My Complaints about Skyward Sword (Spoilers)

OK, it's time to be casual for this entry. In my review, I tried to stay as professional as I could be (which isn't that professional, I know), but in this blog entry, I'm just going to list all of the complaints I had with the game (many of which I couldn't fit into my review because it would be too long).

Keep in mind, I am a HUGE Zelda fan, and I'm not one of those people who takes pride in "hating". I'm doing this entry simply because of how annoyed I am about the quality of Skyward Sword, and I need to relieve some stress, heh.

So, here we go (remember, I'm gonna be casual with this):

- Skyward Sword (SS) has easily the most boring and stretched out introduction/tutorial sequence of any Zelda.

- As far as the interaction between Link and Zelda in the beginning is concerned, it's like Nintendo just bought the first volume of the most popular Shoujo manga and used that as a reference of how childhood friends interact. As a result, the interaction just felt forced and weak; which is surprising since Spirit Tracks and Wind Waker had excellent interaction between Link and Zelda. Remember Tetra? Of course you do, because she was a badass. Are you gonna remember this Zelda? Tch, probably only if you place your name in the game instead of "Link" and you've always fantasized about dating Zelda.

- Why do the graphics in this game suck so much? Environment and characters have practically no textures. Just go to Skyloft and look at the ground; it looks like it's from the N64 era. The part where I noticed the poor graphics the most is when Fletch (you know, the wimp who does push-ups at night but's too cheap to buy his own freakin' stamina potions) drinks the stamina potion you give him; the animation is right out of Ocarina of Time. In Wind Waker Link actually put the bottle to his mouth and actually pushed out his cheeks when he let a breath out; that was quality stuff. Where is that quality in SS? I thought this was Nintedo's most expensive game to date? Sure doesn't look like it.

- This is the first Zelda to have a really poor and uninspired art direction. Remember Majora's Mask's amazing atmosphere, character/monster designs, and cutscene direction (Link riding Epona through the mist in the beginning is forever burned in my memory)? Well, none of that is in Skyward Sword. SS's environments and landscapes are so lacking in detail (save for a couple dungeons) that it looks like the artists were forced to used crayons to draw the concept art. There is also a huge lack of variation; the desert just looks like one big beige-colored carpet; same can be said for the volcano and forest areas, except replace beige with red and green, respectively. I will give some of the dungeons credit though; some were nicely detailed; nowhere near the level of Wind Waker or Ocarina of Time's dungeons, but still satisfactory.

- Perhaps the biggest disappointment I had with the game was the boss fight on the ship in the desert. It started off like it was going to be pretty epic. You run through the ship, dodging barrels and cutting tentacles, and then you get to the top of the ship and you see destruction and rain everywhere. The set up was really great and made me feel like I may get a Majora's Mask-level boss fight; but then the boss emerged out of the water. What I saw was probably the stupidest looking thing I've seen in a Nintendo game. The design of the boss was just awful, and I couldn't help but lose my excitement right there. And then I fought the boss ..... just awful. Of course you have to use the skyward strike in order to cut the bosses tentacles, and of course the skyward strike is hard as crap to pull of efficiently because the game is so freakin' strict about how you have to hold the Wiimote directly up; doing that crap while dodging all the tentacles was just not fun at all. And then the boss battle has the balls to be freakin' long. Ugh, I thought that fight might redeem the game a little, but it turned out to be one of the weakest moments.

- Swordplay would've probably been a lot more bearable if enemies didn't block your moves as soon as you move your sword. It's so freakin hard to get a hit in when directly facing an enemy. Some may call this a need for strategy; I'm not one of them. Combat isn't about reading the enemy or judging attacks, or any type of authenticity aside from strike direction. Hell, you get more authentic sword fighting tactics in SNK's Samurai Showdown games. No, combat in SS comes down to either waiting for an opening (sneaking behind an enemy, or knocking them down for a kill strike), or just making one with parrying. Parrying basically makes swordplay pointless, as it's an easy tactic to use, and it works on every enemy that can attack you, including the final boss. IMO, combat was much more satisfying in past Zelda games where you had to use multiple items to take enemies down; the variety in combat was much better then. Enemy variety was better with the old combat style too; I mean, how many different enemy types are there in SS, 8? 10? Tch. Wind Waker still has the best combat in the series, it had lots of enemy types, lots of different items were useful on enemies, and it had the awesome counter system. You just can't touch WW.

- There are only three areas in this game. THREE! And none of them has towns of Gorons, side-quests, or any mysteries or areas to explore; just more puzzles and fights. I said it in my review, but really, Nintendo should have just made the game have a chapter structure; since there's no exploration aspects to travelling from dungeon to dungeon. It's just non-stop fetch-quests from start to finish. And that's no exaggeration; SS is NOTHING but fetch-quests! Oh man, you want to save Zelda? Well, you're going to have to hunt down these flames to make you're sword stronger. But wait, it's not that easy, you have to hunt down these little tears in order to get to the place where the flame is. You made the Master Sword? Awesome. Now just play the final song so you can get the Triforce. Oh wait, it turns out that the song is split into 5 pieces, you gotta go back the the same areas you been too three times already to find some stupid-looking dragons and listen to their awful singing. If you really look back at SS, it may have taken 30 hours to beat the game, but there is very little content in this game, it's just that you explore the same content over and over again with a slight variation each time. This just feels really lazy on Nintendo's part.

- btw, how stupid-looking were those dragons. Ugh, the art direction in this game. And not just them, aside from a few of the girls, the people of Skyloft all look awful. Have you looked at the potion shop owners husband (you know the one with the baby), he looks like he has less polygons on him than an N64 character; and that baby ... Nintendo didn't even try there.

- How come by the end of the game, Groose is the best character?

- Girahim was a pretty poor villain by Zelda standards, but at least he had some personality (though he was still pretty boring, and I'd barely consider him evil since he didn't actually do anything). But then, he is totally shafted in the end of the game. He never gets a last word or anything. Plus, you only see the guy three times in the whole game. Nintendo hyped him up for nothing.

