD on their next console but kept and improved on the motion-controls, as the majority of the game is based around it like enemy design and the puzzles, however they added more side-quests and, more importantly, decreased the frequency that Fi appeared in gameplay leaving it only for crucial plot elements and if asked to appear like with previous partners would Skyward Sword be liked more by people and would Fi be more liked by everyone.
More liked is a useless question. You're bad with these measurement type questions. Yes it would be an improvement.
You mean would we LIKE it.
I wouldn't. I still think the plot was an aimless bore. I still think the graphics look incredibly washed out and poor for the most part. And the overall game world is still empty and built in a Mario 64 esque manner rather than a Zelda like manner.
Adding more sidequests on top of the old thing isn't going to add immersion to stuff unless they redesign entire areas.
Adding connections between the three ground areas you can find would help as well, but that still wouldn't save things without a redesign.
After all Metroid Prime 3 didn't have connected regions…and in spite of the light damage that did to the experience it was still perfectly enjoyable (and Elysia was incredible)Also the game had an INSANE amount of reheated material. Like to the point of it being kind of funny.
They made you interact with the same exact environment over and over again with at best minor tweaks that didn't amount to much.
That the areas were bland to begin with just makes it all the worse that they so lazily reused them so much.
Lanayru stands out majorly in the game. You know why? Because they actually gave you relatively fresh new stuff to explore most times you backtracked.
While Eldin sucked a huge dong.Because you definition of what the 'main' series titles are consist of console games made by Nintendo in house which four swords adventure is.
Four Swords is a Zelda game in terms of franchise, it's absolutely NOT a Zelda game in the design sense. So much so that it doesn't even have to be said. You should have known it didn't count without being told.
Also unlike other spin-offs like crossbow training and Hyrule Warrios, Four Swords Adventure has: 'The Legend of Zelda in the title.
Unlike other spinoffs exploring different types of gameplay using the Zelda franchise nothing. That's exactly what Four Swords is.
If we are getting technical here Zelda II has less of the Zelda Style structurally the Four Swords Adventures.
It actually doesn't given you still have overworld/dungeon play in the free roaming sense.
The other things are more radical, but exceptions are made for awkward confused early titles like that. Not an insanely obviously not main style title like Four Swords.The latter plays like a top-down Zelda and uses items to solve puzzles but has an added multiplayer element and a linear structure.
And the fact that it has literal stages. Which is far more non-Zelda than sidescrolling dungeons and towns.
You considered Zelda II a main series Zelda game yet it is drastically different than Four Swords Adventures.
I see that you're still ignoring the entire comment about you missing the theme of main stage games btw. Which Four Swords completely is disqualified for, and which is the point of what we're arguing here.
Ok i see your point but here is a counter. When you say a "Main Zelda style game for SNES" you must be referring to a Link to the Past which has a top down perspective, Dungeons and Puzzles, items and a story and you consider this a main Zelda game. Yet Minish Cap, which contains all of the elements of a link to the past but is on a handheld, is not a main zelda game.
I see that you're still ignoring the entire comment about you missing the theme of main stage games btw. Which Four Swords completely is disqualified for, and which is the point of what we're arguing here.
In 1991 LTTP was a blockbuster huge budget moment, in 2004 Minish Cap was a cute little side game. If it had been released in 1991 it would have been a massive deal.
But the point remains that resource, prestige and point wise Minish Cap is not a main title by any definition. To compare it to Skyward Sword in terms of sales is dumb.Your description defines that only the big, important Zelda games were on the console and that Nintendo were not bothered about the handhelds which is why Capcom did them.
Nintendo is less bothered. This is fact.
And if that is not enough Miyamoto expressed massive interest after Ocarina of Time 3D for the next Main Zelda title after Skyward Sword to be a sequel to A link to the past. He got his wish and we got a Link Between Worlds but not on the Wii U, on the 3DS.
It sounds like one brainstorm session idea worked it's way down into a less central place. Not that Miyamoto has sweated the entire company to make A Link Between World.
Saying that less time goes into the handhelds because they expect less sales is completely inaccurate (especially in Nintendo's case where their handheld consoles have always sold better than the home console that they released at the same time).
The console sales are irrelevant. We're talking the games. You're either really dense, or being purposely argumentative if you can't wrap your head around the idea that none of the handheld Zelda's have received the treatment a main console one does.
Nintendo do not half-heartedly make any main Zelda title because they know that the fan-base would go mad over it, they aim to put in 100% and sometimes it shows and other times not as much.
Well shit bro, I can't really argue against someone this naive. Yes yes every effort and bit of budget goes into every Nintendo game because they are afraid of displeasing some people. Yes this sounds like the reality of the entertainment business. All negative things are still 100% passionate effort products. What a world you live in.
As i have stated above (and especially in Hyrule Warriors case) it isnot put under the 'Legend of Zelda banner
Who the fuck cares. What does that have to do with anything.
that four swords has and Nintendo have constantly stated that it is NOT a main series title.
I'm glad you needed them to inform you that a Dynasty Warriors spin off with Zelda characters was not in fact a Zelda style game.
I have no choice in this regard because i do not work for Nintendo and unless they come out with why Fi was included we won't know if i'm right or not.
Oh we do know that it's a worthless assertion that proves nothing and thus does not support your claim, making your claim continue to be groundless.
However i have not just said something without justification but used observation
As amply proven in the above discussions you do not in fact possess observation skills.
and what has been stated by the developer.
What has been stated by the developer.
I cannot say 100% that popularity decided on Fi but it is certain that popularity affected the choice of characters
Is it?
He mentions it was just one of the types of things they used to decide, then immediately goes on to detail other sorts of things like staff meetings deciding.
This is a conversation on fairy partners, not just fairies in general. It is also incredibly trivial because Ciela is there which still proves my point that there are more fairy partners than Tatl and Navi.
No one cares about the spinoff series thing. We're talking about the dungeon/overworld adventure exploration games and the gameplay function in them of having a partner.
EDIT: LOL I completely forgot there even was a fairy in PH. Seriously, the buddy in that game is Linebeck. He runs your boat like the King of Red Lions in Steve Buscemi form. Wasn't that fairy just a motion control cursor who they gave lines to in cutscenes lol.
I would disagree with this. I actually think Ocarina of Time has the most blandest art
"Art" being what. It's objectively more rich in colors which was my main problem with the Skward Sword look.
Zelda as the reincarnated goddess must work to seal away a great evil that almost destroyed the world years ago.
Wrong. That's not what was going on. Demise was already sealed. Zelda had to stay put in order to maintain it, even though Demise is constantly almost waking up anyway. Zelda froze herself or whatever to give Link time to figure out how to stop Demise.
Stopping Demise apparently did not involve an ancient power, an ancient weapon, or some sort of great secret such as that.It involved dropping a big building on his head.
Meanwhile so Zelda hold the power keeping his ass sealed (even though he keeps breaking free anyway to kill her).
But Girahim wants to use her to open him up completely. So he chases her around as the descendent of the ancient sage, but actually Zelda is the descendent of the ancient sage…from the past too or whatever since she went back in time to do her job rather than the present...so the time loop shouldn't even exist in the first place...since without the timeline involving Zelda going back to keep Demise sealed...he would have gotten out and Zelda would have never been born... why was time travel even necessary to have in this game when nothing else aside from the time crystals has anything to do with it?Also 80% of this is revealed to you really late in the game. And aside from dropping a building on Demise's head and smacking him back asleep when he wakes up anyway in stupid toe monster form...you play extremely little role in the plot.
The plot progression works more like...
-Chase Zelda fruitlessly through three dungeons
-make sword stronger
-learn what's going on since no one told you anything really late in the gameVirtually 2/3 of the game is you setting up to be a hero rather than being the main driver of the plot. Not that the plot going on beyond you makes a ton of sense without being convoluted as hell.
Her best friend Link is trying to find an alternative way of defeating this great evil because Zelda's way will ultimately end in him losing her forever.
Zelda's way will ultimately involve a time loop that makes zero sense, and dosn't even really work since Demise keeps half waking up to go kill her while she sleeps. Which apparently never ever happened prior to the start of the game even though centuries have passed down there.
Link's way is dropping a building on a magic monster's head which somehow kills him forever.
Zelda and Link's relationship is brilliant;
It's vanilla as hell lol.
-
Hey guys remember that time Ezlo was a worse partner and is less popular to Fi because his game didn't sell as well?
-
@Cyan:
Groose should've been in Hyrule Warriors over Fi.
There, I said what we're all thinking.
The fact that Agitha is in the game means that anyone and anything should be in Hyrule Warriors. Beedle should be playable in Hyrule warriors, frickin Oocoo and Oocoo Jr should be playble in Hyrule warriors.
-
The official website is up.
-
@Purple:
Describe Fi's character without mentioning anything she does or any scenes she is in.
A mysterious entity with a robotic voice who is determined to fulfill the role given to her by her master. While eventually devoid of feelings by the end of the game she begins to understand people and human emotion more (it is implied that she has no interaction with people prior to skyward sword).
I mean I'm sure my toaster is loyal and robotic but I'm not going to praise its personality as "one of the best" partners and/or appliances I have.
I am not saying she is one of the 'best partners' just that i like her.
Seriously dude? This is like saying that Pirate Warriors is canon for One Piece stuff when Hyrule Warriors is just an aggregation of the series favorites.
I think you miss the point? I have said Hyrule Warriors is not a main game. If you refer to how mean how the game made me like Fi more well then bringing it back to Pirate Warriors that game does not have any of the characters breaking their character (i have not played the 2nd one, i know it has people turning evil or something but there is context for a change there). So Fi in Hyrule Warriors should still have the character that she has in skyward sword, which she does, and she can express her character without the game forcing her to say asinine comments to the player.
i know this kind of means the game is only showing the good part of her personality in skyward sword and not the negative but i can't help that.
It still has the core Zelda structure even if style is different, and more importantly it is not a party multiplayer game where you collect rupees.
My main point for the whole Four Swords argument was about what makes the other console games 'the main games' and not the handhelds because it is obviously not the platform otherwise Four Swords Adventures would be considered a 'main game', which it is not.
Ciela does not prove your point when PH itself is an incredibly mundane game in and of itself. And the best part is that even then, Ciela still has more character than Fi.
