I would gladly welcome future Zelda games with the swordplay included in this game.

I was expecting the Wii U Zelda to make good use of the tablet controller. While I'm enjoying the Wii Motion+ controls of Skyward Sword, it would be a shame to not see what the tablet controller would offer for a Zelda game. I can see a scenario where you would use the new tablet and the old remote, but that seems very cumbersome.

Oh no.  This is the last thing I want to hear. 


I applaud them for their attempt at motion controls on SS, but as far as I'm concerned it was a failure.  Sure, there were some impressive moments, but overall it brought me frustration more than anything else.

I don't really have a problem with Nintendo sticking with motion controls for Zelda for the foreseeable future.  I don't believe the next Zelda will use the Motion+, as I think the Wii U will introduce its own more-advanced motion controller.  That will allow Nintendo to iron out the control problems left over from Skyward Sword, which are relics of some bad design and hardware that just isn't where it needs to be.

My concern with the future of Zelda is this: the developers of Skyward Sword seemed like they spent a great deal of time on the motion controls, and that's it.  They got inexcusably sloppy and lazy with the design of the rest of the game, leading to one of the most dull and tedious Zelda titles I've ever played.  They thought all they had to do was deliver on the motion controls and making everything a frickin' puzzle regardless of whether it made the game better, and they simply stopped there.  I'm fine with motion controls sticking with the Zelda franchise, but if future developers think they can skimp on the rest of the game as result I'm done with Zelda.  I've been disappointed by 2 straight console Zelda titles in a row, and it being my favorite series I can't take another poor showing.

Right now, I think Aonuma needs to talk about how they're going to make the experience of playing Zelda more interesting; more fun; and less padded.  Come what may on the controls.  The game design is what concerns me with future Zelda titles.

I haven't got the game yet, but i feel Twilight Princess was far too long. I finished it in 70 hours and that was too much for me personally. The time spent versus meaty content was off. In comparison i clocked 105 hours in Burnout Paradise and had a riot. There was a lot of padding by traversal - but not in the Metroid formula of tight organic structures and uncovering as you backtrack, but simply go from point A to Z while everything in-between is empty.

If broodwars is saying that i will wait for the price to tumble a bit before i purchase.

The Wii U tablet was clearly designed for multiple uses, and won't necessarily be used as the primary control method for all, or likely even most 1st and 2nd party games (though I'm sure it will be for most 3rd party titles).

Knowing Nintendo, they're not going to limit themselves like that. Remember, the that the E3 presentation showed video of the tablet being used alongside the Wii RemotePlus-- with instances ranging from the tablet being propped up and used as a secondary screen, to it others where it actually attached to the Wii Remote itself. Sure, none of the actual demos demonstrated any of these uses, as Nintendo chose to focus on the tablet itself since it was the big new addition.

With that in mind, I'm not a bit surprised in the least by plans to continue Motion based controls. I would have been far more surprised if they said they weren't planning to re-use them, especially after playing Skyward Sword.

I really hope that was a typo, and you really meant Twilight Princess instead of Skyward Sword. What you described definitely applied to TP, but if you honestly thought that about SS, then I don't know what game you were playing, but it certainly wasn't the same Skyward Sword I played.

Actually, I think the exact opposite is implied. There is no "in-between." All content, no field. I will admit that it's a weird effect, and reminds me of the DS Zelda games in an odd way. While the design is fairly impeccable, it's missing some vital element of freedom that was present in all previous console Zeldas. Whether this is a misstep or an evolutionary jump is up to you.

So I can look forward to repeatedly blowing myself up with bombs because the game can't tell if I want to throw it, bowl it, or stand there holding it until it explodes?  Joy.

The best I can say about Skyward Sword's motion controls is that they're not so terrible that I'm not enjoying the game.  These are the best motion controls I have ever seen.  They still are inferior to normal controls.  The controls are also needlessly complex which seems to go against Nintendo's whole idea of making them intuitive.  So I press B to take out a bomb but A to pick one up and put one down and then do a waggle to throw it.  How is that intuitive for the rubes that apparently can't handle normal controls?

On a different forum someone else pointed out that even the big "oooo, you swing the sword" stuff doesn't need motion control because Nintendo made it essentially 8 points of slashes so you could do the same thing with a second analog stick.  I like this game but how is this **** not waggle?  I can position the sword accurately when I'm just holding it but everything else is pretty much "shake and he swings in approximately the direction you shook".  Of course sometimes he does something completely ridiculous.  I've had times where I'm trying to do that sword charge thing where you hold the sword straight up and I can't do it because despite me holding the remote completely vertical Link is holding the sword like he's holding a gun gangsta style.  I have to put the sword away and then take it out again to reset it.

The game fails where EVERY use of motion control fails - things goof up enough that I spend the whole time wishing I could just use a normal controller.  Skyward Sword is just better because of Motion+.  The controls suck less.  I wish they could just give us the option because they ALWAYS could.  Waggle = button press.  Remote look = analog stick.  They've never done **** that they couldn't do with a dual-shock.

