Skyward Sword doesn't deserve the hate it got

Originally Posted by Bill

Let's give Wind Waker some credit, though. I thought there were lots of little details that help hold your attention. First of all, the blur effect for distant objects is awesome. There's the changing color and bobbing of the sea. There is the dynamic weather and patterns in the water, the streaks of wind and the birds. Despite obviously having oceans as far as the eye can see, the game is visually quite appealing.

Visually appealing, yes. But how much character does all of these environmental effects actually give the world?

Regarding the game-play, and specifically the exploration, every island is a chance to discover something new. Some of them are quite small but I think it is quite intriguing to see what secrets they hold. Out in the ocean, there are the look out platforms, sunken treasure, the rupee collecting game, the occasional cyclone or whirlpool, enemies, and islands in the distance. There are plenty of little details to keep things reasonable interesting most of the time. I would have liked to see more islands like fire and ice isle--mini dungeons, basically, but there is a lot to do.

This raises the question of what actually makes exploration interesting. What actually invokes a sense of "discovery"? Certainly, having stuff to do along the vein of puzzles or obstacle courses is interesting. But I'd argue that the sheer visual impact created by terrain variation and locations that exude history excites the imagination and invokes a far greater sense of discovery for most people. It gives the world more character.

Though I spose it'd suffice to agree that an ideal Zelda world would have both.

But I'd argue that the sheer visual impact created by terrain variation and locations that exude history excites the imagination and invokes a far greater sense of discovery for most people. It gives the world more character.

I wouldn't disagree with that statement in general, but I have no idea how it pertains to Twilight Princess in relation to Skyward Sword and Wind Waker.

For one, Skyward Sword has more variation in its terrain than Twilight Princess.

For two, Wind Waker's universe as a whole wipes the floor with the drab world of Hyrule in Twilight Princess. Its major islands have a ton of charm, from the ominous Forsaken Fortress, to the bustling Windfall Island, the foreboding Great Fish Isle, to the peaceful Outset, the majestic and historic Tower of the Gods and so on. And the way these locations are developed over the course of the game is brilliant. I'll elaborate if you need me to, but I thought there was plenty of sense of discovery and there were a number of moments that captured my imagination.

I truly can't think of many intriguing moments in terms of lore, history or sense of discovery in Twilight Princess. When there was (Hidden Village, Sacred Grove, Temple of Time), it usually relied on reference to Ocarina of Time. The locations in Wind Waker had charisma in their own right. If we confine our discussion to just the over-world, there are even fewer. I enjoyed the handful of puzzles that were built into the structure of the over-world (one was just outside the north exit of Kakariko Village, another was the spinner track woven into the trail in one of trails in the northeast corner (Wii version) of the Lanayru Province. Secrets that are cleverly hidden into the over-world offer a sense of discovery for me, but these weren't all that common in Twilight Princess.

Back to Wind Waker. A place like the Forsaken Fortress captures my imagination. Now, I was not really fond of the game-play associated with it, but we're strictly discussing history, lore, and sense of discovery. I love how it's located on the fringe of the Great Sea, isolated by itself in the corner. We have the mysterious shadowy figure Gannondorf and his guardian bird. We have very intriguing design and architecture with the hanging anchors, search lights, bird's nest, and Ganondorf's lair at the very top as part of a ship. The place has a very slapdash field to it, as if Ganondorf built himself as he was rebuilding his power. And then of course, there is the back-story of the missing girls with long ears.

This was a masterfully crafted concept from the perspective of lore, artistic design, and atmosphere.

In fact, Wind Waker was filled with moments that evoked a sense of discovery for me. You might discount some of them by erecting an artificial boundary between over-world and islands but I wouldn't because, unlike Twilight Princess, Wind Waker's islands are completely seamless with the the over-world (there are a few exceptions--you can't jump on certain spots on Dragon Roost or the Forest Haven and end up in the ocean, if I remember correctly). A sense of the whole world being a coherent and continuous is a major feat of Wind Waker--all the other Zeldas are segmented for the sake of loading.

Let me reiterate - what I'm claiming isn't that WW doesn't capture the imagination at all. The way you're defending the game, it seems you're under the impression I'm saying this, that I'm shooting the game down entirely.

Originally Posted by Bill

I wouldn't disagree with that statement in general, but I have no idea how it pertains to Twilight Princess in relation to Skyward Sword and Wind Waker.

For one, Skyward Sword has more variation in its terrain than Twilight Princess.

You're right. What I said about terrestrial variation doesn't apply to SS with regards to TP, because they both had about the same variety in scenery. SS came up short in other areas when it came to creating a "grand adventure" feeling.

In terms of terrestrial variation, you got more varied scenery in TP than in WW, and it was about the same between TP and SS. The vast majority of WW's islands were a characterless mishmash of ideas.

