The trajectory of Skyward Sword’s reputation is remarkable. I don’t think a single game in the franchise has had such a drastic negative shift in public opinion. Just check Metacritic: the original has a respectable 93, while the remaster, which is almost certainly an objective improvement, has a mere 81 average. I have my theories as to why this is, which I will get into later, but it would be revisionist to claim that back in 2011 this game wasn’t revered like the other 3D Zelda games. In fact, the critical consensus at the time was clearly on board with Skyward Sword’s direction. But now, the game is the most common pick for the worst 3D Zelda game–maybe even the worst Zelda game period if it wasn’t for Zelda II. But is that valid? Well, the average quality of this franchise’s games is so high that you could just about justify saying any of them is “the worst,” and Skyward Sword certainly isn’t my favorite. However, with the changes made by this HD remaster, I actually think it’s a pretty great game that’s fallen victim to common narratives about motion controls and the Zelda franchise at large.
Once upon a time, Zelda’s overworld and dungeon design largely conformed to (apologies in advance for using the “M” word) Metroidvania design principles. Specifically, in A Link to the Past, save for few story-related bottlenecks, progression through the overworld and dungeons was entirely contingent on the items Link possessed (which is the main reason why the game is so well suited to randomizers). However, as the franchise moved forward, progression, in the overworld at least, became less about items and more about story. For example, in Twilight Princess, accessing new major areas of Hyrule was entirely contingent on story progress (with sections of the map having to be cleared of their “twilight” before proper entry). And even that game’s dungeons, which still sort of conformed to the Metroidvania framework, were much more “linear” in the sense that progression was less ambiguous and required less backtracking. I don’t mean to imply that what I’ve alleged about Twilight Princess is bad, per se. I’m just pointing out a change of direction in this series re: progression.
And it’s a significant change. You see, Zelda has never really been about intricate, one-off puzzles. Rather, Zelda games of old can be seen as one big “puzzle” of sorts, where Link’s traversal and combat capabilities continually evolve, allowing for deeper and deeper progression (hence, the “M” word). The series evolved to feature more involved tests of spatial reasoning (e.g., Eagle’s Tower in Link’s Awakening), which naturally received greater emphasis when the series jumped to 3D (e.g., Snowhead Temple in Majora’s Mask). But Link’s Awakening, Ocarina of Time, and Majora’s Mask, while inarguably more “linear” than their predecessors (though less “linear” than some may think), are still games where player satisfaction is largely grounded in untying the metaphorical knot that is those games’ overworlds, with the same kind of thing on a smaller scale in those games’ dungeons. While The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess do maintain this somewhat, progression in those two games is less player-driven (with the exception of The Wind Waker’s Triforce quest, which is highly player-driven).
Before we get to the game I’m supposed to be writing about, one more topic: combat. Specifically, 3D Zelda combat. In retrospect, it’s easy to compare the style of combat first appearing (in this series, at least) in Ocarina of Time to (apologies in advance for using the “S” word) Souls combat. And for good reason: both are relatively slow, methodical, melee-oriented combat systems with a targeting system allowing the player to circle-strafe enemies and more easily use ranged attacks. In short, you target an enemy, wait for an opening, and then strike. One downfall of Ocarina of Time compared to Dark Souls is the relative simplicity of combat in the former, making the aforementioned process somewhat boring. Really, Darknuts are the only non-boss enemies in Ocarina of Time that truly engage, but even they pale in comparison to, say, Black Knights in Dark Souls. In short, while the combat of Ocarina of Time/Majora’s Mask was sound, there was clear room for improvement. And that’s fine: neither of those games is as combat-oriented as the Souls “series” has become (see: Elden Ring). But it goes without saying that better combat would make for better games. The Wind Waker incorporated what is essentially a context-specific counterattack “QTE,” and overall improves on the combat of its predecessors, though said improvements are somewhat counterbalanced by low difficulty. Twilight Princess made strides in expanding Link’s moveset, and the application of said moveset has an appreciable level of nuance, but, once again, Darknuts are the only non-boss enemies that truly engage (and, again, low difficulty). In short, from Ocarina of Time to Twilight Princess, you’re not playing 3D Zelda for the combat. And, unfortunately, the next game in the series wouldn’t change that fact, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
Now, with the groundwork set, let’s talk about Skyward Sword. More specifically, the game’s most controversial aspect: its motion controls. For better and for worse, Nintendo often follows the idiom “in for a penny, in for a pound” when it comes to gimmicks in their games. For example, the intent to fully utilize DS hardware resulted in both Phantom Hourglass’s great touch controls and Spirit Track’s obnoxious use of the DS’s microphone. It’s largely the same story with Skyward Sword. On one hand, motion’s implementation makes ranged items’ use more intuitive and satisfying than ever while, on the other hand, motion-controlled flight and swimming can be frustrating, to say the least.
And then there’s the matter of Skyward Sword’s combat, as previously alluded to. Put simply… it’s a mixed bag. Essentially, the combat follows the template from the previous games. You lock on to individual enemies, you wait for an opening, and then you strike. However, here, there’s one critical difference: motion. There’s certainly a kind of visceral satisfaciton that comes with defeating enemies with one-to-one, motion-controlled sword strikes that just cannot exist with a standard gamepad layout. The parry mechanic adds needed depth. And, honestly, Ghirahim and Demise are good fights that demonstrate the positive qualities of Skyward Sword’s combat system. However, said system is far from the true potential of motion-controlled melee combat. The vast majority of enemies (incluidng, to a lesser extent, Ghirahim and Demise) follow a rigid design that requires the player to strike them from a limited number of angles, while punishing players for telegraphing their attacks. This would be just fine if SOME enemies did it, but almost all of them do, leading to detrimental repetition. Further, unlike Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, where directional attacks are a small part of a larger system featuring appreciably deep combat mechanics, directional attacks ARE Skyward Sword’s combat system, more or less. There’s a parry mechanic, yes, but not much else. Importantly, though, compared to Metal Gear Rising, Skyward Sword’s combat is a relatively small part of its identity. So let’s address the rest of the game before concluding.
As I previously explained, Zelda’s core identity from A Link to the Past to Majora’s Mask is unraveling the overworld and dungeons in a Metroidvania-esque fashion. The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess marked a deviation from that, with overworld progression being more so tied to story and dungeon progression being more straightforward. Which brings us to Skyward Sword, which, for better and for worse, is a continuation of that trend. However, there is a shift in design philosophy that I believe gets overlooked. In short, Skyward Sword has what I will call Obstacle Course Level Design,™ which places greater emphasis on Link’s movement and moveset than ever before. Whether in dungeons or the overworld, the level designers consistently challenge the player to thoughtfully use Link’s movement (notably his new, somewhat limited sprinting and climbing capabilities) and items to traverse the environment. This design philosophy leads to a series of engaging, albeit rigid levels. The rigidity (which is part of what people are referring to when they call Skyward Sword “linear”) is not a problem, per se… but it IS a problem when you have to retread levels, as once you’ve solved an area’s traversal puzzle, there’s simply not much to be gained from traversing it again. And, unfortunately, Skyward Sword’s second and third acts do see re-use of levels to the game’s detriment.
In retrospective discussions of Skyward Sword, the game is often framed as diametrically opposed to Breath of the Wild. The former game is supposedly ultra-linear, while the latter is ultra-nonlinear. And while there is some validity to this characterization, in my opinion, those two games have more in common than the comparison implies. Simply, the greater emphasis on Link’s movement and moveset in Skyward Sword is continued in Breath of the Wild, albeit with a different approach. While Skyward Sword grants Link relatively limited movement and places him in rigid, intently designed levels (“obstacle courses”), Breath of the Wild greatly increases Link’s traversal potential and places him in sandboxes, with more linear gameplay segments being largely limited to “Shrines” and dungeons. Both are valid approaches, and if Skyward Sword didn’t commit the sin of re-using levels (among other issues), it’s very possible that I’d prefer it Breath of the Wild… but I digress.
For one final point of discussion, I’d like to look at one particular aspect of design in Zelda games that I've always appreciated. The games will often introduce a concept, and then iterate/expand on said concept in the immediately following dungeon (and, in some cases, continue to iterate/expand afterward). For example, in Ocarina of Time you were introduced to the hookshot before the Forest Temple, where it saw expanded use and became a natural, reoccurring part of Link's arsenal thereafter. I would argue that the 3D Zelda games that implement this savvy game design best/most extensively are Majora’s Mask (where you’re introduced to transformation masks prior to their extensive use in dungeons), Skyward Sword (where, for example, timeshift stones are heavily featured before each Lanayru dungeon), and Tears of the Kingdom (which features lengthy pre-dungeon segments that introduce key dungeon concepts, such as extensive vehicle traversal with Yunobo prior to the Fire Temple). If it's not clear, I'm a big fan of this, and I hope it becomes a stronger trend in this franchise moving forward.
Ok, one final aside. I like but don’t love Skyward Sword’s general visual aesthetic, and I like but don’t love its soundtrack. And the story is... fine. A step up from Twilight Princess at least, though I don't think Skyward Sword is all that successful at worldbuilding for the franchise (which was supposedly a goal). I could expand on those statements, but this review is already long enough as is, so I won’t.
To conclude: as I’ve said, this modified version of Skyward Sword is honestly pretty great. It’s not my favorite Zelda game, but it’s not markedly worse than the standard set by the other games in this series. So why the hate directed at this game specifically? Well, it’s time for some armchair theorizing about why other people disagree with me: everyone’s favorite internet activity. For one, the shift to non-linear design spearheaded by Breath of the Wild makes it easy to paint Skyward Sword as a relic of game design. This characterization becomes even easier when you consider Skyward Sword’s focus on motion controls, which largely lost the favor of hardcore game-likers by the end of the Wii’s lifecycle (and, let’s be honest, the game’s implementation of motion isn’t universally praiseworthy). And third, there’s a certain YouTube video that has over 10 million (!!) views that trashes the game (poorly, and also trashes Ocarina of Time, poorly). And I think in this day and age, it should surprise no one how much a highly-viewed internet think-piece can influence public opinion–especially the “opinion” of those who haven’t actually played the game being discussed. Anyway, thank you for reading my review.
8/10.
Once upon a time, Zelda’s overworld and dungeon design largely conformed to (apologies in advance for using the “M” word) Metroidvania design principles. Specifically, in A Link to the Past, save for few story-related bottlenecks, progression through the overworld and dungeons was entirely contingent on the items Link possessed (which is the main reason why the game is so well suited to randomizers). However, as the franchise moved forward, progression, in the overworld at least, became less about items and more about story. For example, in Twilight Princess, accessing new major areas of Hyrule was entirely contingent on story progress (with sections of the map having to be cleared of their “twilight” before proper entry). And even that game’s dungeons, which still sort of conformed to the Metroidvania framework, were much more “linear” in the sense that progression was less ambiguous and required less backtracking. I don’t mean to imply that what I’ve alleged about Twilight Princess is bad, per se. I’m just pointing out a change of direction in this series re: progression.
And it’s a significant change. You see, Zelda has never really been about intricate, one-off puzzles. Rather, Zelda games of old can be seen as one big “puzzle” of sorts, where Link’s traversal and combat capabilities continually evolve, allowing for deeper and deeper progression (hence, the “M” word). The series evolved to feature more involved tests of spatial reasoning (e.g., Eagle’s Tower in Link’s Awakening), which naturally received greater emphasis when the series jumped to 3D (e.g., Snowhead Temple in Majora’s Mask). But Link’s Awakening, Ocarina of Time, and Majora’s Mask, while inarguably more “linear” than their predecessors (though less “linear” than some may think), are still games where player satisfaction is largely grounded in untying the metaphorical knot that is those games’ overworlds, with the same kind of thing on a smaller scale in those games’ dungeons. While The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess do maintain this somewhat, progression in those two games is less player-driven (with the exception of The Wind Waker’s Triforce quest, which is highly player-driven).