I do not think you know what my point was? I listed Fi as being above the fairies for me which i was then told that there was only 2 so it is not special. I replied to that by saying that there were more than 2 fairies citing Proxi and Ciela and was then told Proxi did not count because she is from a spin-off. But Ciela counts as a partner no matter how mundane PH was because it is not from a spin-off game meaning there are more than 2 fairy partners so i was right.
I personally do not remember anything about Ciela which is why she is at the bottom. I want to say she is like Navi, who is just a glowing fact machine, but i honestly do not remember possibly because Linebeck was much better in that game as the partner and greatly over-shadowed her.
It literally boils down to:
Link's "really good friend" Zelda gets kidnapped and so he must go to the underworld to rescue her.
Zelda does not get kidnapped until the end though. They try to kidnap her throughout the game but with the help of impa she escapes up until the penultimate moment.
I also don't recall Demise almost destroying the world years ago. More of the usual evil conqueror thing that ganon already does (and has done…!!). And "Zelda's way will ultimately end in him losing her forever?" First, that sounds like a soap opera. Second, that isn't really true? Unless you're tlaking about when she crystalizes herself to seal off Demise longer, but that's not really her "way". Either option, just a usual super lady saving deal.
Demise destroys their world by taking it over i guess. I mean fine he's a conquerer but he is still an ultimate evil that they try to seal away and he is the reason for Hylia giving up her immortal powers and sending the Hylians into the sky.
And it is zelda's way of dealing with it, not her Ideal way obviously but she accepts this way because she cannot think of a different one although Link eventually does.
Plot twists a good plot does not one make. Like that's a big problem with your analysis here is that you think we care about having some big twist, but it's just the fundamental bearings of the actual plot that really matter.
Groose is great and Ghirahim serves his role as an asshole but none of the characterization you listed is really substantial in any regard. Zelda does get more depth than most outings, but I feel she didn't have enough breathing room to establish your relationship with her to say "damn straight I'm losing my best friend here!" Could have been designed into Skyloft with small things here and there to give room or something. Impa is pretty much in the same boat. Like that's why when I look back on the game, when it comes to those two characters I think "Gee, the emotional moments with those two sure were incredibly forced."
I'm gonna use this video from Yungtown for the relationship with Zelda and Link in that game.
!
As for Link and Fi the relationship is there but it is gradual, having moments here and there but about as much as most later partners sans Midna who i believe gets a lot.
Impa does have character development, more than she gets in other games, but it is not that big. Her relationship with the two, mainly Zelda may seemed forced because most of it happens off-screen. The game implies it is there but we don't see it except for moments. For Link and Impa we do see the interaction and relation early on and i do not think that it is forced at all but it is just not very big.
You have to see, i am seeing good characterization from a Zelda stand-point. None of the characters, not even groose, gets developments as much as say a fire emblem or final fantasy character but in terms of Zelda games apart from Zelda in some games, Ganondorf in wind waker and Midna i do not think many other characters get any kind of development what-so ever (i'm excluding majora's mask because the a majority of the game is designed around the characters unlike most other Zelda games).
-
I can't even remember the plot in SS. It barely sounds familiar now that I'm hearing it described. It was impressively hard to give a shit, despite being excited for the prospect of a scene-setting Zelda game. I was really looking forward to these juicy details that were supposed to tie together to some extent all of these different stories across several different timelines. All we got s that Ganon is actually some other dude and that the magic sword is imbued with the power of BonziBuddy. The beginning of the game raises all these interesting questions of the lost civilization that it just flat out ignores (or even contradicts), instead focusing on a story that only manages to raise the exact same questions that it's supposed to answer.
Speaking of: it's a sin that the origin story has a fucking origin story. You can say that the game is the start of Ganon, but it really isn't since Demise was around way before and where did he come from? Fuck, we don't even get the origin of the Master Sword that we were promised. We get to see the Goddess Sword turn into the Master Sword, but where did the Goddess Sword come from? The story of Demise's existence, his battle with Hylia and the birth of the Goddess Sword: that's the origin story!
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
A mysterious entity with a robotic voice who is determined to fulfill the role given to her by her master. While eventually devoid of feelings by the end of the game she begins to understand people and human emotion more (it is implied that she has no interaction with people prior to skyward sword).
"Goodbye" is not an emotion. When does she actually show even one emotion? Seriously, I'm asking. I honestly can't remember anything that would suggest Fi was a character, besides having a humanoid shape and a voice (which makes her just as sentient as a Tickle Me Elmo doll).
-
A mysterious entity with a robotic voice who is determined to fulfill the role given to her by her master.
without storyline role events. Mysterious entity is not a personality trait. Robotic voice is not a personality trait. And describing her as determined is a stretch when she's literally programmed to do it and shows no determination otherwise.
While eventually devoid of feelings by the end of the game she begins to understand people and human emotion more (it is implied that she has no interaction with people prior to skyward sword).
There is literally nothing in the story that backs it up other than the very last scene which seems like it was shoehorned in to force an emphatic response.
I am not saying she is one of the 'best partners' just that i like her.
Well, NOW you aren't, but when you say she's "on par with KoRL" and comparable to midna and better than the fairies that's pretty much saying "she is one of the best partners"
I think you miss the point?
Point being that HW is a spinoff game where they just bring in a bunch of people from different games and shove them in. Why should I give any credence to HW to broadcast a character as likeable or not, especially in the context of "is he or she likable in her original game?"
My main point for the whole Four Swords argument was about what makes the other console games 'the main games' and not the handhelds because it is obviously not the platform otherwise Four Swords Adventures would be considered a 'main game', which it is not.
I think you're missing your own points lol. Zeph's definitely talking in the context of main big marketing titles, of which FSA and MC definitely don't fall underneath it. Especially because Zelda II was a big release while FSA 1) deviates from structure. A lot. and 2) Definitely isn't something Nintendo markets as the big zelda release of the generation.
I do not think you know what my point was?
You can keep insisting that but your arguments aren't coherent either.
so i was right.
Lol that's not how it works buddy. Just because PH was mundane doesn't make Ciela (or arguably Linebeck as the legit partner in a similar fashion to KoRL) worse characters than Fi.
I personally do not remember anything about Ciela which is why she is at the bottom. I want to say she is like Navi, who is just a glowing fact machine, but i honestly do not remember possibly because Linebeck was much better in that game as the partner and greatly over-shadowed her.
Linebeck is definitely more of a partner than Ciela, but even then, just talking pure characterization, Ciela still has more than Fi, who has zero. When Ciela, if memory serves, actually interacted and had moments of characterization with linebeck, versus Fi, whose characterization purely consists of "Master you must go to here and here for the macguffins!", then anything Ciela gets is going to be greater than zero.
Zelda does not get kidnapped until the end though. They try to kidnap her throughout the game but with the help of impa she escapes up until the penultimate moment.
She essentially gets kidnapped. The point being is that it's a "you must go to rescue the princess!" sort of plot. It's just a semantic difference.
Demise destroys their world by taking it over i guess.
Then ganondorf destroys the world multiple times. Nothing remarkable.
I mean fine he's a conquerer but he is still an ultimate evil that they try to seal away and he is the reason for Hylia giving up her immortal powers and sending the Hylians into the sky.
So is Ganondorf and ganon.
And it is zelda's way of dealing with it, not her Ideal way obviously but she accepts this way because she cannot think of a different one although Link eventually does.
I don't really get what you're getting at. Zelda does this in pretty much all of her games.
Becomes mystery ninja to help out her pal Link
Goes along with the King's plan because if Ganon gets her then the great sea is eff'd.
Surrenders else face further annihilation by the twili. Plus even gives up herself up to help out Midna.And none of these are "ideal ways". The big difference in Skyward Sword, and especially why it's a big problem with characterization compared to the other scenarios is that Zelda gets more on screen time with Link in the beginning because they're attempting to build her up as someone close to you, but nothing otherwise really fleshes her out, which makes the last leg of the game feel really forced.
I'm gonna use this video from Yungtown for the relationship with Zelda and Link in that game.
!
I'm gonna say it straight. If Link and Zelda's relationship in SS is something you found really compelling, then you really need to branch out and see that the video's really just grasping for straws to say that Zelda and Link have a serious, well defined relationship here. The game is basically telling you "Here is your love interest! Go save her" rather than really showing what Zelda means to Link and vice versa.
As for Link and Fi the relationship is there but it is gradual, having moments here and there but about as much as most later partners sans Midna who i believe gets a lot.
By gradual you mean slower than a slug's pace, right? Because other than "greeting's master" and "good bye master" there were never any actual events that flesh anything more. And I'm not talking even a nuanced approach. There is nothing that Fi gets in terms of development.
The most fi gets is the helper bot that's hugely infatuated with her, but she doesn't even bat an eye really. And you say that Fi eventually becomes more human?
Impa does have character development, more than she gets in other games, but it is not that big. Her relationship with the two, mainly Zelda may seemed forced because most of it happens off-screen. The game implies it is there but we don't see it except for moments. For Link and Impa we do see the interaction and relation early on and i do not think that it is forced at all but it is just not very big.
Impa gets reasonably the same amount of development as in OoT. There isn't much to comment on besides "She is loyal, fierce, and reliable." Granted, she didn't have great characterization in other games, but when you're lauding SS as having better characterization, it's not really helping your argument.
You have to see, i am seeing good characterization from a Zelda stand-point.
Even then, it's terrible characterization from a Zelda stand point. When Groose is in the game, you already have a good metric for someone with sufficient characterization!
None of the characters, not even groose, gets developments as much as say a fire emblem or final fantasy character
These are your metrics for good character development? Lollllllllll
but in terms of Zelda games apart from Zelda in some games, Ganondorf in wind waker and Midna i do not think many other characters get any kind of development what-so ever (i'm excluding majora's mask because the a majority of the game is designed around the characters unlike most other Zelda games).
That doesn't change that the characterization is still godawful. Even if there is "more scenes", the actual characterization is still hectic and jumpy, and worst, it takes place only at the beginning and the end of the games which means you don't learn about characters as you progress through the story.
-
@Monkey:
More liked is a useless question. You're bad with these measurement type questions. Yes it would be an improvement.
You mean would we LIKE it.Wow dude no need to be mean about it. Remember I like skyward sword as do some other people here so for me it is more liked. If it suits you better then fine it can be more liked/less hated
Four Swords is a Zelda game in terms of franchise, it's absolutely NOT a Zelda game in the design sense. So much so that it doesn't even have to be said. You should have known it didn't count without being told.
I know it doesn't count but your missing the point. I wanted you to define clearly what you thought equaled a Zelda game.