- Fi, why are you so boring?!? I get it, she's supposed to be some type of robot, but that's boring, especially when there is no real explanation of her origin other than she was made by Hylia. Coming after the awesomeness that was Midna, this is what Nintendo gives us? A boring sword spirit that acts more like an omnipresent tutorial than actual character. At least her character design was good.

- As a personal gripe, I hate how Fi constantly calls the player "Master". This makes her feel even less like an independent character and more like a robot. Plus, it makes the women in this game feel even less important and more like characters in the background. Which is a shame considering that recently Zelda games have had some strong female characters (Tetra, Midna, TP Zelda, ST Zelda).

- I'm very disappointed in Nintendo for reusing a Link character design. SS Link the same design as TP Link but with less detail and more color; that's it. So lazy.

- SS's only memorable music piece is it's main theme, which is very weak in comparison to other Zelda main themes. Why is the soundtrack so poor? What happened? Spirit Tracks had a superb soundtrack with memorable themes coming out of everywhere! What happened? And with the Zelda Symphony music being composed right alongside this game's development, why didn't Nintendo notice the quality of the music of past Zelda games say " Oh man! The music in Skyward Sword is crap compared to older games, we have to try harder!". The soundtrack was probably my biggest disappointment with the game, for if it were better, I think it would've helped the atmosphere a lot and make me forget about the crap graphics.

- Talk about some of the most boring items in the series. Now don't get me wrong, the Beetle is freakin' awesome and needs to be a staple itemin every Zelda game from now on alongside the bow and whip, but the rest were either staple items we've seen before, or just boring. The gust bellows have been done before, but much better. Remember Minish Cap? Tch, of course you don't. Well, the gust bellows in that sucked up certain material and then spit it back out, making for many interesting puzzles. All the gust bellows in SS do is blow wind ... why you so lazy Nintendo?

- Hey, Nintendo was that last boss fight supposed to be epic? Because it wasn't. You'd think after having so many epic final bosses, you'd make one that wasn't just unoriginal, but very unimpressive visually. You basically took the final boss of Wind Waker, took out any emotional story connection, took out the awesome visual atmosphere, and added motion controls to it. Oh, motion controls make everything better you say? No, no they do not.

- The Imprisoned is one of the stupidest and laziest monster designs I've ever seen.

- Nintendo and many critics have hyped up SS as the most cinematic Zelda game to date. To that I say: what the hell are you playing? If anything, SS is the least cinematic Zelda game. The scene where Impa and Zelda are being chased out of Hyrule Castle by Ganondorf in OoT is more cinematic than any cutscene in SS. SS if full of cutscenes of characters barely moving, stiff animations, and long-winded conversations. Tch, what you all are calling cinematic, I call lazy. You want cinematic, watch the scene in Majora's Mask where the four giants come to Clock Town to hold up the moon, or the cutscene right before the final battle in Wind Waker. Those are cinematic!

- As a huge Zelda fan, I am pretty knowledgeable of the consistent Zelda storyline and timeline. And, since this game was supposed to show the origins of the Master Sword and the legend itself, I was excited for the story. Zelda's origins were quite good, and I don't really have any complaints there. My complaint goes to the origins of Ganondorf. So, just because Demises hate is so intense, he will be reborn in order to claim the Triforce for his own and rule the world. Also, did I dention Demise looks exactly like Ganondorf (you know, just in case we're too stupid to realize that's who he'll be reborn as)...



IMO, this just wrecks the Ganondorf we've come to know in OoT, WW, and TP, and reduces him back to the angry pig monster of past Zelda games. What happened to Ganondorf's rage being the cause of his coveting of the paradise of the Hylains, what happened to him using pawns and having plans? Now he's just: "I hate the goddess sooooo much! I will have the Triforce!" There's no reason behind it, that's just how it is ... so lazy Nintendo.

- Now, going off of that, while Zelda's origins were good; how they ended were pretty bad. Basically, according to the story of SS, Zelda is destined to always be behind Link, never helping, and watch him do all the work. Of course, since the other Zelda game come after SS, we know this to turn out to be bull-crap since many Zelda's have aided Link in his battles (Tetra! ST Zelda!). But, it's as if Nintendo was really trying to make Zelda look weak in SS, which is really crappy considering her personality is rather strong (at least in the beginning). I just hope that the role Zelda played in SS in no indication of how she will act in future Zelda games. For in SS, she's basically Princess Peach, and we all know how much she sucks (except in Smash Bros.; she's awesome in those).

- I covered the whole lack of atmosphere complaint in my review, so I won't dwell on it, but it really is a gripe I have with the game. Just weak. I mean, the sky isn't big at all, it's full of these beige clouds (barely any blue sky), and the surface is almost just as boring. Basically, it seems all Nintendo focused on with SS was the motion-controlled swordplay and puzzles. There is just no magic in SS.

- The Link in SS is awful. Sure, Link hasn't had too much personality in the past, but at least in past Zelda games he felt more like a person. In OoT, he was the one Kokiri without a fairy, he was teased and felt alone, sure he had his best friend Saria, but that caused even more problems; his quest was one not just of saving the world, but finding his purpose in a place that he just didn't seem to belong in. In WW, Link was care-free kid with a sweet sister and loving grand-mother; life was simple and great until his sister is kidnapped and he embarks on a mission to save her. TP Link had a job, he had a close lady friend, and he was adored by the younger children who looked up to him, especially Colin who admired Link more than anyone else; Link was already a hero to these kids, he had nothing to prove, that's why it was so tragic when this life was ripped apart by the Twilight.

Now let's look at SS Link: a lazy schoolboy who is childhood friends with Zelda, and when she's kidnapped, he goes looking for her to find she is safe, but then it turns out he is the hero chosen by fate and must now embark on a quest. That's it. Pretty boring backstory which also leads to my final complaint ...