Before we get to the game I’m supposed to be writing about, one more topic: combat. Specifically, 3D Zelda combat. In retrospect, it’s easy to compare the style of combat first appearing (in this series, at least) in Ocarina of Time to (apologies in advance for using the “S” word) Souls combat. And for good reason: both are relatively slow, methodical, melee-oriented combat systems with a targeting system allowing the player to circle-strafe enemies and more easily use ranged attacks. In short, you target an enemy, wait for an opening, and then strike. One downfall of Ocarina of Time compared to Dark Souls is the relative simplicity of combat in the former, making the aforementioned process somewhat boring. Really, Darknuts are the only non-boss enemies in Ocarina of Time that truly engage, but even they pale in comparison to, say, Black Knights in Dark Souls. In short, while the combat of Ocarina of Time/Majora’s Mask was sound, there was clear room for improvement. And that’s fine: neither of those games is as combat-oriented as the Souls “series” has become (see: Elden Ring). But it goes without saying that better combat would make for better games. The Wind Waker incorporated what is essentially a context-specific counterattack “QTE,” and overall improves on the combat of its predecessors, though said improvements are somewhat counterbalanced by low difficulty. Twilight Princess made strides in expanding Link’s moveset, and the application of said moveset has an appreciable level of nuance, but, once again, Darknuts are the only non-boss enemies that truly engage (and, again, low difficulty). In short, from Ocarina of Time to Twilight Princess, you’re not playing 3D Zelda for the combat. And, unfortunately, the next game in the series wouldn’t change that fact, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
Now, with the groundwork set, let’s talk about Skyward Sword. More specifically, the game’s most controversial aspect: its motion controls. For better and for worse, Nintendo often follows the idiom “in for a penny, in for a pound” when it comes to gimmicks in their games. For example, the intent to fully utilize DS hardware resulted in both Phantom Hourglass’s great touch controls and Spirit Track’s obnoxious use of the DS’s microphone. It’s largely the same story with Skyward Sword. On one hand, motion’s implementation makes ranged items’ use more intuitive and satisfying than ever while, on the other hand, motion-controlled flight and swimming can be frustrating, to say the least.
And then there’s the matter of Skyward Sword’s combat, as previously alluded to. Put simply… it’s a mixed bag. Essentially, the combat follows the template from the previous games. You lock on to individual enemies, you wait for an opening, and then you strike. However, here, there’s one critical difference: motion. There’s certainly a kind of visceral satisfaciton that comes with defeating enemies with one-to-one, motion-controlled sword strikes that just cannot exist with a standard gamepad layout. The parry mechanic adds needed depth. And, honestly, Ghirahim and Demise are good fights that demonstrate the positive qualities of Skyward Sword’s combat system. However, said system is far from the true potential of motion-controlled melee combat. The vast majority of enemies (incluidng, to a lesser extent, Ghirahim and Demise) follow a rigid design that requires the player to strike them from a limited number of angles, while punishing players for telegraphing their attacks. This would be just fine if SOME enemies did it, but almost all of them do, leading to detrimental repetition. Further, unlike Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, where directional attacks are a small part of a larger system featuring appreciably deep combat mechanics, directional attacks ARE Skyward Sword’s combat system, more or less. There’s a parry mechanic, yes, but not much else. Importantly, though, compared to Metal Gear Rising, Skyward Sword’s combat is a relatively small part of its identity. So let’s address the rest of the game before concluding.
