@Tyranexx Never played the game so I can't relate to the save bit, but what I can say is....After reading this idk really know what side i'm on anymore LOL, bc your on both, you know what people are annoyed about, and you know why they aren't, Its great.
Nintendo are like woman, You love them for whats on the inside, not the outside…you know what I mean! Luzlane best girl!
(My friend code is SW-7322-1645-6323, please ask me before you use it)
Since I have never purchased an amiibo, I won't be getting this one, either.... I'll see if it seems like it'd be a useful feature when I play the game but it certainly doesn't sound like it is, so I'm happy for those that like the silly things
@DomGC It's not completely pointless, but it's pretty dang close. If it were like the Travel Medallion from Breath of the Wild then it would have been a pretty big feature.
@DomGC To be fair, the game could use a bunch of streamlining, and fast travel not being locked to save statues is one of them. I realise this is a relic of the past, TP also had a similar way of saving IIRC, though WW didn't somehow. Either way, SS features a lot of unnecessary dialogue, it's already slow and cumbersome in quite a lot of areas. I don't know what's worse, the only QOL update locked behind an amiibo, or the game itself not featuring any QOL updates despite it being full price.
It boils down to two things for me. The general concept of locking stuff behind plastic toys that can't be accessed digitally for those who don't want to pay €15-25 for a toy (if they are even available that is, because there's always a shortage it seems). Though side note, stuff like this should be included for free IMO. And the fact that they charge full price for a Wii port with no substantial updates besides stick control.
Honestly if that's indeed the only amiibo function I'll be more disappointed, because it would've been cool to get up to five random items or treasures by scanning random or Zelda-series amiibo every day. With the game having that focus on treasure and materials, it would make it a nice convenience.
This is a good point and is something I'd like to see. I am disappointed that there isn't any compatibility with other Zelda series amiibo.
@rallydefault I loved the amiibo's design and planned on purchasing it even before its functional purpose was revealed. Skyward Sword's Zelda is one of my favorite versions of the character. In addition, while I like how strikingly red Link's Loftwing is, in general I'm biased towards blue/purple colors and naturally prefer Zelda's bird.
@TheJGG Thanks! That's precisely it; the feature is a convenience more than anything else. Truth be told, the game's maps aren't all that large, and you do revisit them more than once. The nice thing is, however, that said maps change at least a little each time as the story progresses.
@Snatcher I wouldn't say I'm on a "side" per se (@DomGC summarized it well); this is just my take on the matter. Basically the complaints are valid, but I do feel like they're blown out of proportion. Not the first time I've made this observation online, and I doubt it'll be the last lol. There are other, arguably more glaring, issues from the original game that I hope are addressed...at least somewhat. Don't get me wrong, Skyward Sword is a decent game. The problem is that many of the other games in the series set such a high bar. While I wouldn't call it one of the weakest Zelda titles by any means, I'd probably rank most of the other 3D entries above it.
Currently playing: Pokemon Scarlet DLC, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury (Switch)
I should also say I preferred the early approach to Amiibo where they didn't always do a ton but they always did something for most major Nintendo console games at the time. Getting little things regularly was a better option than "getting notable content in one game once" imo. That's probably why Amiibo doesn't make much sense outside of Smash Bros anymore, since they've abandoned their own way of this type of additional content.
Ok so when thinking about this again, I think I found the real REAL reason this was bad. Instead of being a cute extra that could regularly be used in Nintendo games, its just the world's most nothing toys to life, for a remake, and you'll never use it again. It's like the worst of both worlds, its neither good enough to justify getting as DLC, nor insignificant enough to not feel like a useful feature was cut. Just give me Skyward Sword costumes in all new Nintendo games or...something, it would not take that long to make. I dunno who would want this for anything other than the figure itself.
I don't understand why people think the age of a game should have a major impact on cost. Don't most of us try to argue that games are art? What other art form loses its value primarily due to age? Usually it's the other way around.