- FATE. This word is probably said more times throughout the game than any other word (well, maybe other than "Master", ugh). The entire story is driven by fate. Link is constantly fated to do this and that. It's Link's fate that he must seal The Imprisoned, it's Link's fate that he must save Zelda, it's Link's fate that he must forge the Master Sword; this is Link's fate as the chosen hero of the goddess. Well, let me ask you this: why the hell is Link the chosen hero? What the hell makes him soooo special? He's just a lazy schoolboy and can't get his ass up in the mornings. There are only two explanations I can think of: 1) because he's Zelda's friend, or 2) because he's the main playable character. By the end of the game, Groose has more qualities of a hero than Link. Just because Link solves these puzzles and beats these monsters, that's what makes him a chosen hero of the goddess? That's just poor story execution. At least the other Link's suffered (put to sleep for 7 years, got their butt kicked by Ganondorf, lost a dear friend (Bryne T_T)), or went through personal trials to become a hero of legend. Fate has never played a role in any other Link's journey. Each Link had to earn their place as a hero of legend, SS Link was chosen right at the beginning for no good reason! At least no really good reason, as I'm sure Nintendo would just say: "Link was the goddesses' chosen hero because Zelda is the goddess and they're best friends." And to that I say ...





Nintendo has stated many times that their goal with SS was to challenge the conventions of past Zelda games. This they did, but with very poor execution. It is possible to change a game in a long-running series quite a bit, while still retaining the spirit of the series (see Metroid: Other M). But, with SS, Nintendo just couldn't pull it off. Other than the fact that it has dungeons, and characters named Link, Zelda, and Impa; nothing else about the game screams "Zelda". The "feeling" that Zelda games have, even the multiplayer Four Swords games, just isn't in SS. Furthermore, Zelda games, while absent of voice acting, usually always showed the best Nintendo could offer in terms of graphics, music, and quality; SS does not do this at all.

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword Review

Gameplay (7/10): Skyward Sword (SS) is the first Zelda I've come across that I'd consider a mixed bag. On one hand, SS has what is perhaps the best level design of the entire series. The entire overworld of SS harkens back to A Link to the Past and the Oracles games in that it is a dungeon in itself filled with enemies and puzzles; all of which is very well executed in challenging the player to reach the dungeons. The dungeons themselves also have truly superb level design in that they have some of the best puzzle design in the series. The puzzles themselves have a flavor that is slightly different from those of past Zelda games save for maybe Spirit Tracks in that they are more than simply using the dungeon item in key ways to progress. This is aided even further by SS's execution of dungeon items, which are used throughout the entire game rather than only in the dungeon they are found in. SS also has the new factor of platforming placed in its gameplay execution, which allowed the developers to make even more unique level design. When in the overworld and dungeons, SS is a fun and enjoyable experience; that is, until motion control comes into play.

When approaching the combat in SS, Nintendo really wanted to utilize motion controls. In theory (and on paper) everything Nintendo wanted to do sounds great, but in practice it becomes more of a chore than an enjoyable part of the gameplay. Combat in SS can be either as simple and satisfying as it was in the Wii version of Twilight Princess, or it can become a trial of frustration and confusion. Simple enemies can be defeated with simple "waggle controls", while tougher enemies need more precision ... or do they? When it comes down to it, all one needs to do in combat is wait for the enemy to attack, parry that attack with your shield, and then essentially "button mash" an enemy to death. This method even works on a few bosses. This method is much easier than having to wait and look for a precise angle to attack the enemy, which by the time you've seen it, may be gone. Overall, combat is more of a chore, than an immersive gameplay element. It doesn't make the player "feel like he/she is actually sword fighting", it's more of a test of hand-eye coordination, something everyone may not be good at. Personally, I think Nintendo should have included some type of easy mode for younger children playing the game. I didn't find swordplay particularly hard, I simply found it to be more frustrating than fun. Then there is the element of swimming, which is also a gameplay element marred slightly by motion control. The difficulty in swimming is slightly confusing considering Super Mario Galaxt 1 & 2 had fine swimming controls. The added element of motion-plus feels uneccessary considering the actions needed to defeat certain enemies is usually never more complex than what the non-motion plus motion controls of TP offered (vertical and horizontal slashes, and the stab). TP didn't require one to be as precise as SS, and as a result, was much less specific about where the player needed to slash. Opting for TP's control scheme would have removed a decent amount of the frustration SS's motion controls had, as the player wouldn't have needed to be so precise. But, I digress, for overall I'll take a controller over motion controls any day.

As far as the execution of the adventure is concerned, it is quite disappointing, because the entire game is constructed of fetch-quests. And, surprisingly, these fetch-quests are what make up the 30-hour adventure. As a result of this quest structure, there is practically no sense of exploration or discovery. This is made even more clear due to there being only 3 areas of the overworld to explore, all of which are very linear. It's as if SS might as well have been divided into chapters/stages a la Super Mario.

Also, a minor gripe I have with the game is the 2-3 second load-time when entering the town of Skyloft from the sky. This load-time surprises me as Wind Waker didn't require such a thing for any of it's islands. Why couldn't SS have the same, especially considering it's on a (slightly) more powerful console?

Graphics (5/10): I understand that SS is for the Wii, and that Nintendo was going for a more artistic approach with the graphics, but that is no excuse for SS looking the way it does on a technical level. Outside of some key characters like Link, Zelda, Groose, Girahim, and some of the bosses; the character models look only slightly better than those seen in Majora's Mask. Furthermore, animations outside of the key character are disappointing as well. So much of SS just looks, for lack of a better term, old. These are all technical gripes though, but, unfortunately, SS doesn't do much better on an artistic level. The Zelda series has had some of the most beautiful and immersive set-pieces in gaming, and yet SS looks extremely bland and boring. The overworld is very plain and desperately lacking in detail. The result is a menagerie of forgettable set-pieces and characters. Dungeons have a stronger art direction than the overworld, but still lacks much impact outside of one Asian-themed dungeon. SS also uses a graphic "filter" that gives the environments far away from the player to appear blurry in order to evoke a sense of distance; this effect works for the most part, but there aren't many instances where this effect can be appreciated, and the removal of this filter would have probably benefited the game's graphics more in that it would allow the colors to be more pronounce. Nintendo systems have never been power-houses, but their games have impressed graphically as a result of strong art directions and little details. Unfortunately, SS is not one of the games that follows this trend, and after Nintendo has released the superb-looking Super Mario Galaxy games, there is no excuse for SS to look the way it does. Even TP, a game developed for the previous console generation, looks better than its big brother. Nintendo has said that more money went into SS than any other Nintendo game; I'd like to ask where all that money went, because it sure wasn't the graphics.