I see that you're still ignoring the entire comment about you missing the theme of main stage games btw. Which Four Swords completely is disqualified for, and which is the point of what we're arguing here.
Well the explain to me what constitutes for the 'main stage games'. It is evidently not because it was on a console. Is it budget? Because it is obvious that the console version wouldget a higher budget because it needs one, a console is a more powerful system than a handheld and has more power. Is it priority? Because it seems apparent that Nintendo prioritizes both the handheld and console games as they make both at the same time. Production of A link between worlds did not stop because of Zelda Wii U and vice versa. As for back in the past nintendo showed with Link's awakening that they are more than happy to make handheld Zelda's, a big part of them not is because Capcom wanted to. Remember the only game nintendo asked Capcom to make was a link to the past on game boy. Capcom asked to do the others which of course nintendo would accept because then they do not have to make two games at once like they do now. The question is whether they would let a third party make one for the consoles which we have not seen yet but we do not know if the offer has been their either (at least i do no know).
Nintendo is less bothered. This is fact.
Source?
The console sales are irrelevant. We're talking the games. You're either really dense, or being purposely argumentative if you can't wrap your head around the idea that none of the handheld Zelda's have received the treatment a main console one does.
Now your the one who seems to be naive. Nintendo is a company so of course Nintendo will prioritize on sales and so of course they will put a lot of effort into making the games for their best selling system. The only way this reverses is when a situation like the Wii U appears where they know the 3DS will do fine now but the Wii U is struggling so an extra large amount of effort needs to make Zelda Wii U perfect in order to try and boost sales. But the situation for a console has never been this dire, the gamecube did not sell as well as competitors but was not in a state of panic as the wii u seems to be. What you seem to be saying is that Scope and Hype are not the same for a handheld as they are for a console which i agree (the latter is subjective depending how the game looks i guess). This is a limitation of the system it is on however, a massive open-world like we see in Zelda Wii U is not going to happen on the 3DS, it is not possible not even on the New 3DS. But that does not mean A link between worlds did not receive the same kind of attention and love in relation to it's size/scope as this Zelda Wii U is. The game is filled with character and easter eggs and other little details that to it's charm.
Well shit bro, I can't really argue against someone this naive. Yes yes every effort and bit of budget goes into every Nintendo game because they are afraid of displeasing some people. Yes this sounds like the reality of the entertainment business. All negative things are still 100% passionate effort products. What a world you live in.
Did i say that last remark? No. Did i say every developer was like this? Hell no. I see Nintendo as being a developer where they people like what they do and are passionate about the games they work on. Not everyone is going to be 100% passionate about a game of course but it is an image they give off. I would much rather remain positive about a game and the developers when i'm looking forward to it than be incredibly cynical about everything it has and thinking of it as just numbers and business. Like Splatoon for instance. That game screams personality and looks amazing. I'm sure a lot of effort went into it and that they enjoyed making it rather than just sitting there, following orders with no real motivation to make something.
I'm glad you needed them to inform you that a Dynasty Warriors spin off with Zelda characters was not in fact a Zelda style game.
You really did not understand the point there did you?
As amply proven in the above discussions you do not in fact possess observation skills.
Getting really mean here mate. I'm not blinded by rage at a video game and so i can try and make assertions. It is a theory of mine. If i had used that word earlier would it have made it better? In an argument you need to provide counters with some kind of base and not just say 'you are wrong because it is not my opinion'. I showed that popularity was at least a factor and even admitted that Fi may not be in because of just popularity, it could have easily been her importance. And while there is not an official popularity poll on Zelda characters i have observed that some people do like Fi. I am not alone on this. Unlike tingle who has a more outspoken hatred of him in the west, peoples opinion on Fi is mixed.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Purple:
without storyline role events. Mysterious entity is not a personality trait. Robotic voice is not a personality trait. And describing her as determined is a stretch when she's literally programmed to do it and shows no determination otherwise.
I'll give you that it was hard but i was not sure i could do it with any character other than just saying one word answers which i guess would be 'robotic' for Fi.
Well, NOW you aren't, but when you say she's "on par with KoRL" and comparable to midna and better than the fairies that's pretty much saying "she is one of the best partners"
Actually i said:
@black-leg:her robotic personality may not be as interesting as Midna's personality she still has more character in her than any of the fairies. I would've put her on par with the King of Red Lions had he not turned out to be the conflicted and troubled ruler that he was (which is why he is the best partner for me).
I said that she was only on par had the king remained a ship and not had all the depth they gave him in the second half. I also only compared her to midna in that they were both in hyrule warriors, i even say midna is better. Also just so it's on record i actually forgot all about Ezlo, Linebeck and spirit track Zelda when i wrote this. Probably as they have not been very relevant recently.
Point being that HW is a spinoff game where they just bring in a bunch of people from different games and shove them in. Why should I give any credence to HW to broadcast a character as likeable or not, especially in the context of "is he or she likable in her original game?"
Well it was like i said. The game brings the characters in but doesn't change their personality, or at least it shouldn't and from what i have seen it has not (with maybe the exception of impa however the impa in this game is not the same as in any other zelda, new incarnation and all).
I think you're missing your own points lol. Zeph's definitely talking in the context of main big marketing titles, of which FSA and MC definitely don't fall underneath it. Especially because Zelda II was a big release while FSA 1) deviates from structure. A lot. and 2) Definitely isn't something Nintendo markets as the big zelda release of the generation.
Well yeah i mean for FSA i myself don't see it as a big budget zelda i was just asking Zeph for a clearer definition on what HE meant by a big budget title because, for me at least, any of the zelda games that are trying to be proper zelda games are intended to be big titles and minish cap is one of them. It's only because it's developed by Capcom that i've seen the argument for the otherwise. I think it's also for me arguing that his implication of what a big title is does not include a link between worlds which i personally think is a big zelda title.
You can keep insisting that but your arguments aren't coherent either.
Lol that's not how it works buddy. Just because PH was mundane doesn't make Ciela (or arguably Linebeck as the legit partner in a similar fashion to KoRL) worse characters than Fi.
Apparently that really is the case because you still don't get it. For me Ciela is incredibly forgettable which is why she is my least favorite partner and thus below fi. The same can kind of be said for Navi as she had practically no personality. Tat,l i have said, is very close to Fi for me and may very well surpass Fi when i play Majora's Mask next month but at the moment her actual moments in majora's mask were not as impactful as Fi's to me.
And as i said before the point in this line of inquiry anyway was that there is more than 2 fairy partners like i said and Zeph said there was not as Proxi and Ciela don't count as partners. He later admitted he forgot about Ciela entirely which is why he thought that.
Linebeck is definitely more of a partner than Ciela, but even then, just talking pure characterization, Ciela still has more than Fi, who has zero. When Ciela, if memory serves, actually interacted and had moments of characterization with linebeck, versus Fi, whose characterization purely consists of "Master you must go to here and here for the macguffins!", then anything Ciela gets is going to be greater than zero.
Lineback is definitley a better partner than both Ciela and Fi. But for me Ciela is incredibly forgetful as a character where as Fi is not and as stated i like Fi which is why i rank her higher. If you don't like Fi the nof course you rank Ciela higher and that is fine.
She essentially gets kidnapped. The point being is that it's a "you must go to rescue the princess!" sort of plot. It's just a semantic difference.
Well yes but essentially this is the plot of every Zelda game that Zelda has a key role in: Zelda I, II, Link to the Past, Ocarina of time, Ages/Seasons combined, Minish Cap, Wind Waker, Phantom hourglass, Twilight Princess, spirit tracks, A link between Worlds and Skyward Sword).
Then ganondorf destroys the world multiple times. Nothing remarkable.
Did not say it was.
So is Ganondorf and ganon.
I don't really get what you're getting at. Zelda does this in pretty much all of her games.
And those are Zelda games that also have a good story. I'm not saying everything in Skyward Sword is original because it's not. But as pointed out the story of Skyward Sword has a lot of similarities to all the other main Zelda Stories yet people do not like Skyward swords story but do like all the others so the question is why? For me, i liked skyward swords story because of it's focus on lore and attempt to explain the foundation of Hyrule and origin of recurring themes. I also think that characters are more fleshed out in this game like Zelda and impa compared to other games.
And none of these are "ideal ways". The big difference in Skyward Sword, and especially why it's a big problem with characterization compared to the other scenarios is that Zelda gets more on screen time with Link in the beginning because they're attempting to build her up as someone close to you, but nothing otherwise really fleshes her out, which makes the last leg of the game feel really forced.
Again this is nothing new, the same thing happened in wind waker except Zelda gets slightly less say. But while in that game it is just decided for her, in skyward sword she has no choice at the time because the seal is weakening.
I'm not sayinf Skyward Sword is some amazing story. I'm comparing this to the other Zelda titles which all have basically the same story. Evidentally the ones that don't follow this route often have the best stories (majora's mask and links awakening) but as far as telling the same story again i think skyward sword does it well.
By gradual you mean slower than a slug's pace, right? Because other than "greeting's master" and "good bye master" there were never any actual events that flesh anything more. And I'm not talking even a nuanced approach. There is nothing that Fi gets in terms of development.
The most fi gets is the helper bot that's hugely infatuated with her, but she doesn't even bat an eye really. And you say that Fi eventually becomes more human?
I'll come out and honestly say it's been a while. I remember being sad when Fi had to leave and that does not normally happen to me in games so at some point i had a connection to Fi. I don't know when and without replaying it i won't know so i'm afraid that i cannot give any concrete details on when.
Impa gets reasonably the same amount of development as in OoT. There isn't much to comment on besides "She is loyal, fierce, and reliable." Granted, she didn't have great characterization in other games, but when you're lauding SS as having better characterization, it's not really helping your argument.
I think your overexaggerating my praise here. Again i'm comparing this by Zelda standards to which skyward sword does have more characterization of it's central leads than the other games. Some are very close like wind waker but a lot of them, ocarina being a key example, don't flesh out many of it's main characters. And i disagree on the impa stance in that she gets no development in OoT. She is the loyal retainer and that's it but at least in Skyward Sword and with Link she goes from being just a loyal retainer who is overprotective of Zelda to the point that she bashes link and refuses to acknowledge him but then eventually opens up to him and seems to care more about Zelda after their travels, arguably more-so than just a retainer. Like i said the zelda stuff might seem forced but that's because it's all off-screen.