For two, Wind Waker's universe as a whole wipes the floor with the drab world of Hyrule in Twilight Princess. Its major islands have a ton of charm, from the ominous Forsaken Fortress, to the bustling Windfall Island, the foreboding Great Fish Isle, to the peaceful Outset, the majestic and historic Tower of the Gods and so on. And the way these locations are developed over the course of the game is brilliant. I'll elaborate if you need me to, but I thought there was plenty of sense of discovery and there were a number of moments that captured my imagination.

You're right. Those locations were interesting (though I won't use comparatives yet). But I feel like I've already pointed out that you're choosing specific locations rather than the world as a whole. You're telling me that WW's universe was more interesting than TP's because of those locations. Whether or not I agree is beside the point. I could agree that WW's individual locations were more interesting than TP's (for the record I disagree, but not strongly), but I can't agree that WW's world was a better world than TP's.

The Great Sea and most of the islands lacked character. If you want to point to between-overworld areas, then WW has a slight edge in towns whereas TP has a slight edge in terms of dungeons. But TP's locations were linked by a world that actually felt worldish, at least more so than WW's Great Sea. WW literally felt like "a couple of really interesting locations with some puzzles and a bunch of blue between them". That is not how you create a "world".

I truly can't think of many intriguing moments in terms of lore, history or sense of discovery in Twilight Princess. When there was (Hidden Village, Sacred Grove, Temple of Time), it usually relied on reference to Ocarina of Time. The locations in Wind Waker had charisma in their own right.

Why is this a bad thing? If anything, expanding on established lore is a good thing for an adventure game to do in terms of creating a sense of discovery. Visiting the Temple of Time in TP gave me a whole new insight into the Temple of Time in OoT, for example. The City in the Sky, the Goron Mines and the Lakebed Temple were more than dungeons, they were a direct insight into the architecture and technology of an ancient race. The Arbiter's Grounds hold additional meaning for someone who's played OoT and is aware of the Gerudo race that once lived there. Actual discovery.

Back to Wind Waker. A place like the Forsaken Fortress captures my imagination. Now, I was not really fond of the game-play associated with it, but we're strictly discussing history, lore, and sense of discovery. I love how it's located on the fringe of the Great Sea, isolated by itself in the corner. We have the mysterious shadowy figure Gannondorf and his guardian bird. We have very intriguing design and architecture with the hanging anchors, search lights, bird's nest, and Ganondorf's lair at the very top as part of a ship. The place has a very slapdash field to it, as if Ganondorf built himself as he was rebuilding his power. And then of course, there is the back-story of the missing girls with long ears.

This was a masterfully crafted concept from the perspective of lore, artistic design, and atmosphere.

I agree with this. The Forsaken Fortress was intriguing. For me, it's intrigue and position within Zelda lore was greatly enhanced by how its far-western position on the map and even its inhabitant seemed to heavily imply a link with another famous Zelda fortress. For me, making that connection felt like a discovery.

In fact, Wind Waker was filled with moments that evoked a sense of discovery for me. You might discount some of them by erecting an artificial boundary between over-world and islands but I wouldn't because, unlike Twilight Princess, Wind Waker's islands are completely seamless with the the over-world (there are a few exceptions--you can't jump on certain spots on Dragon Roost or the Forest Haven and end up in the ocean, if I remember correctly). A sense of the whole world being a coherent and continuous is a major feat of Wind Waker--all the other Zeldas are segmented for the sake of loading.

I've erected an artificial boundary between the overworld and the non-overworld because I was specifically discussing the overworlds. If we were being charitable to each other, we'd both agree that TP and WW had comparable amounts of implied lore within their respective landmarks and that this wouldn't be a particularly informative metric. The difference is that TP's varied overworld locations allowed the player to constantly make discoveries about the land itself as they traverse through it (something I've touched upon in the other thread). It's about being able to constantly make discoveries even if there's nothing special to do gameplay-wise. It's about making a world.

While WW's world was indeed continuous, I'd hesitate to call it "coherent". The vast majority of the islands felt "idea-mishmashy".

OK, so I started a new game in Skyward Sword, and while there are good parts... it's overall a pretty mediocre game. Overall, it's not as bad as Twilight Princess, but its endless interruptions make this the lowest point in the series for me. I feel like I only have so long to play before something stops the gameplay.

Also, the motion controls are good for the sword. That's it.

Skyward Sword's low points are the lowest points in a Nintendo game (excluding Other M). I'd never recommend SS to anyone if I were trying to get them into Zelda. After 4 mediocre to awful Zelda games in a row, I can say that I hate the direction the franchise has gone, and I'm pretty much done with the series. I still get enjoyment from the games before, though.