Music (5/10): Probably my biggest disappointment with SS. The Zelda series has some of the most memorable soundtracks in videogame history, and yet SS has some of the most forgettable and uninspired music of any flagship Nintendo series. The music isn't particularly bad, as it gets the atmosphere of the environments across, but it simply isn't memorable or good at really immersing the player into the environment as past pieces like Kakariko Village in ALttP or the Spirit Temple in OoT did for their environments. SS is also the first Zelda where I felt like voice acting would have truly benefitted the experience, especially with Girahim, who has so much dialouge in his scenes where he exudes grunts and screams, and it all comes across as unsatisfying because it's as if there was once voice acting, but Nintendo removed it.

Story (5/10): SS tries to create a bond between the player and its key characters, but ultimately fails in this execution save for one character. SS's iteration of Link is one of the most boring in the series, as there is simply little interesting about him and his origin, unlike past Link's such as those in OoT and WW who had emotional ties to their origins/homes; furthermore, SS's Link design looks far too similar to the one in TP, thus creating a feeling of "been there, done that" with the player's avatar this time around. SS's iteration of Zelda started off with potential, but is ultimately reduced to a Princess Peach role, which is a shame considering Zelda's have gotten stronger and stronger with each new Zelda game since OoT. Fi is by far, the worst partner Link has had in the series, for she has absolutely no personality and simply acts as a helper AI for the player and nothing else. Her ties into the story are there, but they're so subtle that it fails to save her character. At least her character design is good. Girahim, the antagonist of SS, is an exuberant and original villain, but one who doesn't have much of a presence by the game's end due to the fact that the player simply doesn't see him much. And a big surprise, is that the game's most likable character turns out to be Groose, a character I initially thought would be a simple stereotype. Groose receives more character development than any other character and ends up feeling like more of a hero than anyone else (in terms of character at least). One of the main points of SS's story was to give us the origin story of the series; this SS does, but with mixed results. The origin of "The Legend of Zelda" is pretty good, and helps to explain a few key elements in the series' lore, but the origin of Ganondorf just felt lazy. Nintendo has shown that a Zelda game can have clever and emotional stories filled with endearing characters with Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, Majora's Mask, and Spirit Tracks; so for SS to have the story that it did, even after having a huge burden placed on its shoulders, disappoints me. Overall, a forgettable story.

Replay Value (5/10): The appeal of SS comes from its level design and puzzles. As a result, replay value isn't particularly high because the player will know how to solve the puzzles on the second playthrough, and since the story, music, and graphics are anything really special, there's not too much to come back to. There are a number of side-quests to take, but they're all mainly simple fetch-quests, and don;t require too much effort from the player. A more difficult mode opens up for the player after the first playthrough, but I imagine that would simply create more frustration than satisfaction.

Satisfaction (5/10): It is very disappointing to be so unsatisfied by a Zelda game, as this series is one of my favorites in gaming, but that it truly what SS has done. The story isn't compelling, emotional, or immersive due to weak characters and weak story execution. The level design is superb, and I had a lot of fun with the great puzzles and dungeon designs, but the combat created road-blocks in the smooth ride of the level design. For me, the most satisfying element of Zelda games comes from the atmosphere and sense of adventure they create through their use of graphics, music, and story, but, unfortunately, SS fell short in all three of those categories. SS was a fine ride while it lasted, but it's one I will quickly forget.

Overall

The score I should give it - (7/10): At the end of it all, gampelay counts the most, and SS did provide great level design, which simultaneously shifted itself away from the standard Zelda formula of past games. Nintendo deserves credit for trying to change their formula execution while also developing motion-gameplay to a more complex level. It simply resulted with a mixed result containing both fun and frustration.

The score I want to give it - (5.5/10): I loved some of the puzzles in this game, but it really wasn't anything too new, as Spirit Tracks provided puzzles that were just as clever. When it comes down to it, I find that Spirit Tracks shows the direction I want the Zelda series to move in, not SS. ST's level design may not have been as complex as SS, but its puzzles were just as clever, and ST also had superb story, characters, music, and much better boss battles. The Zelda series truly has potential to grow in both quality and execution; SS was Nintendo's attempt at that, and, imo, it failed. Nintendo has continually built the Zelda series higher and higher with each new console entry, save for Spirit Tracks, which easily rivals its console brothers; however, SS felt like a big step backwards in terms of presentation. SS may evolve the level design of the series, but the two previous Zelda games, TP and ST, easily outperform SS in terms of overall satisfaction.

How Metroid: Other M changed the way I think about games

I'll start out by saying this: I love Metroid: Other M. I find it to be not only the best Metroid game alongside the first Prime and Super, but easily one of this generation's best videogames. However, not many would agree with me on my opinion towards MOM; in fact, I'd probably have a hard time finding anyone who did agree with me. Now, this doesn't really bother me on a personal level, as we all have different opinions when it comes to videogames; however, the fact that MOM was so poorly received by both critics and fans, has caused me to think differently about the current state of videogames.

For one, I fail to understand exactly what people look for in videogames. MOM executed many unique ideas in its formula, such as a very cinematic camera as well as simple-to-control combat. In my opinion, these were brilliant ideas that were so well executed that practically all action games should incorporate them into their design, for the overall experience of MOM benefited from the cinematic design and easy-to-control combat, which provided for a very smooth performance overall. IMO, these ideas were pushing the action genre forward. Regardless of whether others agree with my opinion in this case or not, Nintendo/Team Ninja tried to bring something unique into the genre, and yet it was still scoffed at. And yet other action games which barely try anything new and stick to the same old formula such Darksiders, God of War, or even Nintendo's own Zelda series are praised. Why is change constantly scoffed at, while tradition is constantly praised despite being the same stuff we've been playing for years? This same situation has occurred with another game I find to be spectacular: Final Fantasy XIII.

Bottom-Line: I used to believe that innovation and change were elements encouraged and praised in game design, but no longer. In this age when videogames are less of an art-form and more of a business; change is something the consumer fears to place their faith (and $60 dollars) in, and developers are afraid to even attempt in their game design.

Which leads to my next point: the power of the consumer. I understand that videogames are a business, and that profit is something that needs to be made for a game developer to continue on, but developers should not allow for the consumer to practically dictate what the game should be like. MOM has many elements of the traditional Metroid formula, but also has a ton of new elements that Metroid games have never has before: cinematics, deeper story-telling, spoken dialogue, etc. Nintendo decided to move away from what had been done before in past Metroids and moved on to new territory. The result was rampant fan backlash. Before, I would think that Nintendo would simply stand by their ideas and continue down the path of their choice, but now (based on interviews with Reggie Fils-Aime) it seems Nintendo is going to take note of the fans criticisms and actually change the design. This situation has occurred with FFXIII as well, and the results can be seen in FFXIII-2. Whether the sequel benefits or not has yet to be seen, but the fact that Square has consistently pointed out that they are changing the formula due to consumer criticism shows that they are absolutely willing to change their ideas for the consumer. As far as other games go, aside from niche titles, it would seem developers never want to even be put in this situation, and as a result, this generations has seen the absolute least amount of gameplay innovation since console videogaming began. This lack of innovation is masked by gimmicks such as motion controllers, cameras, and DLC. MOM had a lot of innovation while not resorting to using any gimmicks; it just has pure, excellent game design. Technology may have made games prettier and allowed us to play games online, but the games we're playing, aside from a select few, are the same we played on the PS2, XBOX, and Gamecube. Innovation is present in this generation, whether it's little touches like in Bayonetta, or complete revamps like MOM and FFXIII. Still, it's pretty disappointing when looking back at the ideas presented in the SNES, PS1, and N64 days.

Bottom-Line: Consumers are making many developers their bitch. Change and innovation are huge risks in this generation's game market, and consumers apparently don't want innovation or change, so it's a no-brainer that trying something new in this game market is a stupid decision for developers. Instead, the best option is to take advantage of the consumer and produce gimmicks and paid extras to get extra income in order to make even more sequels in shorter amounts of time. Money, Money, Money.

Next point is pretty much my own outlook: I don't know what makes a game good. In the past there have been times when I didn't find a game to be my cup of tea, but critics and fans alike loved it. I was always fine with this. However, as I play more and more games this generation, I'm finding that there are many more games getting high scores and being deemed "revolutionary" that I find just poor, and, of course, the reverse situation, as with MOM. Two games that fall into the former situation are God of War 3 and Castlevania: Lords of Shadow; two games that nobody can convince me are revolutionary or better than average fair in videogames. I've been told that my standards are simply too high, which is entirely possible; or perhaps I'm a niche gamer, or a hypocrite of some kind. I don't know, but I still don't get what makes a great game great in this day and age. In the past, it was all about the gameplay experience, but now, it's all about the tech. MOM is developed with and old-school quality in a modern coat of paint, and that's what makes it so great. It's a game that doesn't look at modern tech as a way to just make a game prettier, or increase the gameplay length with DLC, or use a gimmick to attract new players; it uses tech as a way to enhance the gameplay experience of a Metroid game beyond any past iteration.

Bottom-Line: What made a game great in the past was the experience a gamer got out of it. Just look at the opening sequence of Super Metroid. But now, it seems a game's quality is how a game developer manipulates the tech given to them, or, as it is commonly stated, just how much percent a developer "gets of a system." To that I say: who freakin' cares!?! It doesn't matter how much power a developer gets out of a system if the game is bad. In my opinion, it's always a matter of execution, not power. MOM has the best execution of any game I've played this gen, but clearly it matters not since the game has no online scoreboards or expansive DLC.

So, what's all of this lead to? For me, it leads to a concerned future for videogames. This gen had shown me that videogames are becoming a business run by those only interested in money and scared of risks (i.e. innovation). Of course, innovation is still out there, but there are very few success stories when bringing up such innovative games. And game developers are paying more attention to each other now than ever before, shown by the many gimmicks being made for games and the continuing popularity of DLC and expansions (see the three different versions of Street Fighter IV). There are still several games coming in the future that I am looking forward to, Asura's Wrath being my most anticipated. However, will innovative games continue to be made, or will the gaming market become saturated with sequel after sequel repeating the same formula in order to please the dedicated fans; never changing, never evolving? This is the bleak future my amazing experience with Metroid: Other M has created for me.

El Shaddai Review

Gameplay (6/10): El Shaddai's gameplay is a mix of good ideas on a by-the-books foundation. The gameplay is split up between combat and platforming. The platforming is the standard platforming gameplay one would find in the classic SNES/Genesis platformers that weren't Mario or Sonic; by which I mean: the platforming provides no surprises or innovation. Combat, on other hand, provides something slightly innovative: timing-based combos. Sure, Bayonetta and other 3D action games have implemented timing-based combos before, but El Shaddai's battle system completely revolves around this gameplay system. At first, the timing-based combos feel innovative and satisfying, but once you've discovered all of the combos the games three weapons can do, combat begins to feel repetitive. The repetitiveness of combat becomes even more noticeable once you've fought against all of the games enemy types, of which there are only four. Boss battles mix up the gameplay slightly, but not enough that one's tactics need to change too much from normal battles. El Shaddai's combat and platforming never truly ask any more out of the player aside from the basic bread-and-butter tactics it teaches you in the beginning tutorials, and that's where the disappointment lies: El Shaddai never asks more than a skill level slightly higher than button-mashing, so even though you could perform high count combos and air combos, no score system (until post game at least), hidden goodies, or new paths provide you any incentive to try harder.

Graphics (7/10): El Shaddai's most head-turning trait is its graphics. However, what needs to be noticed is that the graphics in this game that are amazing are those within the backgrounds of the stages, and nothing else. The character models, enemies, bosses, platforms, and usable/destructable objects are all either standard fair or disappointing in graphic design. However, while the backgrounds are simply set pieces we cannot interact with, there is no denying their impact within the game. They are beautiful, and the developers should definitely be credited for putting such imagination on display. However, it's disappointing how the player doesn't interact with the backgrounds much, and they become something simply to look at rather than interact with. Also, unfortunately, the impact of the settings are either too brief or overstay their welcome; for example, the stage set in a futuristic environment is perhaps the game's most impressive, however, the player's stay in this area is very brief, which is disappointing. The graphical techniques used within El Shaddai definitely deserve credit for their beauty, but their execution is rather disappointing.

Music (8/10): El Shaddai's soundtrack is very impressive in it's execution, and is very enjoyable as a result. Angelic and beautiful at one moment, while haunting and intense in another moment; it all works very well, and some tracks deserve a listen outside of the game itself. The only problem with the soundtrack comes from the fact that because the story provides little impact, so too does the soundtrack in specific parts of the game. In the best soundtracks, people can listen to a piece and know exactly when in the game the particular piece played and what the piece symbolizes; this is not the case with El Shaddai.

Story (5/10): El Shaddai has a story, but it's nothing special other than being a story based in Christian mythology, something not seen much in stories in videogames. The story's execution is very disappointing, as the game never develops a personality for Enoch, nor does it create an atmosphere that makes you care for the characters. As the story plays out, it's hard to sympathize with the characters or really care about where the story is going. The foundation of the story was good, but because the developers really tried to develop a serious story, it's really noticeable how hard the story falls on its face. If the developers had opted to go a route similar to Metroid or Outland where the story elements were very minimal and the player can fill in the blanks themselves, the story may have actually been more interesting.

Replay Value (5/10): Other than two more difficulty levels, a score system (with online rankings), and a few side items to find in the game's stages, there really isn't much incentive to play El Shaddai more than once, mainly because the extras involve the gameplay, which is quite repetitive.

Satisfaction (5/10): El Shaddai is an action game that gets a par for the course. It's background graphics are impressive, but don't provide much impact. When all is said and done, El Shaddai is a very forgettable game. Enoch is a very forgettable protagonist, the story is boring and forgettable, and there are no impactful moments of gameplay within the game either. It's a game worth playing if you're interested in beautiful art, and seeing how well such art can be integrated into a videogame, but that's about it.

Overall Score - (6.5/10): El Shaddai isn't a bad game in any way, nor is it a game that excels in any way. It's true that El Shaddai's backgrounds are very impressive, but it is simply the art style that gives the graphics their impact, not the graphics execution itself. Gameplay-wise, El Shaddai had some decent ideas, but didn't expand upon them with content. In the past, one may have been able to get away with some critical acclaim for the amount of content El Shaddai provides, but not now. Hopefully, the team behind El Shaddai will take their experience from El Shaddai and put it towards a more complex and content-rich package, because it would be a shame for a team as talented as this to fall into obscurity.

Current State of Genres

It's after E3 and we've seen what developers are bringing in the future. So, I'll look at each genre and say a bit about what I think it's becoming.

3D-Action: QTEs are definitely making their way into this genre more and more, to some that's a bad thing, but, personally, I see a lot of potential in QTEs, so much so that I believe they are the key to advancing the 3D action genre; developers simply have to find the right balance between straight-up gameplay and QTEs. Bayonetta already did a lot for executing QTEs in 3D action games. Ninja Gaiden 3 looks to be balancing them well so far, but Asura's Wrath seems to be implementing them a bit too much. In fact, I lost a bit of hype for Asura's Wrath after E3, mainly because the boss battle that was shown was not impressive from a gameplay standpoint, as it looked entirely too easy and focused too much on QTEs; I hope they implement for ideas from Naruto Storm 2. Other than QTEs, developers can implement some new ideas, like Dragon's Dogma and its team-based mechanics.

2D action: Only one of these was at the show, but it was also my favorite surprise of the show: Dragon's Crown. It's developed by Vanillaware, so graphics and originality are already a given. And since it's Vanillaware, I'm hoping to see some unique elements implemented into the classic 2D beat-em-up formula. We know RPG elements will be implemented, so here's hoping to be blown away by DC as much as I was when I played Odin's Sphere.

JRPG: Still a genre that has titles being released few and far between. Final Fantasy dominates this genre at the moment with FFXIII-2, FF Type-0, and FF Versus XIII. XIII-2 is an enigma at the moment; on one hand, it's probably my most anticipated game because it looks to have a lot of potential, especially with it's cinematic direction coming into the battles with dynamic scenarios and QTEs, plus it's the sequel to my favorite RPG of this gen; but, on the other hand, there's a good amount of change being made to the game, and whether these changes turn out to be good will probably have to wait until I actually play the game. FF Type-0 looks to be quite innovative in all categories, and I'm really hoping for a western release. Versus XIII was a no-show once again, but that's to be expected; still, I see so much potential in Versus XIII that I'll wait as long I need too. The JRPG isn't as strong as it used to be, but at least developers are trying new things with the genre without being sell-outs.

WRPG: still not interested in these games. From their presentation to their game mechanics, everything just looks so familiar that I just don't care. These games can play as well as they want, but I can never find myself to enjoy them.

FPS: I was kinda hoping for a teaser announcement for Bulletstorm 2, but that's OK. This genre still can't get me excited (well, except for Bulletstorm). The FPS really needs to evolve past doing the same thing over and over but just in different scenarios. The gameplay itself needs to be diverse and ever-changing throughout the campaign. Bulletstorm did a good job at this with it's melee and grappling abilities; it just needed more guns to keep things fresh on multiple playthroughs. I hope something else comes along before Bulletstorm 2, because I see a lot of potential satisfaction out this genre, and I hope it is realized soon.

TPS: Binary Domain was a big surprise at the show, and I see a lot of potential in the game on all fronts, especially gameplay, story, and presentation. The team-based mechanics are very interesting, and it seems to be doing something similar to Dragon's Dogma, where it's bringing a new element into an old formula and it's like it's making it new again. This genre is usually not very exciting, but I'm really looking forward to Binary Domain.

Fighting: I'm beginning to fall out of love with the fighting genre. It's becoming dominated by Capcom and their so-so fighting mechanics so much that everyone is copying them, resulting in more so-so fighters. KOF XIII and SoulCalibur V are still two of my most anticipated games though. I will never abandon these two series because they remain the epitome of the fighting genre for me. I'm looking forward to the changes being made for SCV, and any console exclusive KOFXIII brings.

Action-Adventure: Zelda: Skyward Sword of course. But I can't help but not get too excited over this game. I suppose the familiarity of the Zelda formula finally caught up with me in Twilight Princess, so I certainly hope that SS makes some strong changes to the formula while still keeping the series' quality. SS could be a truly amazing game, but it's going to take a lot of innovation to put Zelda back on top. Wind Waker was a great step forward for the series; it;s a shame Nintendo listened to the fan's whining and took a step back with TP.

Platformer: Nintendo is once again the main force here with their Mario games, and the new 3DS Mario game looks amazing. Rayman Origins looks to be a great platformer as well; the key will be longevity for Rayman though, for it's level structure looks to be that of a rather short game.

I guess that's about it. At this point, there are many games that look to have a lot of potential, but can also end up being disappointing. Asura's Wrath and FFXIII-2 looking to be the biggest enigmas. Still, with this generation drawing to a close within the next 2-3 years, I hope that we get some great swan songs.

Beauty in Video Games

Throughout my life I've really come to appreciate many artforms and the beauty that they display. I love beauty in all it's forms, in all forms of media. Beauty is an artform, and it is something that can be shown in many different ways, including art, music, and story-telling. And it is in videogames where all three of those forms come together into the beauty that is videogames.

What's so great about games is how well they bring together different forms of beauty into one central form. Of course, there's what we see: the graphics. I love when a game goes beyond just simply making polygon "dolls" in order for them to simply be enemies or a means to an end. It's when developers stretch their imaginations and really create a visual medium with which the player can interact and become immersed into the videogame experience; that is art. Such visual strength goes back to games like MegaMan and Final Fantasy, which used the graphic medium that they had to create a world the player could truly get immersed in. And, of course, we come to the modern day which has graphical gems like Okami, Odin Sphere, and Valkyria Chronicles.

Visual beauty isn't all about graphics, its also an element of style. Creating one's own unique visual style and execution is the mark of a true artist. Games like Jet Set Radio and The World Ends With You come to mind, where the visual direction is so unique and stylish that it almost creates its own entity. Not everyone needs to use the same canvas, sometimes its fine to go paint on the street, or the walls. And, not everyone needs the same execution; paint with dirt, nature, or even blood. The beauty of violence can be seen in many videogames. Fighting games and stylish action games really show the best of the art of violence; for it's not simply the act of killing someone (that is ugly), it is the "force" behind their death that creates a picture of beauty. For example, the struggle between light and dark in Bayonetta sets the stage for a pantheon of beautiful kills, and the red-hot revenge behind the violence of No More Heroes 2 really creates the atmosphere of violent beauty. It ties strongly into story-telling, but there can be beauty in violence and blood; it's powerful presence paints a strong picture.

Then there's music, which, as I've said before, is truly a muse that pulls on our heart strings. A game will always get attention when it has a great soundtrack, and when someone wants to reminisce about an older game, it's that games music that is usually the best method. Look no further than the Chrono and Final Fantasy series to hear art in the form of music.

And now we come to storyline. A truly passionate story with lovable characters can truly paint a masterpiece in one's heart. The story-telling execution of games has gotten easier over time with the vast improvement in graphics, but many would argue that the art of story-telling itself has not improved. Despite the side one takes in that argument, many cannot doubt the strength of a great story in a videogame. This strength stems not simply from the art of story-telling itself, but from the artform unique to videogames: gameplay.

Gameplay as an artform is something that can easily be argued, but I see it as evident. It is the way gameplay ties into the visual, aural, and story-telling forms of art that gameplay itself becomes an artform, or, at the very least, a bridge between the gaps of visuals, music, and story.

As an example, I'll use the final fight in Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. The final fight has the main character, Zack, fighting a pointless battle that both he and the player knows he is going to lose, but because of everything he fights for, he continues to fight (meaning the player is going to fight). The visual art lies in the physical damage of Zack we see as we play, it lies in the cold, and desolate wasteland we fight in; the music is sad and slow; and the story has reached it's sad end; but what makes this battle truly beautiful, is how the game uses the roulette system. A game mechanic that has been in the game the whole time, but is now showing something unique. As Zack is dying, we see this in the roulette wheel breaking apart, and showing all of the people that Zack holds close to his heart "breaking" apart as they give him strength to fight just a little longer. We also hear snippets of memories Zack had with these people, all while fighting this battle. It's a truly beautiful moment, as it brings the sadness of the story, the visuals, and the music and puts it right in the players hands; until finally the roulette breaks down, and it's over. It's just the most beautiful moment I've played in a videogame.

As I've played more and more videogames, I've come to expect more and more beauty out of the games I play. Mainly because I've come to really see how truly beautiful games can be. Even a game series I wouldn't have really considered too beautiful (Super Mario) pulls out all the stops and creates Super Mario Galaxy, one of the most beautiful games this generation. Beauty can come in so many forms and different styles of execution, that it's really exciting when a new IP or idea comes along, because it makes me wonder just how beautiful the game will be and just how its going to execute it.

I also believe that, among other things, the fact that I don't really enjoy western-developed games is because I don't find much beauty in them. Bulletstorm I liked because it had some really satisfying gameplay and executed "the beauty of violence" quite well.

In the Hype of Grand Knights History

Back in early 2007, the cover of that month's PLAY magazine feircly grabbed my attention. The cover was an artwork of Gwendolyn by George Kamitani, and after buying that issue, I found the world of Vanillaware.

Vanillaware is a small game company originating from a small development group from SEGA who originally developed the game Princess Crown. Odin Sphere was Vanillaware's first game as an independent developer, and was developed with only 12 members present in the then current Vanillaware. Odin Sphere was released in May 2007, and Grimgrimoire was released only a month later. Muramasa: The Demon Blade was released in 2009. And now, we come to 2011, where Vanillaware will release Grand Knights History.

Simply upon it's announcement, I have become extremely hyped for GKH. Why? Because I'm a Vanillaware fanboy. But, why am I such a fan of Vanillaware's games?

Of course, the one major factor is the one most apparent to everyone who just looks at a Vanillaware game: the superb 2D graphics. However, what sets Vanillaware apart from other developer of 2D graphics, is how Vanillaware breaths so much life into their sprites. Everything in a Vanillaware game moves. The characters breath in and out realistically, the trees waft in the breeze, the stream water flows, and the stars soar in the sky. It's the level of detail present in Vanillaware games that set them apart not simply in terms of 2D graphics, but graphics of any type. Vanillaware games truly feel alive, and that quality really brings their games alive. This "living" quality is one of the reasons I love Vanillaware, because it aids not simply in the visual enjoyment of their games, but the enjoyment of the stories and gameplay present in their games. Which brings up the next topic ....

The gameplay of Vanillaware games. In this modern era of videogames, many developers will put forth so much work into their graphics that they leave the other qualities of a game behind, especially gameplay. Not so with Vanillaware games. It always surprises me how well Vanillaware games play. Odin Sphere may look like a straight-forward 2D beat-em-up with a stamina gauge (and at its core, it is), but the level up systems were brilliant. The way one had to eat food to level up their health, and forage and cook food in order to level up their health even higher was brilliant. It really connected the player with the game's world by incorporating real-life functions such as planting, cooking, and eating into the game's world; it just made the game world feel truly alive. Furthermore, the separation of leveling up the strength and health of a character was great. Then there was the separation of the story between the 5 characters, who all played differently and had their own stories and bosses. It really kept everything fresh and interesting throughout the 40-hour main story. Grimgrimoire's gameplay was basically Starcraft with unique character types, but it worked brilliantly. Muramasa is the lowest moment of Vanillaware's gameplay design career, as it was simple and straight-foward with no real unique quality other than the special attacks; regardless, the game was satisfying.

Outside of gameplay, comes the quality of Vanillaware that I probably like the most: story. George Kamitani has penned the storylines for each Vanillaware game so far, and with the exception of Muramasa, each storyline has been one of the best I've ever experienced, in or out of a videogame. Odin Sphere is a superbly written and well-developed epic tragedy. The story touched upon so many themes and conflicts that by its end, it truly felt complete. The way the story mode was split between 5 characters made the story even more satisfying. I really couldn't ask for any more. To this day, Odin Sphere has my favorite storyline in a videogame. Grimgrimoire is a superb mystery story; furthermore, it was very mature in it's scope, having many different types of relationships between its characters, even having a lesbian relationship. Princess Crown's storyline is a great "coming of age" story that truly developed the character of Gradriel on many different levels.

And that's what makes these stories stand out so well: their characters. The characters in Vanillaware games are very iconic in their development; making them very likable, and thus making the player actually care about the characters. This is a problem I have with most videogame stories, as well as manga, anime, and movie stories; the stories don't have much of an impact on me because I don't care about the characters. This has never been the case in a Vanillaware game, except for Muramasa.

It may sound strange, but despite having some great graphics, gameplay, and music, Muramasa is my least favorite Vanillaware game because it lacked good characters and a good story. It just made the graphics and gameplay have less of an impact because the lack of good characters kept me from being immersed into the world of Muramasa. It pains me that I didn't enjoy Muramasa's story, especially since I enjoyed Odin Sphere and Grimgrimoire's storylines so much.

In terms of music, Vanillaware games aways impress a LOT. With the exception of Princess Crown, each Vanillaware game has music composed by Basiscape, the music composition group headed by the legendary Hitoshi Sakamoto. A common misconception is that Sakamoto composes all of the music heard in Vanillaware games; this is not true, as most of the compositions come from other composers within Basiscape, Sakamoto usually only does the main themes and a few other themes. This is notable because the music heard in Vanillaware games are very unique and unlike the music heard in Sakamoto's more better known works like Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy XII. The music in Vanillaware games truly enhance the experience as a whole, as the music tends to touch upon many different emotions. Be sure to listen to the soundtracks of Odin Sphere, Muramasa, and Grimgrimoire if you haven't; they're truly some of the best soundtracks in gaming.

And so, this brings us to Grand Knights History. As of now, we know GKH will have two of the prime elements of a Vanillaware game: 2D sprite-based graphics and music composed by Basiscape. Surprisingly, GKH is not being directed by George Kamitani, making this the first Vanillaware game not directed by him. Tomohiko Deguchi, who was previously a designer and programmer for Odin Sphere, Grimgrimoire, and Muramasa, is the director. Another role Kamitani usually does that is being taken up by someone else is the role of character designer, which is being done by Kouichi Maenou, another Vanillaware veteran. This doesn't really have me concerned, as Vanillaware is full of talented people, and I'm sure George Kamitani is over-looking the project in some form since he is the president of Vanillaware. The art direction is also clearly Kamitani's, so that distinct Vanillaware flavor is still present in full effect; I woudln't have even guessed Kamitani wasn't the character designer if it wasn't noted. What I mainly hope for is that Kamitani is writing the story for this game, as I'd love another epic.

On the gameplay side of things, the act of creating one's own units in an army sounds great. The player has the choice of choosing which character they want to be the main character they follow in the story, and despite there only being 4 of them (and 3 kingdoms), Kamitani has written great stories with small casts before, specifically Grimgrimoire. I know I may be setting myself up for disappointment again, but I have high expectations for the story of GKH based primarily off of how amazing the stories for Odin Sphere and Grigrimoire were.

Then there's the music. Only one track has been played, which is played on the main site, but it sounds fantastic, and it's clear the direction the soundtrack is taking. It's bound to be just as great as Basiscape's past soundtracks for Vanillaware games.

Grand Knights History is now my second most anticipated game behind Asura's Wrath. Vanillaware has become one of my all-time favorite games with only 3 games, and I hope they're just getting started.

Hopefully, George Kamitani's plans of training a new director and developing two games simultaneously has grown to fruition and we'll be getting another Vanillaware game soon; one directed by George Kamitani himself. I have to admit that I was concerned over the status of Vanillaware with no news from the company in two years, but now I hope that they thrive and grow as a truly unique game development studio.