These are your metrics for good character development? Lollllllllll
Those are just examples. The point is that Zelda games are not designed to be plot heavy so characterization often happens rarely unlike those two games. I guess if we are talking about games with outstanding characterization i would say bioshock infinite is a good candidate instead.
That doesn't change that the characterization is still godawful. Even if there is "more scenes", the actual characterization is still hectic and jumpy, and worst, it takes place only at the beginning and the end of the games which means you don't learn about characters as you progress through the story.
This is true but again, this is not uncommon in Zelda games.
Anyway it's midnight so i'm going to bed. I will reply tomorrow to the next comments. Night.
-
Wow dude no need to be mean about it. Remember I like skyward sword as do some other people here so for me it is more liked. If it suits you better then fine it can be more liked/less hated
When it seems like your purposely making things as obtuse as possible as to cloud the argument yeah I might get a little mean.
I wonder just how much of the below will involve being "unable" to understand the concept of a company putting certain products as their showcase above others, sinking treasure and time into them more than average. And when one such thing's sales are markedly low this is a Big Deal.I know it doesn't count but your missing the point. I wanted you to define clearly what you thought equaled a Zelda game.
Why?
Well the explain to me what constitutes for the 'main stage games'. It is evidently not blah blah blah
Honestly are you pulling my leg are you pulling my leg, because this is an idea even a kid can grasp. I'm exhausted of explaining it to you every angle I can think of, at this point I think you're just partaking in spiteful devil's advocacy/and.or/ninja smoke bomb stuff.
Because it seems apparent that Nintendo prioritizes both the handheld and console games as they make both at the same time.
Ok out of the "NOTGETTINGIT.TXT" I had to grab this gem. That's a great self defeating line right there.
They prioritize both, by doing them at the same time.
They prioritize both games, by making both games at the same time.Source?
Have you not ever lived through the pre-release publicity of any of these things lol. Game magazines, tv ads, online stuff, showcase articles, volume of previews? You never ever saw any of that?
How about who gets to helm them? I already pointed out the Capcom thing which you're bizarre attempts at hand waving…didn't change the fact that a third party developer made THREE of the handheld games. This isn't like Rare being allowed to develop a minor figure into something bigger (Donkey Kong Country) or Retro with Metroid Prime as Retro is a sub-division of Nintendo America.
Here's the incredible back work of the guy they let helm Link Between Worlds. No offense to the guy, obviously he did good work, but not as a big deal dude.
Incidentally only after being allowed to helm many of those handheld games did the Skyward Sword director get to direct a main stage thing.Now your the one who seems to be naive. Nintendo is a company so of course Nintendo will prioritize on sales and so of course they will put a lot of effort into making the games for their best selling system.
Comparing the systems based on sales is nonsense. For starters Nintendo has no real competition in the handheld market, and indeed never ever has since the original Game Boy came out. They have always dominated and in some cases dominated almost to a cartoonish extent.
Secondly by nature of the system they don't have to try as hard due to basic expectations. People expect simpler quicker more pickup style games from the handhelds. People are not expecting the next lifechanging gaming epic from the handhelds like they have from the main stage ever since at least Ocarina came out. Expectations are naturally lower and people will generally be more satisfied with just a good nice little game.
Thirdly read that again "simpler quicker more pickup" implies to us that the audience of the handhelds is more casual by a longshot.
FOURTHLY, the hendheld systems selling more than the big ones doesn't mean that every individual game is selling better than their main console counterparts.I dare you to pose the question to anyone here that they hold a new handheld release with the same gravitas and expectations that they do the next console release of a Zelda game. I'm still not sure if you're completely feigning ignorance of this absurdly obvious thing that has been the case since there has been a Game Boy, mostly because no one would actually doubt this lol.
But the situation for a console has never been this dire, the gamecube did not sell as well as competitors but was not in a state of panic as the wii u seems to be. What you seem to be saying is that Scope and Hype are not the same for a handheld as they are for a console which i agree (the latter is subjective depending how the game looks i guess). This is a limitation of the system it is on however, a massive open-world like we see in Zelda Wii U is not going to happen on the 3DS, it is not possible not even on the New 3DS. But that does not mean A link between worlds did not receive the same kind of attention and love in relation to it's size/scope as this Zelda Wii U is.
No it exactly means it received less attention. You pretty much just said that.
As for love, do you really think the best Zelda ideas floating around the boardroom are going to be put in the Handheld box?The game is filled with character and easter eggs and other little details that to it's charm.
And now we're pretending I said Nintendo shits out handhelds and stomps on them I guess?
Did i say that last remark? No. Did i say every developer was like this? Hell no. I see Nintendo as being a developer where they people like what they do and are passionate about the games they work on.
That has the sort of business choices that rush out games ahead of when they should resulting in issues for a bunch of recent games.
You really did not understand the point there did you?
The point was some really dumb thing about the "LEGEND OF ZELDA" being above a game title meaning something.
Getting really mean here mate. I'm not blinded by rage at a video game and so i can try and make assertions. It is a theory of mine. If i had used that word earlier would it have made it better? In an argument you need to provide counters with some kind of base and not just say 'you are wrong because it is not my opinion'. I showed that popularity was at least a factor and even admitted that Fi may not be in because of just popularity, it could have easily been her importance. And while there is not an official popularity poll on Zelda characters i have observed that some people do like Fi. I am not alone on this. Unlike tingle who has a more outspoken hatred of him in the west, peoples opinion on Fi is mixed.
lol I rest my case.
Tingle is hated and I saw a couple guys who liked Fi so she's popular.
Hint: Tingle isn't hated, people are creeped out by him BECAUSE THAT IS THE POINT OF THE CHARACTER LOL. He's a comedic wierdo that people look forward to being skeeved by. He's a fat little fairy fanboy in tight leotards who flies around with balloons and dances effeminately. Did you think this was a character designed for the glory of hard fan followings?Also POOF goes your attempts to argue the plot was good I guess.
-
I'll give you that it was hard but i was not sure i could do it with any character other than just saying one word answers which i guess would be 'robotic' for Fi.
Here's the other characters in SS in half a minute or less:
Zelda:
-Sweet
-Caring
-Arguably charming for the first part of the gameImpa:
-Strict
-Cautious
-DevoutGroose:
- Pompous
- egotistical
- attention-seeking
Ghirahim:
- Devious
- arrogant
- unnerving
For most characters in Zelda, the traits you can describe aren't that many, but there are. And it tends to suffice to make you feel a connection for the characters. For Fi, there are none. She's essentially as blank slate as link is.
Actually i said:
Semantics. But all you've already listed most of the partners in the game right off the bat there. Even saying Fi is better characterized with personality compared to
The first fairy friend who, while not having the most in depth direction, actually has outbursts and moments of personality
The foil to Linebeck who gets defined, likewise to the aforementioned, with little direction, but still interacts with the cast from time to time
TatlAll of which is still more than Fi basically acting as a voice assistant to Link in the game. "Master we must go to X!" is no better than a nameless NPC in older RPG games.
Now, if Fi had done something like start off incredibly stiff at the beginning and transitioned bit by bit in her dialogue by doing something like "Master, I'm feeling really scared, but I know we can do this!" when fighting Demise, then that'd be something worth remarking. But it isn't. It stays stiff the whole ride through til she says bye bye bye.
Well it was like i said. The game brings the characters in but doesn't change their personality, or at least it shouldn't and from what i have seen it has not (with maybe the exception of impa however the impa in this game is not the same as in any other zelda, new incarnation and all).
It's still basically fan fic writing. The fact that Fi has a likeable personality is surprising to me because I was surprised that Fi had any personality at all!.
Well yeah i mean for FSA i myself don't see it as a big budget zelda i was just asking Zeph for a clearer definition on what HE meant by a big budget title because, for me at least, any of the zelda games that are trying to be proper zelda games are intended to be big titles and minish cap is one of them. It's only because it's developed by Capcom that i've seen the argument for the otherwise. I think it's also for me arguing that his implication of what a big title is does not include a link between worlds which i personally think is a big zelda title.
It's pretty clear that it's not because it's by Capcom. He's talking like huge releases that get released. When you're arguing popularity based on sales metrics. Console Zelda releases get way more marketing and exposure and should, by all means, be able to outperform their handheld counterparts. Hence why he mentions main stage
Apparently that really is the case because you still don't get it.
No I get it. It's just that your criteria for "characters" is all messed up.
For me Ciela is incredibly forgettable which is why she is my least favorite partner and thus below fi.
Oh trust us. All of us remember Fi. But just because you're remarkably bad doesn't make you better than unremarkably boring.
The same can kind of be said for Navi as she had practically no personality.
And yet still more than Fi…!!
Tat,l i have said, is very close to Fi for me and may very well surpass Fi when i play Majora's Mask next month but at the moment her actual moments in majora's mask were not as impactful as Fi's to me.
The fact that a character that's filled to the brim with spunk is comparable to a character with zero depth probably disturbs me more than it should.
And as i said before the point in this line of inquiry anyway was that there is more than 2 fairy partners like i said and Zeph said there was not as Proxi and Ciela don't count as partners. He later admitted he forgot about Ciela entirely which is why he thought that.
And they still have more characterization than Fi.
In the end, they could have replaced Fi with an annoying enemy encyclopedia that talks, and I'm pretty sure no one would have noticed that Fi is gone.
And those are Zelda games that also have a good story. I'm not saying everything in Skyward Sword is original because it's not. But as pointed out the story of Skyward Sword has a lot of similarities to all the other main Zelda Stories yet people do not like Skyward swords story but do like all the others so the question is why? For me, i liked skyward swords story because of it's focus on lore and attempt to explain the foundation of Hyrule and origin of recurring themes. I also think that characters are more fleshed out in this game like Zelda and impa compared to other games.
When evaluating writing, a lot of it comes down to not originality but execution. That isn't to say that a story can't be evaluated based on its uniqueness and what new things it brings to the table, but Summing up the story and saying "it has great writing!" is an especially poor way of saying that SS has good writing.
When the majority of the meat of what's relevant to the mysteries is solved at the very end right as Zelda crystallizes her self, for example, that is already a pretty bad sign that the rest of the plot of the game is done pretty poorly.
And sure, it focuses on lore and explain the foundation, but the things it brings to the table are underwhelming at best.
Again this is nothing new, the same thing happened in wind waker except Zelda gets slightly less say. But while in that game it is just decided for her, in skyward sword she has no choice at the time because the seal is weakening.