........why do people keep comparing Zelda to games like Skyrim? Zelda has never been that type of game. That's why I don't understand all the whining about "linearity". It makes me wonder if the same people say "You know, I really just wish I could go to level 4 then 7 then 2 in Super Mario Bros, they ruined the game by shoving their linearity down my throat". That's just the way it is. I know a lot of people feel smarter when they can do things out of order, but some of us Zelda fans are adults and can accept that its a game and games have order (unless its just a play around and do what you want sort of game, where the only thing that really matters is gaining levels and experience...... and I hate those sorts of games)

I personally LOVED Skyward Sword. The things I hated most were 1) how ugly the trees were 2) all the unnecessary interruptions and 3) the Kikwi and Mogma, along with the bull♥♥♥♥ music that surrounded them. Other than that I thought the game was great. No, I was not disappointed that you couldn't fly the loftwing all across Hyrule, as that would pretty much make the clawshots and bombs unnecessary as far as exploration goes, since you could just fly over any location and drop down.... how is that fun? And I thought the puzzles in the game were pretty good, definitely creative. And the temples were beautiful.

Screw it, what does it matter? Guess I'm just here to say Skyward Sword is better than a lot of people are giving it credit for.

^Except non-linear gameplay was a stable of the franchise as one point, and now you are even restricted from solving puzzles without a helper telling you exactly what you need to do.

And Skyward Sword is gets all the hate and praise it deserves. If anything, critics overpraised it like they do every Zelda game. The Zelda series has fallen. Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, and Skyward Sword are the bottom of the barrel. I can't see the franchise recovering unless someone who respects the foundation of the series takes helm. Aonuma is not that person.


EDIT: I'm harsher on SS now because I'm replaying the older games, and it's really sad to see the dip in quality Zelda has took. Starting with The Wind Waker, Zelda games started feeling unfinished. Now they don't even feel like Zelda games.

Originally Posted by eiyuu_004

........why do people keep comparing Zelda to games like Skyrim? Zelda has never been that type of game.

Originally Posted by Double A

You're right. Skyrim and LoZ1 don't share a lot. But what little they DO share is significant, and prominent in both games. In both games, you're placed in the middle of a massive world you can explore at your own pace. You have a wide variety of tools that give you more viable options in combat. The world has a "fantasy" feel to it and doesn't feel like it was made "just for you" (one of the reasons SS' world feels rather artificial and less "fantastic").

This isn't about the gameplay. It's not about the "customization and sidequests". It's about the feeling that the game created within the player. It seems that Skyrim and LoZ1 are both basically defined by that sense of adventure they created within the player. This is what excites fans of the adventure game genre.

Incidentally, despite sharing these key aspects, both games still have their own distinct character, which ties in with what I said in the other thread about how you don't need to make the exact same experience to appeal to fans of a particular game.

Comparing Zelda to Skyrim is not akin to asking it to get loads of customization or focus primarily on sidequests and whatnot. When gamers compare Zelda to Skyrim, they're looking at the bigger picture. They want the same sense of "grand adventure" that Skyrim appears to be defined by.

Alright, this is pissing me off. All I'm seeing on these types of threads are people stating over and over what they think and how they think it's right, not accepting and not understanding anyone else's point of view. That's going to both sides of the argument.

Who has the right to say quality in Zelda games has either dipped or raised? Nobody, because it's your own opinion and quality, in this sense, doesn't exist. Didn't anyone think that the Zelda games' change to less choice was for the better? Or that Grand Adventures don't need to be scripted to be good, as arguably shown in Skyrim?

Remember, nobody can say what most gamers want. Nobody has any concise, concrete proof or any statistics that show what most gamers want, if you do then bloody well link it. Games shouldn't feel like games from the same series either. If you want the same feeling you got before, play the damn game again. People complain about remakes, and the same complain about games feeling different. Logic pl0x.

Probably gonna get lotsa responses with this.

Originally Posted by Double A

You're right. Those locations were interesting (though I won't use comparatives yet). But I feel like I've already pointed out that you're choosing specific locations rather than the world as a whole. You're telling me that WW's universe was more interesting than TP's because of those locations. Whether or not I agree is beside the point. I could agree that WW's individual locations were more interesting than TP's (for the record I disagree, but not strongly), but I can't agree that WW's world was a better world than TP's.

How or why would you segregate the world as a whole from the locations within it? As I've mentioned a couple of times, this distinction is frivolous in Wind Waker because there are no boundaries between the islands and the ocean. The islands are as much the over-world as the ocean. In Twilight Princess, on the other hand, there is a clear boundary between the "overworld" and the "locations". The funny thing is if you just consider the "locations" from Twilight Princess, they're not all that different from Skyward Sword (they're just less fleshed out, intricate, puzzle-based, large etc.) The over-world itself contains a few puzzles but mostly just functions as corridor to the various locations (which are almost always positioned around the perimeter rather than actually integrated into the over-world, which would be better). The fields serve the purpose of creating a more believable world, but they doesn't offer much exploration within themselves, which is completely different from the old Zelda games or Wind Waker.

The Great Sea and most of the islands lacked character. If you want to point to between-overworld areas, then WW has a slight edge in towns whereas TP has a slight edge in terms of dungeons. But TP's locations were linked by a world that actually felt worldish, at least more so than WW's Great Sea.

I completely disagree with that. I see no reason why Wind Waker is not a feasible, believable world. It can be a snore to navigate because of the its size and the time it takes to travel, but I remain unconvinced that it is less of a world than the Twilight Princess Hyrule.

WW literally felt like "a couple of really interesting locations with some puzzles and a bunch of blue between them". That is not how you create a "world".

But that's pretty much what our actual Earth is like! It's mostly water after all. I suppose the one thing Wind Waker could have done is have couple of larger "continents" and a less neatly arranged layout.

Why is this a bad thing?

It's not necessarily. I like how they have expanded the lore of the Temple of Time across OoT, TP and SS. Metroid (well, the old ones) were excellent at developing a subtle but consistent lore across games. The best example is how Zero Mission showed the origins of the Wrecked Ship in Super Metroid. Also, because the the original/MZM and Super all take place on Zebes, there is some overlap in the geography and this makes for some terrific lore (ex: there is an inconspicuous block that hides an energy tank in the same spot in both games, the morph ball is found in the same spot in both games, and we observe where Mother Brain was defeated in the original early on Super--it's very artfully designed)

However, the manner in which TP handles this is often with little tact, and instead the result is cheap rehashes. An example of this is searching for the Poes in Arbiter's Grounds. It's a not too subtle reference to Ocarina of Time's Forest Temple that is poorly conceived since it's unclear how or why it relates. They just put it in thinking that it players would appreciate it based on nostalgia alone.

The races are another example. The Gorons and Zoras were brought back, but I found them much less interesting than an Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask (or even Wind Waker for that matter).

If anything, expanding on established lore is a good thing for an adventure game to do in terms of creating a sense of discovery. Visiting the Temple of Time in TP gave me a whole new insight into the Temple of Time in OoT

This was a case of lore done right. And they did it across three games which is even cooler.

, the Goron Mines and the Lakebed Temple were more than dungeons, they were a direct insight into the architecture and technology of an ancient race.

I didn't see them that way. Was it ever made clear what the Gorons were mining and why? I don't recall too much lore or back-story behind the Lakebed Temple . . .

The Arbiter's Grounds hold additional meaning for someone who's played OoT and is aware of the Gerudo race that once lived there. Actual discovery.

I'd be interested in what that significance is, because there was not a single tangible reference to the Gerudo aside from the name of the desert and one of the bugs.

to constantly make discoveries about the land itself as they traverse through it (something I've touched upon in the other thread). It's about being able to constantly make discoveries even if there's nothing special to do gameplay-wise. It's about making a world.

But I think an effective "real world" (in a video game) would have landmarks and things to explore within the world itself and not just around the perimeter. Yes, the geometry is literally less linear than, say, Skyward Sword, as I showed pictorially. But that doesn't mean that those fields are anything more than glorified corridors. Here is a representation of how I think a more effective world would look:



Those red dots could represent towns, landmarks, or interesting exploration points within the over-world itself.

This is more like what the 2D games were like (and Wind Waker as well). With this kind of layout, the over-world is not just a corridor like it is in OoT/TP/MM (what made OoT a little better was that at least you could choose which points of interest around the perimeter you wanted to go to, hence an inkling of freedom)

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Advance123

Alright, this is pissing me off. All I'm seeing on these types of threads are people stating over and over what they think and how they think it's right, not accepting and not understanding anyone else's point of view. That's going to both sides of the argument.

First, you don't have to read or involve yourself in the discussion. Second, there is a difference between not understanding someone's point of view and not agreeing with it. I think our debate has been carried out fairly respectfully, maybe with the occasional cheap shot thrown in for style.

Remember, nobody can say what most gamers want. Nobody has any concise, concrete proof or any statistics that show what most gamers want, if you do then bloody well link it. Games shouldn't feel like games from the same series either. If you want the same feeling you got before, play the damn game again. People complain about remakes, and the same complain about games feeling different. Logic pl0x.

I think we're both aware that we're not going to be able to make an objective, irrefutable argument that proves our opinion. Such debates are usually confined to mathematics and science. Most discussions take place in the realm of subjectivity, where there is no definitive right or wrong. That said, even in this realm, there are well reasoned, evidence based, and interesting arguments as opposed to baseless, banal or poorly reasoned arguments. Just because it is not an absolutely objective issue doesn't mean we just have to throw our hands up and drop the debate.