As I previously explained, Zelda’s core identity from A Link to the Past to Majora’s Mask is unraveling the overworld and dungeons in a Metroidvania-esque fashion. The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess marked a deviation from that, with overworld progression being more so tied to story and dungeon progression being more straightforward. Which brings us to Skyward Sword, which, for better and for worse, is a continuation of that trend. However, there is a shift in design philosophy that I believe gets overlooked. In short, Skyward Sword has what I will call Obstacle Course Level Design,™ which places greater emphasis on Link’s movement and moveset than ever before. Whether in dungeons or the overworld, the level designers consistently challenge the player to thoughtfully use Link’s movement (notably his new, somewhat limited sprinting and climbing capabilities) and items to traverse the environment. This design philosophy leads to a series of engaging, albeit rigid levels. The rigidity (which is part of what people are referring to when they call Skyward Sword “linear”) is not a problem, per se… but it IS a problem when you have to retread levels, as once you’ve solved an area’s traversal puzzle, there’s simply not much to be gained from traversing it again. And, unfortunately, Skyward Sword’s second and third acts do see re-use of levels to the game’s detriment.
In retrospective discussions of Skyward Sword, the game is often framed as diametrically opposed to Breath of the Wild. The former game is supposedly ultra-linear, while the latter is ultra-nonlinear. And while there is some validity to this characterization, in my opinion, those two games have more in common than the comparison implies. Simply, the greater emphasis on Link’s movement and moveset in Skyward Sword is continued in Breath of the Wild, albeit with a different approach. While Skyward Sword grants Link relatively limited movement and places him in rigid, intently designed levels (“obstacle courses”), Breath of the Wild greatly increases Link’s traversal potential and places him in sandboxes, with more linear gameplay segments being largely limited to “Shrines” and dungeons. Both are valid approaches, and if Skyward Sword didn’t commit the sin of re-using levels (among other issues), it’s very possible that I’d prefer it Breath of the Wild… but I digress.
For one final point of discussion, I’d like to look at one particular aspect of design in Zelda games that I've always appreciated. The games will often introduce a concept, and then iterate/expand on said concept in the immediately following dungeon (and, in some cases, continue to iterate/expand afterward). For example, in Ocarina of Time you were introduced to the hookshot before the Forest Temple, where it saw expanded use and became a natural, reoccurring part of Link's arsenal thereafter. I would argue that the 3D Zelda games that implement this savvy game design best/most extensively are Majora’s Mask (where you’re introduced to transformation masks prior to their extensive use in dungeons), Skyward Sword (where, for example, timeshift stones are heavily featured before each Lanayru dungeon), and Tears of the Kingdom (which features lengthy pre-dungeon segments that introduce key dungeon concepts, such as extensive vehicle traversal with Yunobo prior to the Fire Temple). If it's not clear, I'm a big fan of this, and I hope it becomes a stronger trend in this franchise moving forward.
Ok, one final aside. I like but don’t love Skyward Sword’s general visual aesthetic, and I like but don’t love its soundtrack. And the story is... fine. A step up from Twilight Princess at least, though I don't think Skyward Sword is all that successful at worldbuilding for the franchise (which was supposedly a goal). I could expand on those statements, but this review is already long enough as is, so I won’t.
To conclude: as I’ve said, this modified version of Skyward Sword is honestly pretty great. It’s not my favorite Zelda game, but it’s not markedly worse than the standard set by the other games in this series. So why the hate directed at this game specifically? Well, it’s time for some armchair theorizing about why other people disagree with me: everyone’s favorite internet activity. For one, the shift to non-linear design spearheaded by Breath of the Wild makes it easy to paint Skyward Sword as a relic of game design. This characterization becomes even easier when you consider Skyward Sword’s focus on motion controls, which largely lost the favor of hardcore game-likers by the end of the Wii’s lifecycle (and, let’s be honest, the game’s implementation of motion isn’t universally praiseworthy). And third, there’s a certain YouTube video that has over 10 million (!!) views that trashes the game (poorly, and also trashes Ocarina of Time, poorly). And I think in this day and age, it should surprise no one how much a highly-viewed internet think-piece can influence public opinion–especially the “opinion” of those who haven’t actually played the game being discussed. Anyway, thank you for reading my review.
8/10.