I'm not sayinf Skyward Sword is some amazing story. I'm comparing this to the other Zelda titles which all have basically the same story. Evidentally the ones that don't follow this route often have the best stories (majora's mask and links awakening) but as far as telling the same story again i think skyward sword does it well.
You still haven't proven to me that the story is better than most zelda games which apparently is your metric. If you want, we can go and tear apart the fine details to say how the writing is really subpar, especially as the origin story.
I'll come out and honestly say it's been a while. I remember being sad when Fi had to leave and that does not normally happen to me in games so at some point i had a connection to Fi. I don't know when and without replaying it i won't know so i'm afraid that i cannot give any concrete details on when.
I also remembering being sad about Fi. But then when I actually think about it, I think "what am I feeling again? that she was a great sidekick? Nah that can't be right." And then I pinned it down on the scene being forced (and it hasn't been awhile for me, and I've played through twice)
And that's the remarkable thing about the music in SS. 90% is complete crap, but Fi's theme is probably more a driving force in feeling something for the character than the character herself. Groose's theme helps out with his character, too. And when you say goodbye to Zelda, they reuse her theme (which is a guarantee to not be the same drivel that otherwise plays in the game). The music definitely set the atmosphere way better than the writing could ever dream to accomplish.
Again i'm comparing this by Zelda standards to which skyward sword does have more characterization of it's central leads than the other games. Some are very close like wind waker but a lot of them, ocarina being a key example, don't flesh out many of it's main characters.
OoT still is pretty decent with its characterization. They're not like super duper amazing works of art, but they definitely suffice in part because of the execution. You meet with them along your quest, they continue to show up, and they come for the finale at the end. It's a much more enjoyable and personal journey with them rather than "well they get glimpses of them and then they disappear into the shadows. Forever." That isn't to say OoT is super duper at writing (it isn't), but it's still more than serviceable.
It's also a big reason why Ghirahim and Groose are substantially better developed characters than Zelda, Impa, or Fi, because we get actual moments of interaction to see their traits as the story progresses. When we see Zelda, we see "Oh shit it's Zelda!" and then "Oh shit Zelda's passing me her harp". Impa gets some amount of interaction with Link but isn't really that great, but still better characterization than Zelda herself after the initial phase of the game.
And i disagree on the impa stance in that she gets no development in OoT.
Loyal retainer who whisks Zelda away from impending danger and sets her on the path to fixing shit up. Literally the same breathing room as SS other than that she's not initially antagonistic to Link.
She is the loyal retainer and that's it but at least in Skyward Sword and with Link she goes from being just a loyal retainer who is overprotective of Zelda to the point that she bashes link and refuses to acknowledge him but then eventually opens up to him and seems to care more about Zelda after their travels, arguably more-so than just a retainer.
Which for the record is really stupid of her in the plot because Link was the one chosen by her master's (the goddess) sword.
Like i said the zelda stuff might seem forced but that's because it's all off-screen.
Which means either it should be laid out to infer strongly through suggestions or actually shows up on screen. Otherwise, of course it's going to be forced. Which it is. Why not have flashbacks? Or stories told by NPCs? Or stories told by NPCs that lead to flashbacks? There is nothing developed, so why should I just assume that this girl is worth dying for?
Those are just examples. The point is that Zelda games are not designed to be plot heavy so characterization often happens rarely unlike those two games. I guess if we are talking about games with outstanding characterization i would say bioshock infinite is a good candidate instead.
Your argument that the plot is great rests on two things. First, that it's better than other zelda games. The time travel stuff makes even less sense this time around because you're still fending off Demise in real time when Zelda should have been back there by then to seal him off enough. As Wags mentioned, there's a lot of intriguing stuff that gets spit out in the initial phase of the story that never gets brought up again or explored into and is left as loose threads. And this being an origin story, why does it have an origin story behind it?
Second, that the characterization is good. Which we've gone over is hurt incredibly badly by the way the plot is laid out.
Do you know why Groose is such a super duper trouper? It's because he actually has scenes that matter with interactions viewable to the player throughout the story which is why he gets actual breathing room as opposed to having development (if you can even call it that) being either front loaded or appended to the end. "Development" is already a really hard word to use here when development should be a natural crescendo.
-
The main problem with SS's plot is a total lack of clear momentum.
The plot itself hides itself from you for most of the thing, but sure whatever you might say then that "Get Zelda!" is the main plot.
Except it isn't.
For the first half of the game you know she's safe (in danger of being captured, but not actually captured). In fact the game even mocks you via Impa that you are not worthy of protecting her and that she's in more capable hands.
Next she and Impa go through the portal. So now you don't really know what the hell happened because they don't explain it to you till later. They just suggest you can get with Zelda somehow by opening the portal thing.
But she's safe or something. -
Oh, and one small remark about console vs portable. Remember that "A Link Between Worlds" started off as a project that potentially was just going to be a link to the past remade for the 3ds. You'd have to be in denial to think that nintendo is putting their best people into making handheld games versus console games which have way longer dev cycles and resource utilization.
-
Ok this is better. This is actual reasons and developed answers and not just your opinion is not mine, i think she sucks so your wrong or i don't have anything to say so insert insult here,but this is the interent so it was to be expected. Alright let's dive right in!
@Monkey:
Why?
Because it doesn't help your argument by blocking out certain titles that don't fit under the banner of what makes a game a 'main' title. It starts off as just looking like the console games only without four swords adventures but outside of their console i wanted to know why you thought these games constituted as main and the others did not. Now i'll admit in your first post i missed you saying 'best ham' because it's a very random way of saying "big budget showcase" and was not the focus of the sentence and that's my fault. I saw main games and my definition of a main game is any of the games with 'Legend of Zelda' in the title as the spin-off titles have always removed that (like Link's Crossbow training). I realized that after my second post where you actually say Big budget showcase but i was curious why these games do not fall into that category. The capcom one's i can kind of understand but it was mainly why A link between worlds was put down as this especially considering how hyped everyone was for it as a handheld title and how successful and good it was.
Here's the incredible back work of the guy they let helm Link Between Worlds. No offense to the guy, obviously he did good work, but not as a big deal dude.
Incidentally only after being allowed to helm many of those handheld games did the Skyward Sword director get to direct a main stage thing.And THIS. This is what you should've done at the beginning instead replying with completely meaningless comments. I was not aware that the direct of A Link Between Worlds was new seeing as how good the game was. I thought it was the same guy who did skyward sword. I was not aware that they put a new guy in charge of both this and spirit tracks.
Speaking of the skyward sword guy, i thought it was Aonuma but actually he stepped down just before this, evidently did all of the capcom zelda games and phantom hourglass as well which at least shows that Nintendo did take them games seriously if they were gonna keep this guy on and upgrade him to console status. They obviously thought what he had done before in your 'lesser' titles was a pretty big deal, at least enough that he was to become Aonuma's replacement and be moved to the consoles.
Ok out of the "NOTGETTINGIT.TXT" I had to grab this gem. That's a great self defeating line right there.
They prioritize both, by doing them at the same time.
They prioritize both games, by making both games at the same time.That's not really a self-defeating line. I am well aware it is a bit of an Oxymoron but you seem to be ignoring what this means. They treat both the console and handheld games on the same footing, using ideas from both to compliment each other. They do not stop production of the handheld one because they are too focused on the console one and vice-versa.
Have you not ever lived through the pre-release publicity of any of these things lol. Game magazines, tv ads, online stuff, showcase articles, volume of previews? You never ever saw any of that?
You see this is the same kind of argument that you bashed me for when i said i observed Fi was popular because i've seen a lot of opinions of people stating they like her and why. And in this regard, i think A link between worlds had just as much Hype building up to it as skyward sword did at least where i was.
Comparing the systems based on sales is nonsense. For starters Nintendo has no real competition in the handheld market, and indeed never ever has since the original Game Boy came out. They have always dominated and in some cases dominated almost to a cartoonish extent.
Secondly by nature of the system they don't have to try as hard due to basic expectations. People expect simpler quicker more pickup style games from the handhelds. People are not expecting the next lifechanging gaming epic from the handhelds like they have from the main stage ever since at least Ocarina came out. Expectations are naturally lower and people will generally be more satisfied with just a good nice little game.
Thirdly read that again "simpler quicker more pickup" implies to us that the audience of the handhelds is more casual by a longshot.
FOURTHLY, the handheld systems selling more than the big ones doesn't mean that every individual game is selling better than their main console counterparts.And again, this is better argument than what you were saying before, shrugging of them off because they went against your opinion. 1) your right they don't have competition unless you count smart phones which have been draining the sales of handheld devices yet the handhelds still do better than their console brothers.
2) even i said the effort they put in is relative to the scope of the console. The console games get more focus because they require more focus due to the more complicated hardware rather than what you said about people, and nintendo, not caring about the handheld Zelda's because they are not massive story-driven epics.
3) The handheld market need to be quicker to pick up but not necessarily simple although it usually works better. Saying that though, Console zelda games are also pretty simple and can be picked up and played in the same way the handheld Zeldas are. You pick up wind waker and sail to a few islands and then put it down. Also just because something is simple does not mean that less effort went into it, heck the fact that they wanted it to be simple means that they would put more effort into making sure none of it is too complicated. As for the dig at casuals be the main target of handhelds i would kind of agree but kind of not. Your implying that the handheld is focused on casuals so they have to dumb everything down yet i think it's obvious that the Wii was also aimed at casuals as this is most evident in Skyward Sword and it's obscene amount of handholding. Yet skyward sword is listed as 'main' game for you so simplicity and a casual audience cannot be your definition.
4) this is true of course but in most cases the system that sells the most often gets more games and time put into it. There are exceptions of course, the wii u is doing so badly that i feel that some games may have started off on 3DS and then have been moved to the wii u (like kirby and the rainbow curse).I dare you to pose the question to anyone here that they hold a new handheld release with the same gravitas and expectations that they do the next console release of a Zelda game. I'm still not sure if you're completely feigning ignorance of this absurdly obvious thing that has been the case since there has been a Game Boy, mostly because no one would actually doubt this lol.
Fine. Is there anyone here who prefers the top-down handheld Zelda games to the console games and do you expect it to be as enjoyable (or more) than the console version?
As for love, do you really think the best Zelda ideas floating around the boardroom are going to be put in the Handheld box?
The best ideas are going to be used for which system they think it will be most beneficial on. Motion controls is an obvious console gimmick because the handheld cannot do it. I'm sure that the idea of entering the walls used in a link between worlds was toyed with on either system and it was found better for the handheld. Assuming that the handheld Zelda's just get the left-over development scraps of it's console brother is an incredibly blind view on how game development works.