Originally Posted by Bill

How or why would you segregate the world as a whole from the locations within it? As I've mentioned a couple of times, this distinction is frivolous in Wind Waker because there are no boundaries between the islands and the ocean.

...

The fields serve the purpose of creating a more believable world, but they doesn't offer much exploration within themselves, which is completely different from the old Zelda games or Wind Waker.

That's basically most of what I'm saying. The presence of believable landmarks and terrain made TP's Hyrule a believable world. Exploration is enhanced by the feeling that you're exploring a believable world. Regardless of whether or not you agreed TP had better locations than WW (a subjective argument that would get nowhere), you at least have to agree on this particular point.

I'm not the one drawing a distinction between the overworld and individual locations. You're the one saying that WW's individual locations make up for its characterless overworld. I'm the one saying WW's world (as a whole) was quite literally a sparse dispersion of interesting locations with blue and puzzles between them. The space between landmarks is just as much part of the world as the landmarks themselves.

I completely disagree with that. I see no reason why Wind Waker is not a feasible, believable world. It can be a snore to navigate because of the its size and the time it takes to travel, but I remain unconvinced that it is less of a world than the Twilight Princess Hyrule.

But that's pretty much what our actual Earth is like! It's mostly water after all. I suppose the one thing Wind Waker could have done is have couple of larger "continents" and a less neatly arranged layout.

"Our actual earth" has forests. It has mountains. It has deserts. It has valleys. It has continents which have all those things on them. Each landmass has multiple things that make it interesting. On top of that, the most interesting parts of our planet are either on land or under the water, not on it. Bringing up the Earth isn't helpful to your argument.

It's so much harder to "believe" a world made of ocean and bare rock formations, since those bare rock formations resemble the barest of islands, and islands that are that bare aren't usually very interesting to traverse. It's also much harder to enjoy a world when the sense of exploration of a journey is almost entirely concentrated on the destination itself.

It's not necessarily. I like how they have expanded the lore of the Temple of Time across OoT, TP and SS. Metroid (well, the old ones) were excellent at developing a subtle but consistent lore across games. The best example is how Zero Mission showed the origins of the Wrecked Ship in Super Metroid. Also, because the the original/MZM and Super all take place on Zebes, there is some overlap in the geography and this makes for some terrific lore (ex: there is an inconspicuous block that hides an energy tank in the same spot in both games, the morph ball is found in the same spot in both games, and we observe where Mother Brain was defeated in the original early on Super--it's very artfully designed)

However, the manner in which TP handles this is often with little tact, and instead the result is cheap rehashes. An example of this is searching for the Poes in Arbiter's Grounds. It's a not too subtle reference to Ocarina of Time's Forest Temple that is poorly conceived since it's unclear how or why it relates. They just put it in thinking that it players would appreciate it based on nostalgia alone.

I won't disagree with this. However, between all the poorly-thought implied lore and world expansion, there were some decent gems, and I'd have to say that there were more than in WW.

But I think an effective "real world" (in a video game) would have landmarks and things to explore within the world itself and not just around the perimeter. Yes, the geometry is literally less linear than, say, Skyward Sword, as I showed pictorially. But that doesn't mean that those fields are anything more than glorified corridors.

Again, this comes down to the fundamental question of what exploration is.

As drab as TP's various sub-overworlds (the field, the mountain, the lake, the desert) were, there was still some iota of exploration that was going on within them. More specifically, there was exploration between the various landmarks (as is the case in real life exploration). As I noted, the majority of WW's exploration was concentrated in very small dots around the world map ("the landmarks"), as opposed to the whole entire thing. And even then, you were exploring small rock formations rather than large terrain.

Here is a representation of how I think a more effective world would look:



Those red dots could represent towns, landmarks, or interesting exploration points within the over-world itself.

You're not thinking of this like an explorer. An overworld that encourages exploration would be covered almost entirely in unpredictable splotches of red rather than the well-defined red circles you've drawn. The point of an overworld isn't to be "something to do between exploration" (as it was in WW), but to be a point of exploration itself. I'll concede that TP didn't do this particularly well (which admittedly would probably help explain why TP didn't do that much better than WW overall in sales after the hype died down), but it did it leagues better than WW in this regard.

The patterns of terrain are interesting (themselves a sort of driving force for exploration - adventurers like making mental maps of areas to aid future exploration) and lend themselves to creating a believable world. You could say that the fact that it isn't perfectly open is actually beneficial to creating a sense of exploration due to the partially-labyrinthine nature of any overworld that isn't perfectly-open.

Originally Posted by Double A

Exploration is enhanced by the feeling that you're exploring a believable world. Regardless of whether or not you agreed TP had better locations than WW (a subjective argument that would get nowhere), you at least have to agree on this particular point.

I agree with the general point that a believable world is preferable, but not with the opinion that Twilight Princess's world is more believable.

For one, a real world isn't large open fields connected by skinny corridors. Look at the world map for Skyrim. My understanding is that you can go just about anywhere, which is no where near true for Twilight Princess. A real world also doesn't have black bottomless pits or areas that can only be accessed canons (or rivers that can only be accessed by mini-games). I also wouldn't expect in a real world that a desert would be located what appears to be a few hundred yards away from the lushest region of the entire game (even Ocarina of Time had a more subtle, realistic shift in terrain) These all feel like very artificial "gamey" aspects of Twilight Princess's world that are arguably worse than anything from Wind Waker (maybe even Skyward Sword).

I'm not the one drawing a distinction between the overworld and individual locations. You're the one saying that WW's individual locations make up for its characterless overworld.

That's completely not what I"m saying. I'm saying Wind Waker's locations aren't really separable from its over-world. The water just serves the same purpose as the field in making the world believable and giving it scale. Unlike Twilight Princess (and MM and OoT), there aren't obvious boundaries where the over-world ends. No, I wouldn't describe large islands like Windfall (for example) as being part of the over-world (although there is no artificial boundary that separates it) but I certainly would think of the smaller islands as such.

Even the sea itself I don't see as being characterless compared to TP's field. There is the intrigue of seeing landmarks on the horizon in every direction, as well as the aforementioned visual effects and game-play elements that keep it interesting most of the time. And if we consider the more literal meaning of character, Wind Waker's ocean is actually less devoid of them than TP's field (which iirc has a total of one inhabitant, exactly the same as OoT, that being the Goron trying to break down the wall south of the castle). I don't see why, in a "real world", absolutely nobody would go out in the field.

"Our actual earth" has forests. It has mountains. It has deserts. It has valleys. It has continents which have all those things on them.

Well, the Wind Waker is basically a Noah's Ark story, so the dearth of land was done for the narrative. I'll concede that the WW world doesn't resemble our earth (because of the lack of continents) but it is believable within its own universe.

I won't disagree with this. However, between all the poorly-thought implied lore and world expansion, there were some decent gems, and I'd have to say that there were more than in WW.

Better than Wind Waker's lore? I don't know about that. The implied evolution of the Rito and Kokiri? The full growth of the Deku Tree Sprout into a new Great Deku Tree? The discovery of the "old" Hyrule beneath the ocean? The back-story of Ganondorf? The opening cut-scene, portrayed through Egyptian like papyrus paper and "Hyruleglyphics?" The celebration of the Hero of Time through Link's coming of age party and the statue in Hyrule Castle? The reference to the sages in the stained glass of of the room housing the Master Sword? The ancient Hylian Language?

In Twilight Princess, the lore was mostly fulfilled by a reuse of geographical locations. It's interesting to see a new take on old landmarks, but in some cases I found myself liking the old versions better (Goron City, Gerudo Valley, the Lost Woods, Zora's River).

The point of an overworld isn't to be "something to do between exploration" (as it was in WW), but to be a point of exploration itself.

I agree with that, but at some level, you're always going to have points of interest and the space between them. The key is to find the right balance between being believable and still being enjoyable to explore.

To avoid being reduced to a mere corridor to landmarks, the over-world needs to have intriguing points of interested and structure built into it and dispersed throughout, not just around the perimeter. Can't you see the difference? In ALTTP, there is no sense of a distinction between important landmarks and a field that connects them (the only distinction is between dungeon and over-world). In OoT, MM, WW and TP, the field is mostly just the glue that holds everything else together.

You could say that the fact that it isn't perfectly open is actually beneficial to creating a sense of exploration due to the partially-labyrinthine nature of any overworld that isn't perfectly-open.

Yeah, but in Twilight Princess, the over-world can hardly be described as labyrinthine. You're progress is artificially restricted due to the Twilight or a boulder or a broken bridge.

Originally Posted by Bill

Ok, let's look at the trends. Majora's Mask was underrated. Now it's adored. Wind Waker was initially resented. Now it's more or less adored (except for those who can't get beyond the art-style). Twilight Princess enjoyed a brief honeymoon, then people were lukewarm. Until, of course, Skyward Sword came around. Now everyone suddenly likes Twilight Princess again. Skyward Sword also enjoyed a brief honeymoon period, but now have analyzed the crap out of it and it's the current whipping boy.

MM wasn't liked at first? To be fair, it is hard not to appreciate a great sequal to a great game after WW was released.

With WW, you had a huge bait and switch with the graphics, and god awful sailing. Looking back at WW, nobody cares about the bait and switch anymore, and nobody remembers how bad the sailing was because they were probably reading a book or watching TV while they did it.

I don't think TP is suddenly liked. I think people appreciate that they actually tried to make a Zelda game with TP despite its faults.

This so called cycle is more easily explained with a downward trend in Zelda games.

Hamburgers suck if you're used to eating steak. But if you're fed dog food, you'll miss that hamburger.

Originally Posted by Bill

I agree with the general point that a believable world is preferable, but not with the opinion that Twilight Princess's world is more believable.

For one, a real world isn't large open fields connected by skinny corridors. Look at the world map for Skyrim. My understanding is that you can go just about anywhere, which is no where near true for Twilight Princess. A real world also doesn't have black bottomless pits or areas that can only be accessed canons (or rivers that can only be accessed by mini-games). I also wouldn't expect in a real world that a desert would be located what appears to be a few hundred yards away from the lushest region of the entire game (even Ocarina of Time had a more subtle, realistic shift in terrain) These all feel like very artificial "gamey" aspects of Twilight Princess's world that are arguably worse than anything from Wind Waker (maybe even Skyward Sword).

-Canyons/gorges
-I totally agree that one of TP's flaws was that we couldn't simply "go anywhere" and explore the terrain at our own pace like you (apparently) can in Skyrim. Or heck, even in Xenoblade. But I don't think TP can be faulted for this, being a game designed for the GC. But at least it had terrain to explore. "Going anywhere" in WW was cheapened by the fact that the vast majority of the world map was, in essence, exactly identical.
-As for the cannons, there's no accounting for topographical variation.
-There's a small space between TP's Lake Hylia and its Desert that doesn't appear on the map, which is probably supposed to stand for the same space between Lake Hylia and the Desert in OoT (which was apparently more believable).

Even the sea itself I don't see as being characterless compared to TP's field. There is the intrigue of seeing landmarks on the horizon in every direction, as well as the aforementioned visual effects and game-play elements that keep it interesting most of the time.

Even you agree the majority of the journey's "intrigue" lies in the destination, in WW.

And a bit of weather and some enemies is certainly better than nothing, but how much character did these elements really give the Great Sea? How much interest can weather really generate in a particular section of the world map?

And if we consider the more literal meaning of character, Wind Waker's ocean is actually less devoid of them than TP's field (which iirc has a total of one inhabitant, exactly the same as OoT, that being the Goron trying to break down the wall south of the castle). I don't see why, in a "real world", absolutely nobody would go out in the field.

Because there are monsters. Duh. Makes sense that the only Hylian on the field was a person who could outrun the monstahs (Postman). Yeh they were pathetic monsters, but it seems Nintendo has a habit of trying to play up pathetic monsters as fearsome.

Better than Wind Waker's lore? I don't know about that. The implied evolution of the Rito and Kokiri? The full growth of the Deku Tree Sprout into a new Great Deku Tree? The discovery of the "old" Hyrule beneath the ocean? The back-story of Ganondorf? The opening cut-scene, portrayed through Egyptian like papyrus paper and "Hyruleglyphics?" The celebration of the Hero of Time through Link's coming of age party and the statue in Hyrule Castle? The reference to the sages in the stained glass of of the room housing the Master Sword? The ancient Hylian Language?

In Twilight Princess, the lore was mostly fulfilled by a reuse of geographical locations. It's interesting to see a new take on old landmarks, but in some cases I found myself liking the old versions better (Goron City, Gerudo Valley, the Lost Woods, Zora's River).

You're right that the lore was in no small part fulfilled by a reuse and modification of various geographical locations within Hyrule. What this means is that there is implied lore in the entirety of the world itself rather than the isolated episodes of lore you've listed (which aren't themselves bad, just rather sparse and not good for building up an entire adventure game's lore with by themselves).

To avoid being reduced to a mere corridor to landmarks, the over-world needs to have intriguing points of interested and structure built into it and dispersed throughout, not just around the perimeter. Can't you see the difference? In ALTTP, there is no sense of a distinction between important landmarks and a field that connects them (the only distinction is between dungeon and over-world). In OoT, MM, WW and TP, the field is mostly just the glue that holds everything else together.

Neither TP nor WW did this to any significant degree. In TP, most of the content is concentrated on the perimeter, while in WW all of the content (the vast majority of which were puzzles on uninteresting rock formations) is concentrated in very very small dots around the map.

All I'm saying is that TP's overworld was closer than WW to the ideal of having "intriguing points of interest and structure built into it and dispersed throughout", because as bare as the overworld was, it still had more structure and variation than WW's sea. The overworld itself had structure.

Yeah, but in Twilight Princess, the over-world can hardly be described as labyrinthine. You're progress is artificially restricted due to the Twilight or a boulder or a broken bridge.

True, but I consider Twilight Princess' overworld infinitely more labyrinthine than WW's. Not because of anything special TP did, but because of WW.

Even you agree the majority of the journey's "intrigue" lies in the destination, in WW.

Of course, but I still think that taken together, the battles with the squids, the cyclone, the ghost ship, pulling up treasure, or even checking out those look-out towers and submarines offers at least as much intrigue as what we find in the over-world of Twilight Princess.

Because there are monsters. Duh. Makes sense that the only Hylian on the field was a person who could outrun the monstahs (Postman).

That didn't stop the many of the inhabitants of A Link to the Past, which were scattered about the over-world. Most were concentrated in Kakariko Village, but others were littered about the world.

I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be other travelers/merchants/adventurers/vagabonds or even little settlements about the world. I think a robust and satisfying over-world would have them.

You're right that the lore was in no small part fulfilled by a reuse and modification of various geographical locations within Hyrule. What this means is that there is implied lore in the entirety of the world itself rather than the isolated episodes of lore you've listed (which aren't themselves bad, just rather sparse and not good for building up an entire adventure game's lore with by themselves).

Wind Waker had that broader element of lore going for it too, though. We learn that the old Hyrule we explored in Ocarina of Time is beneath the sea. The geography suggests that Dragon Roost Isle might be the top of Death Mountain and the Forest Haven rests above the old forest. I think there is a great deal of implied lore without descending into a retread.

Neither TP nor WW did this to any significant degree. In TP, most of the content is concentrated on the perimeter, while in WW all of the content (the vast majority of which were puzzles on uninteresting rock formations) is concentrated in very very small dots around the map.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I thought it was an advantage that Wind Waker got away from concentrating everything around the perimeter, but I do think its overly tidy arrangement was artificial feeling. It would have been better to have a more random arrangement of islands and more variation in physical size.

That said, I do believe the islands being small and like dots on a vast ocean had thematic significance for the story. "Oceans. Oceans. Oceans. Oceans as far as the eye can see." However, story in video game should never compromise the game-play.

because as bare as the overworld was, it still had more structure and variation than WW's sea. The overworld itself had structure.

Well, you obviously can't build structure into an ocean. Which gets back to the point of land being inherently preferable to a sea. You claimed this wasn't the case, but I don't see how you can get around it.

My counter position would be that the structure comes from the islands, which I consider part of the over-world. This is just an irreconcilable difference of perception that we have.

Are you guys serious? You've turned this into a petty "Wind Waker versus Twilight Princess" squabble.

Why does this make you so hot and bothered? You're the second person to jump in and protest this discussion without adding anything of substance. The discussion we're having has been respectful and very informative, the sort of which is quite rare on ZU these days. Sure, it'd be more fun if more people entered the discussion and added some fresh perspectives but your 2 cents added nothing.

Originally Posted by Bill

You're the second person to jump in and protest this discussion without adding anything of substance.

To be honest I don't see how anyone CAN jump in at this point. Each post is a pretty daunting wall of text that isn't even related to the main topic (Skyward Sword) from what I gleaned from skimming over it.

The barrier for entrance to this discussion is pretty high right now.

I like Skyward Sword. The Controls were fine as is and the Story was great. There was some flaws to the game but I do have one personal complaint abt Skyward Sword that was not yet said. Even though there were hardly anything to explore in the Overworld, why aren't there any Air Battles, outside the Levias Battle, in there as well? TP had some Horseback battles on the field (outside Ganondorf) but SS didn't. That would've made the Overworld, even though it still needed more exploration, a little bit better and little more fun.

The sky was poorly executed. My heart sank a little when I realized it was just going to be a collection of mini-games and isolated side-quests. If only it had more substance, people would have been more forgiving of the linear design of the surface. The sky could and should have contained developed islands ripe with exploratory potential, side-quests, settlements etc, all in a 3D Space. It could have been Super Mario Galaxy but off-rails.

It made the same mistake Wind Waker did. I'd rather have an overworld than a bunch of tiny "islands" and no true overworld. Exploration has always been a huge part of Zelda's charm to me and to take that away is nearly unforgivable.

Originally Posted by daeth

It made the same mistake Wind Waker did. I'd rather have an overworld than a bunch of tiny "islands" and no true overworld. Exploration has always been a huge part of Zelda's charm to me and to take that away is nearly unforgivable.

imo, Wind Waker had a huge Overworld with more side-quests and more exploration than Skyward Sword did.

Yeah, Skyward Sword tries to go for a Wind Waker style overworld but that's not why it fails. - it fails because there's no incentive to explore. Not only is it too small and sparse, but the sky is talked about by other characters as a known quantity. In Wind Waker it was established that very few people leave their home island and actually go out exploring, so going out and exploring the world made you feel heroic. In Skyward Sword everyone in skyloft is like 'oh well, the sky, yeah sure we've all been around it and stuff...'.