However I really do like the level design of Skyward Sword.  I prefer a more puzzle-oriented design and there isn't any blank "Hyrule Field" laziness.  I don't care for flying however.  That is almost as annoying as sailing in Wind Waker.  Travelling between areas isn't fun so don't overthink it, Nintendo.  Epona was just walking faster than normal so that's why we liked it.  Positioning the wind or having to motion control flight is extra effort just to move from point A to point B.  Don't get cute, just let us move there directly.

Ugh...do I really have to go into detail as to why I find Skyward Sword dull and lazy?  So many words...

My biggest problem with Skyward Sword is that to me the Zelda series has always been about 2 things: exploration and discovery.  There's the thrill of knowing that if you wandered in a certain direction or explored that conspicuously-looking part of the world, you might find something interesting.  Maybe it's a heart piece, maybe it's a chest of rupees, and maybe it's just a grotto with some fish swimming in a pool.  Regardless of what I found, I was always excited at the thrill of the hunt for secrets and new areas. 

Skyward Sword doesn't have that.  There is nowhere to explore and nothing to find, because the areas are ridiculously small and nothing is truly hidden.  Instead, the "secrets" are often walled-off in plain sight behind metaphorical doors that require keys often shaped like hookshots or swimming fins.  The developers call these "puzzles", but what kind of "puzzles" rely on one-step solutions?  There's no thought, experimentation, or exploration involved in solving these "puzzles".  It's just a question of whether you have the required item or you don't, which would be alright if these "puzzles" were actually hidden.  But they aren't.  They're right out in the open, so there's no sense of satisfaction when you "solve" them, just a sense that you're checking another item off your scavenger hunt.

Also, it seems to me that the developers designed Skyward Sword's areas to be small and compact as they are in reaction to the complaints about the wide open fields/seas of nothingness in Twilight Princess and Wind Waker.  Here's the problem, though: the huge, empty Hyrule Field wasn't removed.  They just threw it up into the clouds, gave you even less reason to explore (because there's nothing to find in the skies unless you've unlocked it down below by hitting a Goddess Cube, and even then they're not hidden and often require a tool-shaped key to reach), and renamed it Skyloft.  Instead of solving the problem, they merely re-named it and gave it less emphasis.  The Overworld in Twilight Princess was too big and dull to traverse, but at least there were things to find in it, which is more than I can say for Skyward Sword's Skyloft Overworld.

Another problem of the developers' "all 'puzzles', all the time" approach to the world design is that it ignores the reason why the dungeons were compelling in previous Zeldas: BECAUSE they were a departure from the rest of the game, a change of pace.  Instead of roaming around Hyrule Field as you pleased killing monsters, you were in a more directed, puzzle-driven experience.  The two halves complemented each other.  By the time you got tired of free-roaming action, you were going into a puzzle-driven dungeon.  By the time you got sick of solving puzzles, you were back out in the field.  That distinction is gone, now, and the constant "puzzles" got tiresome for me.

There's also at least one major missed opportunity/laziness I've seen in the game, but it's a major spoiler: late in the game, you discover a way to travel "back in time" to the end of the major war that kicked off the events of Skyward Sword.  But all the portal leads to is...a nearly identical version of the room you were already in, with the characters merely telling you it's the Past now.  It's the Underwater Hyrule from Wind Waker all over again, where we could have been treated to some really interesting places to explore and see but the developers do not let the player do so.  In Wind Waker, I can accept that as a relic of the game's rushed development, which also struck two more potential dungeons from the game.  But Skyward Sword had all the time in the world.  It's sheer laziness here.

There is also the ludicrous amount of lazy padding Nintendo put into the game to stretch a 20 hour game into a 60-70 hour game, but I trust I don't need to elaborate on that?  I have gone into this in significant detail in the Skyward Sword thread, as has Radio Free Nintendo the last few weeks.

The hell?  I'm sorry but if this game took you over 60 hours to complete you really sucked at it.  It only took me around 36 hours my first time and that's counting several side quests I did.  I've currently been playing it again on Hero Mode and recently stopped at the 6th dungeon, which has only took me about 18 hours to get to this time, plus I've done more side quest this time as well.

The complaints that the game is too long is just ridiculous.  The main game without any sidequest only takes about 30-35 hours the first time and about 20-25 on second playthroughs.  Now I'd imagine with side quests it could get to 60 hours your first time, but side quest are an entirely optional thing to do.  The game doesn't require you complete all the side quest in order to beat it.  If it took you over 60 hours to complete all the side quests and than beat the game, it's your own fault.

No one put a gun to your head and told you to complete every side quest or else.  If you found a side quest was taking to long and got too boring you could have easily stopped at any moment.  I got bored of trying to get all the trouphies in Wind Waker, so I stopped doing them.  I didn't care much for the fishing in Twilight Princess, so I didn't do that either.  The side quest in Zelda games are always optional things for the players to do if they choose to.  If you don't want to do them, you don't have to since none of them are required to actually play the main game.

Actually, the complaint is that the game is too long without anything interesting to justify that extra time expenditure.  No one complains when a company puts out a game that's incredibly long that justifies its nature.  For instance, I don't see anyone complaining that Skyrim is a 50-300 hour game depending on what you do, because Skyrim ensures that there's always something else interesting to do if you don't like what you're currently doing. 

Instead, Nintendo just regurgitates areas you've already been through or concepts you've already mastered to pad the length of the game, and that's not even getting into the really stupid wastes of time like the already-infamous underwater collectathon.  You can deny it all you like, but many people other than me have already noted the ridiculous amount of padding in Skyward Sword (including all the panelists on Radio Free Nintendo).  I think you're in the minority here.

I guess it's a good think that Retro could be to the rescue...
Zelda Wii U: Retro to the Rescue!?
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=36419.msg710546#msg710546

I'd support the decision to stick with the motion controls for another go-around. I never came to the Zelda series for its swordplay, but Skyward Sword changed that - I relished the one-on-one encounters and loved the feeling of outsmarting them with good timing and reflexes. Slightly concerned that it would limit the potential for the Wii U controller, but that's a discussion for another day.

As for the game design, for what it's worth, I liked the shift to a more puzzle-orientated overworld in Skyward Sword. And for all this talk of the game being stretched out, I actually think it's one of the more streamlined, denser games in the series. To make the connection to Super Mario 64, it's like Skyloft is the castle hub level, and the regions are the massive stages that you jump into and return to multiple times. No doubt, there are some instances of padding (such as the aforementioned 'tadtone collecting trial'), but it depends how much that stuff affects you. I didn't think this example was a very good sequence, but haven't had the violent reaction that some others did.

I'm glad to hear that they're talking about using the motion controls in the next Zelda game, I was a little worried that they were going to toss out everything they were building up with the Wii. The sword works really well, though things like swimming could use some fixing. Might also want to go back to the IR for pointing, or a combination of the two; i kind of feel like that was added as a sort of "because it can" to show off the Motion Plus.

And I still don't see how Skyward Sword is any worse than previous Zelda games as far as revisiting areas. They all have that, but I feel Skyward Sword is far more streamlined and manageable than Zelda has ever been. There are a couple of segments that are boring or annoying, but they're nothing that affect the game on the whole.

I only got the game less than two weeks ago so I'm not very far into it yet.  I have a feeling I have not gotten far enough into it to really understand BroodWars' complaints about length and padding.

I do get the concerns about exploration.  I think I would get sick of the Skyward Sword gameplay style very quickly if it was to become the standard.  However what I do like about it is that it's something different for the series.  This doesn't just feel like a cliche Zelda game.  They're doing some unique things (of which motion control is a minor part at best) and I dig that.

I have been suggesting for a long time that Zelda should get some inspiration from Metroid in regards to keeping things fresh.  I can see some of it in this design.  However what I was suggesting was to blur the seperation between dungeon and overworld.  They're doing some of that but it still is very clear when you are in a dungeon.  They really just added more dungeon-like elements to the overworld.  What I suggest is to have no clear distinction like how Metroid will just pop a boss in out-of-nowhere with no clear formula to it.  There is still much of the formula in Skyward Sword.  We still have dungeons and in each dungeon you're going to get a new item and you're going to encounter a boss at the end.

What I really want out of the Zelda series is for it to not get stale.  I want it to change things up while still maintaining gameplay that is clearly Zelda.  It's a challenging thing to accomplish but Zelda should be an ambitious series and ambition is not easy.  I think Zelda gameplay is a lot more flexible than Nintendo thinks it is.  I think there are a lot of ways to go about it and thus allow for more sequels without things becoming straight up formula.  Though it needs to be real.  Making Wind Waker a cartoon was a superficial way to shake things up.  The touchscreen control in the DS games and the motion control in this game are superficial.  Skyward Sword feels fresh because of the level design not the gimmicky controls.  If it was just Twilight Princess with Motion+ it would feel stale.

Aonuma is talking about the controls because this is the quick 'n' easy way Nintendo thinks they can shake things up (pun not intended).  They talked big about how the DS controls and motion controls was going to result in all these innovative ideas.  Bullshit.  We just got the same games with waggle or forced touchscreen usage.  I find that like Skyward Sword, Super Mario Galaxy is a major exception as a Wii sequel that felt true to the series while also feeling fresh and new.  Nintendo probably thinks it was because of waggle and aiming at star bits.  They're idiots.  It was the creative idea of having planet based level design and a more linear level layout for 3D Mario than Super Mario 64 had.  They didn't need even the Wii to do this, they could have made the game for the Gamecube and it would have been just as good.  Same with Skyward Sword.

They have the right idea in valuing innovation and creativity but are learning the wrong lesson.  With Skyward Sword they were creative in both the wrong way and the right way.  But they're looking at the gimmick as the idea to continue with, which is the wrong way.  We'll probably get a very cookie-cutter followup that introduces all sorts of lame tablet gimmicks and they'll get backlash for it and wonder why.

This thread has too many LOOOOONG ASSSSSSSSS OPINIONS.

Well, that's why I was reticent to elaborate on what I said earlier.  I dislike typing long messages as much as people hate to pretend to read them.

Buttons are for chumps.