And now we're pretending I said Nintendo shits out handhelds and stomps on them I guess?
You've been going on and on about how the handhelds are lesser games and even just said that none of the best ideas would be given to a handheld game implying that the games have less love put into them and are only there to appease the handheld market.
That has the sort of business choices that rush out games ahead of when they should resulting in issues for a bunch of recent games.
Isn't my point the complete opposite of this? If a developer is passionate and enjoys what they are making they don't want to ship it out early and unfinished. If anything it would get delayed for 'polish'.
The point was some really dumb thing about the "LEGEND OF ZELDA" being above a game title meaning something.
That was not the point but i already explained that, while we may not think of four swords adventures as a main title, for nintendo it appears as one with the multiplayer aspect being the 'new' gimmick for the game. It has to say something when they constantly list it among there other games but then leave out Crossbow Training, Game & watch, the tingle games and i imagine Hyrule Warriors will get the same treatment.
Tingle is hated and I saw a couple guys who liked Fi so she's popular.
It's more than a couple of people, i have seen a lot of people who like Fi, at least enough that i feel confident in my opinion.
Hint: Tingle isn't hated, people are creeped out by him BECAUSE THAT IS THE POINT OF THE CHARACTER LOL. He's a comedic wierdo that people look forward to being skeeved by. He's a fat little fairy fanboy in tight leotards who flies around with balloons and dances effeminately. Did you think this was a character designed for the glory of hard fan followings?
Are you just being blind or is this your opinion clouding your judgement again? Tingle was massively despised in the US, people were not creeped out because it was what he was designed for they genuinely hated the character to the point that he wasn't just redesigned but removed from Twilight Princess and none of his games were released in the US and only the US. This is not at all like Fi who, while not being around for nearly as long, was included from the get-go in Hyrule Warriors unlike Tingle who Aonuma tried to avoid having in the game at all (i don't know why the decision was revoked but hopefully they will explain.
Also POOF goes your attempts to argue the plot was good I guess.
I had explained it enough in my reply to purple hermit but if you must get your own personal reply fine. After watching that Matthewmatosis review on skyward sword to refresh my memory on the game and i'm perfectly fine with saying that plot is not given direction very well. It changes to frequently and that's fine. The beginning, although slightly long, and especially the ending of the game are good though and the story feel has a more grander feel to it than previous games had. This is not just stopping an evil wizard but trying to stop the revival of an evil being that rivaled a goddess. The characters in this game are more likable than in previous games as well. For me this is the best incarnation of both Zelda and Impa. Groose and Ghirahim are great new additions and while Fi is evidently not very well liked i feel she served her purpose in the narrative well and i still like her. It would have been nice if they had gone that extra mile with her though to validate the ending scene (which after sitting down and going over the plot it does come off as a bit forced. It's still a nice scene though). The game has good moments and bad ones throughout it's plot but it all wraps up nicely in the end and in a very epic style as the final battle with Demise feels much more grander than any of the one-on-ones with ganondorf
@Purple:
For most characters in Zelda, the traits you can describe aren't that many, but there are. And it tends to suffice to make you feel a connection for the characters. For Fi, there are none. She's essentially as blank slate as link is.
Fi:
Straightforward
Mysterious
ColdThis is what you wanted right?
Now, if Fi had done something like start off incredibly stiff at the beginning and transitioned bit by bit in her dialogue by doing something like "Master, I'm feeling really scared, but I know we can do this!" when fighting Demise, then that'd be something worth remarking. But it isn't. It stays stiff the whole ride through til she says bye bye bye.
Ok yeah, i'll give you that. I honestly did think there was more scenes where her and link had an actual development and that's mainly because of the goodbye scene. I guess i was blind-sided by every thing that happened during that time and distracted by the music that i was tricked into thinking they had a stronger connection than they actually did. Fi should've been developed more. I still like her though and after sitting down and wondering why i think her design plays a big factor. I'm a sucker for art design and Fi's matches perfectly with who she is and how she looks unlike the fairies which don't appeal a huge lot to me because they are just floating balls. Tatl has a personality which is why she stands out from Navi but that's it.
I have said that Fi and Tatl are very close but for me i seem to rank Fi higher than Tatl because she is more recent for me and she has a very nice design for a human form of a sword. The master sword is not over the top looking or extravagant. It's simple and beautiful and that's what they went for with Fi. Also Fi's role in the rest of the series as the Master Sword also helps. The two are unanimous with me now and while i would not say her in the master sword form has personality in the sense we are talking about it still gives the player an attachment to it as the one recurring item in the zelda series.
It's pretty clear that it's not because it's by Capcom. He's talking like huge releases that get released. When you're arguing popularity based on sales metrics. Console Zelda releases get way more marketing and exposure and should, by all means, be able to outperform their handheld counterparts. Hence why he mentions main stage
I covered this further above but yeah that's what should have been said more clearly early as the way he tried to get it across made it sound like the platform it was on and it's developer meant that Nintendo did not care about it because it was smaller in scale or they had less-direct involvement which i personally disagreed with not. Not because of exposure which a console game would likely get more of because more money went into it due to it's size. It doesn't mean that the handhelds have less focus during development just that the console ones need to make more money for it to be a success so need more of a push and more exposure.
No I get it. It's just that your criteria for "characters" is all messed up.
Just because my criteria for why i like a character is different from yours does not mean it's wrong or messed up. Ciela is low on my list because i don't remember much about her. That's a perfectly fine reason to have her low on the list because I found her forgettable and I found her less interesting, especially compared to Linebeck who was a much better partner.
Oh trust us. All of us remember Fi. But just because you're remarkably bad doesn't make you better than unremarkably boring.
And yet still more than Fi…!!
Again this is stuff i disagree because i like Fi. I'm not forcing you to like her because i won't be able to, but i do like her more than the others for reasons that i expressed and so i don't see why that's been taken as an offence to you.
When evaluating writing, a lot of it comes down to not originality but execution. That isn't to say that a story can't be evaluated based on its uniqueness and what new things it brings to the table, but Summing up the story and saying "it has great writing!" is an especially poor way of saying that SS has good writing.
I have not said that it had great writing just great characters. I forgot how inconsistent the plot was at points, i can admit that, but i still found the overall arching story to be one that's better than some previous Zeldas. It's not the best and i never said it was but i do think it's a good story because it does not all feel completely tacked on, characters do not change on whims for the sake of a bad twist. Wind waker is the only game that follows the same 'princess rescue' plot that i think handled it better than Skyward Sword.
When the majority of the meat of what's relevant to the mysteries is solved at the very end right as Zelda crystallizes her self, for example, that is already a pretty bad sign that the rest of the plot of the game is done pretty poorly.
Parts can be done better just like with any game. I personally think Twilight Princess executed it's plot worse due to it's much slower start, pointless twists and also explaining everything at the end (except for the creepy part in the middle that feels very tacked on).
And sure, it focuses on lore and explain the foundation, but the things it brings to the table are underwhelming at best.
Looking back on them yeah maybe. I like how everything wraps up and is explained in the end but execution throughout could have been handled better.
You still haven't proven to me that the story is better than most zelda games which apparently is your metric. If you want, we can go and tear apart the fine details to say how the writing is really subpar, especially as the origin story.
I'm not really trying to prove it, at least to the point of changing your opinion. I wrote why i thought skyward sword had a good plot and explained that Zelda plots are almost always the same anyway. I liked Skyward swords story cause i felt it had this big epicness to it that the other 'typical games' do not have (with wind waker as an exception).
And that's the remarkable thing about the music in SS. 90% is complete crap, but Fi's theme is probably more a driving force in feeling something for the character than the character herself. Groose's theme helps out with his character, too. And when you say goodbye to Zelda, they reuse her theme (which is a guarantee to not be the same drivel that otherwise plays in the game). The music definitely set the atmosphere way better than the writing could ever dream to accomplish.
This may have helped why some forced moments felt forced but i don't think the writing was so bad that it had no impact. I can't prove this without going back and checking through every line but honestly, i don't care that much about this debate to waste my time on it so i'll just agree.
Loyal retainer who whisks Zelda away from impending danger and sets her on the path to fixing shit up. Literally the same breathing room as SS other than that she's not initially antagonistic to Link.
That little bit at least gives her more than OoT Impa. There is also everything she does as the Old Women with both Link and Groose.
Which for the record is really stupid of her in the plot because Link was the one chosen by her master's (the goddess) sword.
I don't remember the details of this (like does she actually know this?)
Which means either it should be laid out to infer strongly through suggestions or actually shows up on screen. Otherwise, of course it's going to be forced. Which it is. Why not have flashbacks? Or stories told by NPCs? Or stories told by NPCs that lead to flashbacks? There is nothing developed, so why should I just assume that this girl is worth dying for?
The connections the game tries to make with Zelda happen all early on in the game, like in the first hour. For me it was enough motivation and Skyward sword Zelda is probably my favorite incarnation of her. As for the impa relationship yeah they could've hinted to developing more or showed more instead of leaving it till the credits.
As Wags mentioned, there's a lot of intriguing stuff that gets spit out in the initial phase of the story that never gets brought up again or explored into and is left as loose threads.
I don't remember what this stuff is? I thought everything got wrapped up in the end? Example?
And this being an origin story, why does it have an origin story behind it?
I guess it's because it's an origin story to something specific? Like the reincarnations, hyrule and the master sword. The plot needed a premise, a reason why they're in the sky and a way of establishing who Hylia and Demise are.
Second, that the characterization is good. Which we've gone over is hurt incredibly badly by the way the plot is laid out.
Yes there are points where things could go better but i still think that by most Zelda standards the characterization is still more in this game than any of the others. I have more motivation to rescue Zelda in this game than in any of the others. I'll admit the development is a bit everywhere but the choice appears to be rather than have every charcater being developed at the same time, the game focuses on the developmetn of eac character individually, wrapping up their arcs and starting the next characters. It goes Zelda, Impa, Groose (who takes up a majority), Ghirahim and then Fi tacked on at the very end. Link is the only one developed throughout although it depends on how much the player puts themselves into links position.
-
-
Damn. Sucks that they didn't actually play the shooting gallery. Curious to know if arguably the hardest-yet-still-fair minigame in 3D Zeldas has been dumbed down at all.
-
I'm telling you, just don't stand in the middle XD
-
Fine. Is there anyone here who prefers the top-down handheld Zelda games to the console games and do you expect it to be as enjoyable (or more) than the console version?
That is not what he asked, but I'll bite. I definitely don't treat them on the same level. I bought and played through Skyward Sword because I felt I had to, despite it coming out at a time when I was busy with work and not as interested in playing video games. I have yet to play Spirit Tracks or A Link Between Worlds because I have never treated them as priorities. As it stands, Zelda U is a console seller for me and, though I'll definitely play that, I'm still not sure if I'll ever get around to A Link Between Worlds (my interest in Spirit Tracks was killed because of its problematic reputation).
Ok yeah, i'll give you that. I honestly did think there was more scenes where her and link had an actual development and that's mainly because of the goodbye scene. I guess i was blind-sided by every thing that happened during that time and distracted by the music that i was tricked into thinking they had a stronger connection than they actually did. Fi should've been developed more. I still like her though and after sitting down and wondering why i think her design plays a big factor. I'm a sucker for art design and Fi's matches perfectly with who she is and how she looks unlike the fairies which don't appeal a huge lot to me because they are just floating balls. Tatl has a personality which is why she stands out from Navi but that's it.
I have said that Fi and Tatl are very close but for me i seem to rank Fi higher than Tatl because she is more recent for me and she has a very nice design for a human form of a sword. The master sword is not over the top looking or extravagant. It's simple and beautiful and that's what they went for with Fi. Also Fi's role in the rest of the series as the Master Sword also helps. The two are unanimous with me now and while i would not say her in the master sword form has personality in the sense we are talking about it still gives the player an attachment to it as the one recurring item in the zelda series.
No offense, but if you're basing character preference so strongly on visual design, then you don't have your priorities straight. I can't say that it isn't a factor, they definitely influence how we view a character (literally), but for it to trump personality shows a really shallow understanding of and appreciation for the characters.
Plus, I'm still putting under scrutiny whether or not Fi is a character. Where do we draw the line between character and shiny rock? I'm serious. Is there a point where she goes beyond being a program? She never displays a personality of any sort or leads us to believe that she should be treated as such. She has no intent, free will, emotion or any sense of dynamics aside from adjusting poorly-made calculations to situations that don't need them. I've seen viable arguments for why a location like Silent Hill could be considered a character, but have a hard time imagining how the same could be done for Fi. Navi at least clearly establishes a personality and opinions at her introduction when she wakes Link up. In the parallel scene for Fi, the onus of action is on Link, who realizes that Fi is there and then follows her entirely by his choice.
I don't remember what this stuff is? I thought everything got wrapped up in the end? Example?
After spending an entire game finding a way to seal Demise, we still don't know where he came from. Anything pertaining to life before Cloudcuckooland is dusted under the rug as unimportant, despite clearly being relevant to the nature of their existence and the threat that seeks to destroy it.
I guess it's because it's an origin story to something specific? Like the reincarnations, hyrule and the master sword. The plot needed a premise, a reason why they're in the sky and a way of establishing who Hylia and Demise are.
But we don't even learn anything about those. We learn of the reincarnations, but not the originals (Demise, Hylia and presumably whoever wielded the Goddess Sword). The originals weren't even a question before this game. They could have gotten rid of the Demise plot, established Groose as the person to become Ganondorf in a plot analogous to a Popeye cartoon (for reference: Groose = Bluto, Link = Popeye, Zelda = Olive Oyl) and at least it would have been an origin, giving some sense of depth to this millenia-long struggle between hero, princess and villain. Instead, the origin story we get is "all these guys were once other guys that also did the same thing." They managed to come up with an origin story that handwaves the origin story.
Even the sword, which was supposed to be the central origin of this game, was really just another magic sword that became an even more magic sword to combat an ancient evil that was becoming another ancient evil with the power of a magical woman becoming another magical woman.
-
I'm trying to remember what the shooting gallery was. I remember the couples bombchu mini game was absurdly harder than in ocarina
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
No offense, but if you're basing character preference so strongly on visual design, then you don't have your priorities straight. I can't say that it isn't a factor, they definitely influence how we view a character (literally), but for it to trump personality shows a really shallow understanding of and appreciation for the characters.
Not really and I have also said that fi does have a personality, or at least I see her as having one, that is complimented by her design. I can chose to appreciate a character for both their design and personality both having equal merit. It's evidently not your priority but it does not make mine view of it wrong, just different.
Navi at least clearly establishes a personality and opinions at her introduction when she wakes Link up. In the parallel scene for Fi, the onus of action is on Link, who realizes that Fi is there and then follows her entirely by his choice.
Nothing really needs to be said in the Fi scene. When she appears the general mystery and atmosphere when you chase her through skyloft adds to the game and is the start to the mysterious nature of her character (at least at this point).
After spending an entire game finding a way to seal Demise, we still don't know where he came from. Anything pertaining to life before Cloudcuckooland is dusted under the rug as unimportant, despite clearly being relevant to the nature of their existence and the threat that seeks to destroy it.
Oh ok. I see what the problem is and yeah I guess that is true. It never really bothered me that much though. It's not directly stated but I assumed demise to be a being born on the earth along with all the other races but was a being that gained incredible power and wanted to be a god. The problem is how he gained his power. As for the rest I just use that manga that's in hyrule historia unless Nintendo says otherwise. I know it's not in game when it probably should be but I'm content for now.
Even the sword, which was supposed to be the central origin of this game, was really just another magic sword that became an even more magic sword to combat an ancient evil that was becoming another ancient evil with the power of a magical woman becoming another magical woman.
I think that's a problem with origin stories in general, especially for ones that are trying to establish massive worlds and themes. In Greek mythology the origin story of everything kind just begins with beings like chaos poofing into existence.
-
I liked that the video showed the rupee exploit like it was a thing they never intended to ever remove.
-
Not really and I have also said that fi does have a personality, or at least I see her as having one, that is complimented by her design. I can chose to appreciate a character for both their design and personality both having equal merit. It's evidently not your priority but it does not make mine view of it wrong, just different.
You just said that the thing that makes Fi a standout is her visual design. You've admitted through the arguments that Fi's character (if she even has one, since nothing's proven that to me yet) is weak (or at least not the best). Regardless, lack of visual design should not be a limiting factor for a character, otherwise no characters from books could ever be compared to a fully-rendered creation. Yes, book characters do have 'visual' elements described in words, but they can't possibly leave as much of an impression as the real deal. Should that be held against them? Has seeing a visual adaptation of a novel ever made you like a character more simply because you could see them?
Visuals definitely leave an impression, but they're extrinsic of and can be independent from a character. When visuals are related to the character, it is either because they've had some influence on the character (like how ugly characters often grow up being mistreated) or because the character has had some influence on them (chosen clothing and hairstyle, for example). Fi is neither of those cases, because she is an object designed for someone else by someone else. Fi's looks don't reflect anything about Fi; they reflect on whoever made Fi and perhaps for whom Fi was made for.
If there is a common thread in my points, it's that visual elements can be important, but only in how they serve characterization. If they aren't related to the character, then they aren't relevant to the character.
Nothing really needs to be said in the Fi scene. When she appears the general mystery and atmosphere when you chase her through skyloft adds to the game and is the start to the mysterious nature of her character (at least at this point).
But even that 'mysterious' quality is all on Link. Fi is a mystery to Link. Switch puzzles are also mysteries to Link. For that scene, Fi could have been replaced with the red glowing dot of a laser pointer without being missed, since all the action and choice was being done by Link. Even her importance as being the sword is all relative to Link. Without Link, Fi is nothing.
I think that's a problem with origin stories in general, especially for ones that are trying to establish massive worlds and themes. In Greek mythology the origin story of everything kind just begins with beings like chaos poofing into existence.
That's a problem with creation myths. As far as character myths go, though, there can be a clearly defined start. Look at Batman. Batman starts when his parents die. Sure, crime's been around before Batman and won't end with Batman, and maybe we didn't see Bruce Wayne's literal birth, but we certainly find out what turned him into Batman. If SS's handwaving plot maneuver was used to describe Batman, his origin story would be this: Batman fights crime because he's the reincarnation of a guy called Battyman who fought crime.
-
I'm telling you, just don't stand in the middle XD
Haha I remember you said that! And I tried it! Didn't make too much of a difference, but I think that's just because I was accustomed enough to the game anyway at that point.
-
That's a problem with creation myths. As far as character myths go, though, there can be a clearly defined start. Look at Batman. Batman starts when his parents die. Sure, crime's been around before Batman and won't end with Batman, and maybe we didn't see Bruce Wayne's literal birth, but we certainly find out what turned him into Batman. If SS's handwaving plot maneuver was used to describe Batman, his origin story would be this: Batman fights crime because he's the reincarnation of a guy called Battyman who fought crime.
The only problem i really see with the character origin stories is Demise himself. Hylia's entire purpose for existing from the story stand-point is to give an explanation for why the hyrulian royal families, and Zelda specifically, has power and authority that no one else has. It's been plenty established that the goddesses created the earth and Hylia was a fourth goddess left to guard the earth and triforce. This is all explained. It's only Demise that is questionable. He's the origin for ganon's power but he himself has no origin for his power. Unless they want to add some lore where there are more gods and goddesses and Demise is the child of one of them, a titan of the Zelda lore, then it will be left ambiguous but that is not a hard stretch to do, even in a later game. It should've been done in skyward sword yes but it's probably not seen as a big deal. The link in skyward sword is the first and likely chosen by Fi because he was the best one for the job and had the best relationship with Hylia (unless you count the manga in which case they also explain why Link is the one chosen to reincarnate). The master swords origin was always going to be an almighty sword made to defeat demise. A super sword but it has been like that always. The only origin story it could have is that it was created by Hylia, which is it's origin story in the game.
-
The only problem i really see with the character origin stories is Demise himself. Hylia's entire purpose for existing from the story stand-point is to give an explanation for why the hyrulian royal families, and Zelda specifically, has power and authority that no one else has. It's been plenty established that the goddesses created the earth and Hylia was a fourth goddess left to guard the earth and triforce. This is all explained. It's only Demise that is questionable. He's the origin for ganon's power but he himself has no origin for his power. Unless they want to add some lore where there are more gods and goddesses and Demise is the child of one of them, a titan of the Zelda lore, then it will be left ambiguous but that is not a hard stretch to do, even in a later game. It should've been done in skyward sword yes but it's probably not seen as a big deal. The link in skyward sword is the first and likely chosen by Fi because he was the best one for the job and had the best relationship with Hylia (unless you count the manga in which case they also explain why Link is the one chosen to reincarnate). The master swords origin was always going to be an almighty sword made to defeat demise. A super sword but it has been like that always. The only origin story it could have is that it was created by Hylia, which is it's origin story in the game.
None of this would be a problem if Skyward Sword didn't claim to be the origin story. The archetypal Zelda story is fine and doesn't need an origin, really, but SS teased this. What's really aggravating is that they went out of their way to give us a handwaving answer. They didn't have to introduce Demise, his conflict with Hylia or the Goddess Sword. Those could have been completely absent and we would never have missed them. Now that they're here, though, they beg the exact same question they were supposed to answer (the one Nintendo used to hook us to SS in the first place).
The sword, for example, could have just been a normal sword that Link imbues with power, instead of a magic sword that Link imbues with more power. Starting off with the magic sword already being a thing is frustrating. It's like starting off the first episode of a series with "MEANWHILE".
The thing that I was disappointed about most was that Groose didn't become Ganon, because he was such an interesting character and it would have been cool to see that as the face behind Hyrule's evil. I kept waiting for this cliché scene to happen where Groose's desire for Zelda drives him to take a power that ultimately overwhelms him. Bonus: that fits in line with the Triforce of Power that Ganon embodies. Imagine the new perspective: that Ganon, the ultimate evil, is a man trapped by his own ambition. Not the most shocking or original revelation, but one that gives some new depth and understanding of his character. That is my fanfic, of course, but it's an entirely reasonable direction they could have taken without introducing Demise.
-
Yeah I guess that's true. There was too much of a reliance on the story formula that they didn't drastically change everything. I still like the fan idea that groose is the first gerudo king but it would be nice to have seen that in the game.
You know what i want to see? A gerudo king who isn't evil. We've only seen Two, both of which are called ganondorf and are evil. Give us a nicer one who actually helps the hero like darunia or ruto.
-
Wags is starting to cover a few points so here goes some more Fi related stuff.
Fi:
Straightforward
Mysterious
ColdThis is what you wanted right?
Essentially you're admitting that she has nothing in terms of an actual personality right here. These work okay paired with some other traits, such as the "Man with no name" from spaghetti westerns also being incredibly confident, manipulative, conniving, etc., but alone these traits are ones that would be associated with very stiff and lifeless writing. Like Phantom Menace level writing. She's basically Queen Amidala. That she makes no inherent change from anything that differentiates her from what a machine could produce in terms of human interaction really says a lot.
Essentially Fi should be something like Data from Star Trek at some point in the story. Somewhat inquisitive about life and human emotion, but this is broadcast and shunted into us at the very end to say "oh hey I had characterdevelopment"
I have said that Fi and Tatl are very close but for me i seem to rank Fi higher than Tatl because she is more recent for me and she has a very nice design for a human form of a sword. The master sword is not over the top looking or extravagant. It's simple and beautiful and that's what they went for with Fi. Also Fi's role in the rest of the series as the Master Sword also helps. The two are unanimous with me now and while i would not say her in the master sword form has personality in the sense we are talking about it still gives the player an attachment to it as the one recurring item in the zelda series.
Again. Tatl has an actual character. She may not have as many cool buttons to press as the latest model and (as of this post) has not been recent, but she's intrinsically involved with interactions with just about the entire cast of the story. Which is much more to say than Fi's role as a plot device to drive the story just so Link can get shit done.
Just because my criteria for why i like a character is different from yours does not mean it's wrong or messed up. Ciela is low on my list because i don't remember much about her. That's a perfectly fine reason to have her low on the list because I found her forgettable and I found her less interesting, especially compared to Linebeck who was a much better partner.
No dude lol like this is fundamental character analysis. Fi has nothing that separates her from being a very important toaster. You can like her in the sense that you liked her like your most favorite hammer in your toolshed, but as an actual character, she essentially fails the turing test in any way possible.
Like in a discussion about characters, there are definitely things to point out beyond just saying "well I like her and we'll agree to disagree". I'm saying that Fi literally has no character.
I have not said that it had great writing just great characters. I forgot how inconsistent the plot was at points, i can admit that, but i still found the overall arching story to be one that's better than some previous Zeldas. It's not the best and i never said it was but i do think it's a good story because it does not all feel completely tacked on, characters do not change on whims for the sake of a bad twist. Wind waker is the only game that follows the same 'princess rescue' plot that i think handled it better than Skyward Sword.
The biggest thing with SS is that it does actually feel tacked on. It felt like Nintendo felt obligated to appease the timeline fanatics and create an origin story that intimately details Zelda, a hero, the master sword, and ganon's… original incarnation. But then you never get into the original stuff. The original war with demise. There was even a prequel manga about that! Where Link shows up too! Whether it's canon or not, the fact that there's a whole potential area of interest with a lot of questions brought up doesn't help its status as an origin. Or where does Impa come from? Is there a clan of goddess guards? Where are they? If we're traveling to the past through time magic, shouldn't there be other people willing to lend a hand? etc etc
And like Zeph mentioned, the flow of the plot is absurdly poor. The idea is that you save Zelda while she's safe...? So it ends up being just a quest where Fi directs you to go from point A to point B in a a very arbitrary fashion. It takes macguffin finding to a new level.
And in terms of tacked on things go, it doesn't go as far as TP's finale, sure, but in terms of the actual character arcs, they're all definitely appended to the ending, which hurts the momentum even more so. Like I admire the idea of them trying to produce more of a character driven story. But this is why the plot suffers even more so compared to previous zeldas which weren't so intimately connected to their characters besides MM. The development for each character aside from a select few is incredibly shallow, and the motivations and driving forces don't really mesh well other than Ghirahim's general "I'm resurrecting my master" thing. It's forgivable to have a decent amount of development in other zeldas, but one that emphasizes the interconnected relationships between ones handles it incredibly poorly.
It's essentially analagous to Other M giving lines for Samus to speak, but then everyone (except Mugen) realized that the writing in Other M was complete shit even though it "characterized" Samus more.
Parts can be done better just like with any game. I personally think Twilight Princess executed it's plot worse due to it's much slower start, pointless twists and also explaining everything at the end (except for the creepy part in the middle that feels very tacked on).
TP's plot works fine actually through the first few dungeons but then drags along with its gameplay around the middle. But overall the main thing is that Midna's development and arc is more of what's in the spotlight, and it better serves as a character study than the core "you must save the princess!" schtick that it shoves at the very end.
This may have helped why some forced moments felt forced but i don't think the writing was so bad that it had no impact. I can't prove this without going back and checking through every line but honestly, i don't care that much about this debate to waste my time on it so i'll just agree.
I guarantee you that if ET's dramatic bicycle scene sounds lifeless without John Williams' score behind it that those moments would be severely diminished without any music behind it. Zelda's scene wouldn't be completely devoid of emotion but I can guarantee you that Fi's definitely would at best only have a pittance of impact. Because Fi's theme is actually pretty good and stands out as something potentially emotional and light in contrast to the rest of the score, so it really stands out.
The connections the game tries to make with Zelda happen all early on in the game, like in the first hour.
Which is precisely why it's difficult to grasp why this girl is worth it. Yeah, sure, she gets more development. But the crux of the story is when Zelda's crystallizing, and before then the main impetus is reuniting with her. One half hour or so worth of development is not enough to say "gee, maybe she's really really special to me". For something like the beginning of TP where you save Ilia, it's debatable whether or not how far romantic interest goes, but let's say good friend. You have a prologue to establish it. The kids help a lot with the interplay involving your cameraderie. It's not something too intense, and it's just a sidequest, and that's okay because really the story isn't trying to set itself up as like a very intimate relationship between you and a goddess.
Yes there are points where things could go better but i still think that by most Zelda standards the characterization is still more in this game than any of the others. I have more motivation to rescue Zelda in this game than in any of the others. I'll admit the development is a bit everywhere but the choice appears to be rather than have every charcater being developed at the same time, the game focuses on the developmetn of eac character individually, wrapping up their arcs and starting the next characters. It goes Zelda, Impa, Groose (who takes up a majority), Ghirahim and then Fi tacked on at the very end. Link is the only one developed throughout although it depends on how much the player puts themselves into links position.
Nah dude like more characterization doesn't mean better characterization. Impa has more, but even counting the old lady gimmick she still doesn't really get expanded upon any better than any previous incarnation (besides the bare minimal appearances of course).
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
The thing that I was disappointed about most was that Groose didn't become Ganon, because he was such an interesting character and it would have been cool to see that as the face behind Hyrule's evil. I kept waiting for this cliché scene to happen where Groose's desire for Zelda drives him to take a power that ultimately overwhelms him. Bonus: that fits in line with the Triforce of Power that Ganon embodies. Imagine the new perspective: that Ganon, the ultimate evil, is a man trapped by his own ambition. Not the most shocking or original revelation, but one that gives some new depth and understanding of his character. That is my fanfic, of course, but it's an entirely reasonable direction they could have taken without introducing Demise.
If Groose did a heel turn like Gaston as well as a musical number I'm pretty sure my opinion of SS's writing would change completely.
-
I full heartedly agree that skyward sword would be better if everyone broke into song and dance at every interaction
-
Nintendo's biggest missed opportunity.
-
@CCC:
Haha I remember you said that! And I tried it! Didn't make too much of a difference, but I think that's just because I was accustomed enough to the game anyway at that point.
Wait which shooting gallery are we talking about? All I remember is that both of them were fun and challenging to some degree. Good shit.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
He's the origin for ganon's power but
Uh no he's not.
Ganon's origin story was already told in OOT.He used to be a human thief king asshole who got his hand on one of the triforce pieces.
Open and shut case. Nothing else was needed.Not only was Demise an unifinished unanswered question like Wagomu is saying, but he's also a 100% unnecessary question and story to begin with.
We didn't need an explanation for the Royal Family. They just had to be a royal dynasty that lasts forever. Like the royal dynasty in some country or another.
Really the only thing truly explained in SS is the origin of the Master Sword.
A thing no one ever gave a shit about before. Because seriously who cares about where a sword came from. It's magical and involved with the triforce. It filled in it's own blank. -
@Monkey:
Wait which shooting gallery are we talking about? All I remember is that both of them were fun and challenging to some degree. Good shit.
The Clock Town gallery, with the Octoroks.