I just don't get the logic. I understand outdated car models costing less because they've been improved with newer versions, but a game is a game and will forever just be that game. If you wanna play SS for cheap, then go find a copy at a thrift store or yard sale or something where the owner has decided to slash the price. But for buying even an old game as "new" because it's a port or remaster or whatever, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't hold its original value.
I don't understand why people think the age of a game should have a major impact on cost. Don't most of us try to argue that games are art? What other art form loses its value primarily due to age? Usually it's the other way around.
I just don't get the logic. I understand outdated car models costing less because they've been improved with newer versions, but a game is a game and will forever just be that game. If you wanna play SS for cheap, then go find a copy at a thrift store or yard sale or something where the owner has decided to slash the price. But for buying even an old game as "new" because it's a port or remaster or whatever, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't hold its original value.
This is a valid point to a degree. But
A. Art whose value increases is far more often because of scarcity instead of value (or just the value at least) in terms of the quality of said art (or just as likely, a simple assumption that it is desired more than less well regarded art, specifically from a business minded perspective)
B. Nintendo often leans into games not necessarily being art, but fun toys (in fact most major gaming companies do not put their own games over as great art, even when they are beloved)
C. Most remasters of that type, especially ones that do not immediately look dramatically better than a game released on an SD platform, would not cost as much. And Nintendo would not do that if they did not think they could get away with it.
D. Art being cheap to buy should not inherently devalue it as art. Art having value shouldn't be dictated purely by monetary value.
I think if Nintendo themselves even tried to really justify what went into remaking it (or if most AAA game making wasn't so secretive), it would likely go over better. There's at least a case to be made about games keeping up value, to a degree. But maybe not as much in the context of the world we actually live in, and who we've arbitrarily decided does or doesn't "deserve" to be able to enjoy a variety of modern games. But that's a whole giant can of worms I don't want to get into.
@kkslider5552000 One of the interesting bits that came out of the Epic vs Apple lawsuit was a document detailing how a remaster took 1 or 2 people somewhere between 6 and 12 months IIRC. Don't remember what company it was, and I don't remember the actual numbers, and I really should look it up to make this point, but I don't have the time. If I don't forget it, I'll look it up later today. But that's quite telling. Remasters/ports hardly take up any resources compared to an actual new game. Even those €40 remasters are incredibly lucrative compared to actual game development.
@rallydefault But it isn't art, as in, it's not comparable to the monetary value of a painting. Games drop in price over time, that's a fact. Even Nintendo adheres to it. Those NES games aren't €60 anymore. And if I remember correctly, they've sold Wii games, including SS for €20 in the past. Retailers have probably sold it for even lower than that. So they've already established the bottom price themselves. If they thought of it as a pure art form, they wouldn't have introduced those Nintendo Selects games.
Toys and art are bad examples of what’s going on here. It seem closer to being inspired/similar to the “Disney Vault” model (which no longer exists, thanks to Disney+) where they can release it to great fanfare when it does come back and is seen as a full priced game. It’s works on me as I pretty much bought 3D All Stars just for Sunshine.
I don't understand why people think the age of a game should have a major impact on cost. Don't most of us try to argue that games are art? What other art form loses its value primarily due to age? Usually it's the other way around.
This is definitely wrong.
That's only true of things like paintings, because you're buying the original work itself, and not a digital copy of it. Paintings are therefore, to use a recently popular term, "non-fungible". If you simply buy a digital copy of the Mona Lisa, it's also incredibly cheap.
That's never been true of other forms of art though. Books, music and video games, are all different because no-one is even trying to buy the "original work" (in the case of books and games, it's not even clear what 'the original work' would even mean). Everyone knows they're just buying a digital copy of something (or a physical incarnation of a digital copy in the case of books or retail games).
Buying copies of things is obviously a lot cheaper because there's a much bigger supply (infinite supply in the case of an eshop download or an ebook)
Forums
Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword HD
Posts 401 to 420 of 921
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic