Giant Bomb Review

470 Comments

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword Review

4
  • Wii

For mostly better and only a little bit worse, Skyward Sword is the best Zelda game in years, and makes a strong case for motion controls when done right.

An early boss brutally teaches you to avoid telegraphing attacks.

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword is Nintendo’s closing argument on motion controls with Wii, especially as it relates to traditional games. It seems fitting that saving the world alongside Link will, for many of us, act as the first and last time we spend dozens of hours with a game inside our Wiis.

And boy, how far we’ve come. It takes only minutes with Twilight Princess again to understand how tacked on those motion mechanics were, and Skyward Sword’s evolutionary leaps only compound the idea that we should have played Link’s last adventure with a GameCube controller in both hands. How you come into Skyward Sword partially depends on how you took to Link the last time. Top to bottom, I found Twilight Princess painfully boring, which is, perhaps, a fate worse than bad. My reaction was fueled by a combined indifference to the game’s uninspiring world, characters, and gadgets, and the tepid, half-hearted implementation of motion to make the mechanics more physical.

Especially as it relates to the last point, Skyward Sword could not be more different. It’s not just the added fidelity from Motion Plus that makes the difference, it’s that your physical actions are truly meaningful when it comes to engaging in just about every combat scenario in Skyward Sword. The very first enemies in the game will beat your ass to the ground if you’re not reading their moves, and Skyward Sword quickly teaches players that “waggle” will not work here--period. To be successful in combat, reacting to the placement of each enemy’s hands is of utmost importance, and while one becomes extremely adept at taking out the early combatants after a few hours, from start to finish, Skyward Sword asks much of your wrist. When the credits rolled, my hand ached, and it felt great.

Combat never becomes difficult, but remains challenging, as you’re constantly tasked with reacting to enemy actions (i.e. placing their sword to the left) with your own (i.e. slashing your sword to the right). Early on, the enemies are very blatant about showing weaknesses. That's less true later, forcing you to spend several failed encounters sussing out various “tells." In one case, a lizard appears to be hiding its weak arm on the left, when in reality you must swing around from the right--a sleight of hand. Furthermore, for him to even show off that weak point, you must swing away a few times and force him into a defensive posture. The most satisfying encounters are when enemies swap tells over and over, asking players to be extraordinarily quick with a response, and this becomes more demanding over time. The game is always reading your sword in relation to the enemy, and if you telegraph an attack, enemies will smack back.

Get to know your sword well, as it's basically a living companion.

Link’s sword is front and center here, with only a few of the gadgets playing into combat. Mastery of the sword is of utmost importance. It’s strange to spend so much time talking on and on about combat in a Zelda game, but it’s no longer about smashing on the attack button anymore. Quite literally, you are part of combat, and motion controls, done well, provides a satisfaction that wouldn’t be possible any other way. This is the finest example yet.

One facet of modern games Nintendo’s dodged is overcomplicated design, focusing on a simplicity that appeals to a larger audience. The Zelda series has always been described as an “action RPG,” but in light of what the RPG has become with games of immense depth like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Zelda has become more RPG lite. And that’s fine! Nintendo can contently stay in its corner, while Bethesda tackles another. But Skyward Sword takes steps to address the gap and falls short. The game includes a forgettable element of potion-crafting and item-upgrading, a case of good ideas that don’t go far enough. Providing such a tiny amount of customization that’s also built upon the same grinding mechanics of other crafting systems (prepare to catch lots of bugs, and read descriptions of what those bugs are every single time!) meant I only ended up upgrading when I just happened to have the right materials, and never bothered the rest of the game. It doesn’t help that Skyward Sword’s isn’t particularly tough, which isn’t outright a bad thing, but in the context of creating upgrade desire, not dying more than once or twice didn’t create much motivation.

Some depth would have gone a long way here, especially if players could have any customization of Link's sword, the weapon he spends the most time with in the game. The sword's path is all story-driven, and that makes it difficult to forge a unique identity through upgrades. It ends up feeling like you’re working way harder for upgrades that would have been found naturally in a dungeon in any other Zelda game.

It’s hard to overlook other areas where Skyward Sword doesn’t play catch up, too. It’s unacceptable now that Link doesn’t have access to any catch-all quest log. Sure, the replacement for Navi, the robotic Fi, will provide you hints on where to go next, but that only relates to the primary goal, and she does not keep a database of side quests stumbled upon while exploring Skyloft. Characters have conversation icons above their heads if they have anything to say, but it’s contingent upon you to either resolve a side quest when you encounter it, or make a note of and come back. Mostly, I just never came back.

There’s plenty to keep you busy, however. Even if you don’t touch anything but the main storyline, Skyward Sword will take you well over 30 hours to complete, and if you want to see everything, that number could easily double. It’s a packed journey, and while it’s one that plays with some of the same tropes the series has become known for--Link, Zelda, evil, Triforce, forest, desert, volcano--the world of Skyloft, situated in the clouds, feels genuinely refreshing. What’s old feels mostly new again, thanks largely to some truly devious, changing dungeon design. None of the dungeons are particularly long, there’s not a single “bad” one, and the more active combat provides a welcomed contrast to puzzle barrage.

When in doubt, take a deep breath and look around for clues.

An early puzzle asks you to recreate a specific motion that wouldn’t be possible without Motion Plus, and it took me over 20 minutes to come up with the solution, purely because I’d never encountered something like it before. You’re constantly doing new everything here, and it’s the moments when the designers most daringly break from the past (ironic, given the game’s “birth of a legend” branding) that Skyward Sword makes the game worth playing, even if you’ve grown tired of Zelda at this point. My favorite dungeons involved playing with time, where Link will move from room to room, switching between the past and the present to solve puzzles and avoid enemies. Creatures spawn in and out of reality in real-time, so rather than having to fight them, you can move time objects out of their vicinity--and poof! You’re forced to think about the environment in entirely new ways, and ways that often don’t feel very Zelda-like.

And that’s one of the weird things about playing a Zelda game, as it’s impossible to play a Zelda game without acknowledging it exists in a large vacuum of other Zelda games. It’s not unlike what has happened to Call of Duty, in which many devoted players are simply looking for more Call of Duty, rather than a complete reinvention. Coming to terms with the latest game becomes a nostalgic balancing act of understanding the latest game in relation to itself, where it's come from and everything surrounding it.

Skyward Sword doesn’t do itself any favors in taking its sweet time getting started, and longer before introducing you to some of its most creative highlights. Designer Shigeru Miyamoto once said “the first 30 minutes of a game is the most important,” and Skyward Sword fails to pass that test. It takes several hours before you’re given any sense of real freedom, which is too bad, as the game manages to merge the sublime openness of the sea from Wind Waker (without the Triforce madness!) with the directed fun of most other games, as it's easy to just keep moving forward without much fuss. And by the time you start seeing what the designers really have in store for you (wait until you get to the pirate section, where your boat is able to...well, you’ll see), you actually don’t want it to stop, even if you’re able to constantly, cynically predict when the game will ask you to find just One More Thing before it's all over.

Good luck skydiving, one of the game's most frustrating bits.

Perhaps the most surprising disappointment is how little control players have over the game’s central instrument, a harp. If you’re going to call back to one of Ocarina of Time’s most memorable features within a game that makes such exquisite use of the new options afforded by Motion Plus, you’d think the designers would come prepared with something altogether unique. That’s not the case. Though Link learns several songs for the harp over the course of the game, you have no choice over which one to play, and playing anything involves haphazardly waving the Wii remote back and forth.

Even in Skyward Sword’s lowest of lows (don’t get me started on a late sequence involving swimming underwater and collecting musical notes for 30 minutes), the game benefits from the prettiest art direction since Wind Waker. The game seamlessly transitions between various degrees of an impressionistic painting, based on where objects are in the foreground and background. And while I detest the meme “it’s good for a Wii game,” at the point where we’re beginning to gripe about the limitations of our high-definition consoles, it’s a testament to the art direction that I immediately forgot the hardware's aging technology after a few minutes of play. Skyloft is an extraordinarily pretty place to explore.

Skyward Sword is simultaneously a very good Zelda game and a rather great adventure game. It has some of the most inventive dungeons the series has ever known, sports the most impactful changes to the combat since Z-targeting, introduces wrinkles to the Zelda mythology that will force fans to rethink the entire series, and will have you gawking at it constantly, 480p 'n all. But the series finds itself facing an identity crisis, as it flirts with expanding what has defined the series without abandoning its charming but waning simplicity. Zelda doesn’t need to become something else to maintain relevance, but at a certain point, when “a brand-new great Zelda game” isn’t enough, there’s reason to pause.

Patrick Klepek on Google+
470 Comments
Posted by FreakAche

8.8

Posted by Claude
@masterpaperlink said:

@Claude said:

@patrickklepek said:

If it helps, I loaded up my Twilight Princess save earlier this week and dropped it at around 15 hours, when you're tasked with getting the rest of the moon piece things. I'd played more than I remembered.

It took me 65 hours to beat Twilight Princess. 15 hours barely scratches the surface of that game.

standard completion time is around 35 hours I was dragging that game out for quite a while and barely made 40.

Good point. I did spend a lot of time fishing and doing other things.
Posted by patrickklepek

@Tiago said:

There goes the Metacritic score. I normally don't care but I wanted this game to be one of the highest rated this gen... 8/10 won't help. Crappy 5 star system.

Cry me a river about the identity crisis BS.

I ask this honestly: how come you care about how this game performs on Metacritic?

Staff
Posted by confideration

The vitriol from Nintendo/Zelda fans at a 4/5 is not at all shocking, but still somewhat sad.

Posted by Superkenon

@patrickklepek said:

If it helps, I loaded up my Twilight Princess save earlier this week and dropped it at around 15 hours, when you're tasked with getting the rest of the moon piece things. I'd played more than I remembered.

Do you mean the mirror shards? If so, there's not too much left of the game. I imagine Skyward Sword is all-around better, so maybe you don't want to take a step backwards, but if you're enough of a Zelda fan I'd say it's worth seeing through. I really liked the final fights in that game, and the dungeons leading up to the final areas were pretty neat too.

I know what you mean when you talk about TP being on the boring side, though. Compared to Ocarina, Majora's Mask or Wind Waker, there was definitely a lack of vibrancy and life to its world. I think that was by design, as they tried to evoke that feeling of gloom and despair... ie, the "dark" Zelda "everyone" wanted. Definitely didn't turn out to be the right direction to take, or at least not the right way to do it. The twilight areas were definitely the low points of the game. Where mah color at?!

Still, I was happy with the game overall. Either I'm too forgiving of a fanboy, or the last half makes a lot up for the rough start it suffers. I'd be interested in hearing what you think if you ever finish the fight...!

Posted by steelknight2000

@patrickklepek said:

@Tiago said:

There goes the Metacritic score. I normally don't care but I wanted this game to be one of the highest rated this gen... 8/10 won't help. Crappy 5 star system.

Cry me a river about the identity crisis BS.

I ask this honestly: how come you care about how this game performs on Metacritic?

Confirmation bias at work.

Edited by Ronin147

The most disappointing thing about this review is lack of a drawn Patrick to reflect the score :(

Posted by Gordo789

@steelknight2000 said:

@patrickklepek said:

@Tiago said:

There goes the Metacritic score. I normally don't care but I wanted this game to be one of the highest rated this gen... 8/10 won't help. Crappy 5 star system.

Cry me a river about the identity crisis BS.

I ask this honestly: how come you care about how this game performs on Metacritic?

Confirmation bias at work.

I think both you and Klepek are a little to eager to write off Tiago's concern. Obviously Tiago is going to buy this game. Maybe he just wants the quality of the game to be accurately reflected on what is arguably the most important numerical rating scale for video games, so that other people who maybe aren't so into Zelda might share in the experience that Tiago is so passionate about. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a world where good games get the praise they deserve. That said, the problem is not with Patrick's score, which is totally fine, the problem is with how metacritic chooses to interpret scores that are not on a scale of 1 to 100.

Posted by Superkenon

@Ronin147 said:

The most disappointing thing about this review is lack of a drawn Patrick to reflect the score :(

This.

Posted by Figyg

So glad someone else finally agrees that twilight princess is boring

Posted by lizzard2

@Tim_the_Corsair said:

@lizzard2

Can someone who don't call Zelda an "Action RPG" please review the game instead...since no its not an Action RPG its an ADVENTURE game. And to talk about Elder scrolls and call of duty in and Zelda review wow. worst review i read so far in this place . The score is probobly fine thats not my issue but to call Zelda RPG ..well thats just sad..

Is it point and click? Does it play like Sam & Max? Then it is not an adventure game. I am sure Patrick and the crew are having a good laugh at the pathetic complaints anyway.

Action adventure then, im not talking about old ass point and clicks ofc.. tell your dad im sorry for the typo...:P

Posted by NathHaw

@Superkenon said:

@Ronin147 said:

The most disappointing thing about this review is lack of a drawn Patrick to reflect the score :(

This.

I made one I think they can use. Pretty professional if you ask me.

Edited by Tolshakk

In the pantheon of reviews on here, Patrick's take on Skyward Sword was alright. It wasn't the affront to God some people are making it out to be, but shame on them for expecting the apotheosis of the written word from an enthusiast game site. Sure, it was all mostly throwaway rhetoric, but what do you want? A Harold Bloom-styled dissertation about the genesis of TLoZ's gameplay mechanics through the franchise? It's a fucking video-game review, lighten up. He had personality and reasonable enough perspective to overcome the couple awkward/obfuscatory phrasings to make the review a good enough read. I don't necessarily think I have a 20/20 vision of every fresh nuance within game, but such is reading about something oriented for interaction.

Edited by MrOldboy

Only complaint is that the notion of Zelda as an "action RPG" wasn't discounted more heavily. The Zelda franchise never really was an RPG series, and frankly should be removed from that genre entirely. Maybe on the NES one could argue Zelda was an RPG, but with genres becoming more and more defined, Zelda is very far from anything considered an RPG or even "RPG". Just by mentioning the ES series with Zelda just facilitates the idea that Zelda is anything more than an action adventure series, a damn fine one, but placed separately from the rpg genre.

The Zelda series has always been described as an “action RPG,” but in light of what the RPG has become with games of immense depth like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Zelda has become more RPG lite. And that’s fine! Nintendo can contently stay in its corner, whileBethesda tackles another.
Posted by HandsomeDead

The real shocking thing about this review is that somebody pays actual money for the writing skills of Patrick Klepek.

Posted by JimmyPancakes
Posted by lessthankris

Your reviewing scores are so random. 80? seriously?

Posted by sam89

"When the credits rolled, my hand ached, and it felt great." - Patrick Klepek

Best way to summarize this review.

Edited by Summoboomo

Lots of people are mad about video games in this comment page. Reads like a pretty well-written review to me. Not really seeing what the problem is.

@FreakAche said:

8.8

Patrick needs to get himself a 4 stars out of 5 shirt, and he and Jeff can be overreaction-to-Nintendo-score buddies

Posted by ghostNPC

Excellent review.

Posted by Nurabsal

Great job Patrick, don't let the comment monsters get to ya.

Posted by DG991

I don't know if I can take people seriously who say that Twilight Princess was a bad game.

I thought it was a fantastic game and I had a fun time with it. I don't know how you could find it boring, and I played it on the gamecube first and then the Wii.

Then again I am still baffled by how people can say Wind Waker wasn't boring. Fine, maybe I didn't like the art style that much but I also found being on the sea incredibly boring and fishing for tri force pieces couldn't have been any more annoying.

Patrick, the only thing I seem to agree with you on is that Majoras Mask was a good game. Personally it is my favorite Zelda game.

I'll probably checek out zelda skyward sword for myself.

Posted by falling_fast

it's jarring not seeing an illustration accompanying a giantbomb review

Posted by sp00kyfr0g

Excellent review. I still can't believe people are raging over the freaking score. In what world is a 4/5 a bad score? I regularly play games that rate a 3. Even if you take 4 stars out of 5 to mean 80/100, that means it was a damn fine game.

HOW DARE YOU GIVE A GOOD GAME A GOOD SCORE!!!!! RAWR!

Posted by Liquidus

@DG991 said:

I don't know if I can take people seriously who say that Twilight Princess was a bad game.

I thought it was a fantastic game and I had a fun time with it. I don't know how you could find it boring, and I played it on the gamecube first and then the Wii.

Then again I am still baffled by how people can say Wind Waker wasn't boring. Fine, maybe I didn't like the art style that much but I also found being on the sea incredibly boring and fishing for tri force pieces couldn't have been any more annoying.

Patrick, the only thing I seem to agree with you on is that Majoras Mask was a good game. Personally it is my favorite Zelda game.

I'll probably checek out zelda skyward sword for myself.

I agree with this almost entirely except that Ocarina of Time would be my favorite.

Posted by MasturbatingestBear

I seriously am not looking forward to the comments on other websites. I hate people... That gamefaqs thread sucks.

Posted by MormonWarrior

@patrickklepek said:

If it helps, I loaded up my Twilight Princess save earlier this week and dropped it at around 15 hours, when you're tasked with getting the rest of the moon piece things. I'd played more than I remembered.

I felt that game was disappointing as well. I even wrote a decent blog about it a while back that you should look into if you have the time. Weird how the disparity in review scores existed for Twilight Princess too, and I actually feel like Jeff's was the most honest and accurate. I even think he scored it a little high with an 8.8. This from a raving Zelda fan that's beaten every game in the series. P.S. How in the world did people spend so much time on TP? I beat it in less than 20 hours and afterwards I got 100% of everything without a guide and it took me less than 30. I wasn't even rushing or speed running or anything.

Posted by thehowlingman

this is fucking bullshit patrick. im cancelling my whiskeymedia subscription forever. you just don't get zelda okay? for the love of all that is humanity, never review another game again.

Posted by freecajunlove

@Figyg: I've never fallen asleep to a game more. I had about 40 hours in my game clock when I decided to stop playing, and I swear over half of that was me sleeping on my couch holding a controller... This kinda makes me sound like a troll...

Posted by jpmcosta

I laugh at people who say that 4/5 is a good score to a Zelda game. I'm not arguing whether it is fair or not.

I've not read the entire review (due to spoilers), but I'll have my own opinion next week.

Posted by chilibean_3

@Gordo789: I don't see the issue with 4/5 being converted to 80. Like, at all. The game is good. You should definitely play it if you're into these kinds of games. That's what both those scores say.

Posted by Junior_AIN

Personally I don't even get excited for a Zelda review, I know I'll buy the game anyway, even if it gets 1 star, and I'm not the least proud of it. For me Zelda is one of those games I simply buy, I don't expect it to be any different from any other Zelda, and I'm fine with it. Plus, handing out 10s for every Zelda that comes out just because it's a Zelda grows weary.

Posted by Boiglenoight
Edited by avid8bit

To start, I have no problem with 4/5 stars. I do, however, have a problem with somebody who not only refers to a Zelda game as an RPG but says this, "The Zelda series has always been described as an 'action RPG,'" inferring that the majority of players do so as well. The Zelda fans I know, and I know quite a few, call them Action-Adventure and would scoff at the idea of it being an RPG.

Unfortunately, this means that the reviewer doesn't understand what a Zelda game is trying to accomplish, as he has simply placed it in the wrong genre. It's not as extreme a mistake as, for instance, reviewing a driving game under FPS standards, but there are obvious enough differences between action-rpg and action-adventure that I think the reviewer is bound to miss the point.

Further, the review takes more of a microscopic view of elements to the game rather than evaluating Skyward Sword as a whole, and when I lovingly recall my experiences with Ocarina, it isn't just Epona's graceful travel (at the time) or the intricacies of the dungeons that I remember, it's the grandiose nature of the story and characters that bring a smile to my face.

Barring the fact that the reviewer didn't bother to mention the story, his miniscule gripes with a tacked on upgrade system (which I agree probably does not mesh with the game) or the slow start to a 30-40 hour game just can't possibly be as important as the combat system or artistic devlopment of the game to take an equal priority.

I didn't expect the reviewer to come back and kiss the feet of Nintendo for delivering us the game. I did expect him to understand what a Zelda game is in the first place and evaluate it on the merits of what players, the people he is writing for, expect from the game and combine that with the innovations is does or does not offer.

Posted by logicfracture

@dvorak said:

@SirPenguin said:

This review reminds me of being back in English class in high school again. The teacher assigns a subject matter and topic for me, all but writing my thesis statement, and as such my paper is full of half-assed arguments and uninspired prose.

I obviously don't care about the actual score because I'm not a crazy person, but this was a very poor review. It's like you knew you had to bring up bad points, but you didn't really know what to say, and worse, you just end up contradicting yourself. "It's ok that it's an RPG lite, but man, it should really have deeper RPG elements! Zelda needs to more than just another Zelda game, but why isn't this one feature more similar to a past Zekda? I didn't care about the upgrading system, but why can't I upgrade my sword?!"

You need to learn to find a point, flesh it out, and back it up. All your articles read like this review.

Pretty much. Anyone with even a modicum of writing talent could whip this up. It reads like a first person blog article filled with college paper level filler. As a person on the fence about buying this game, this article doesn't really inform me of it's relative qualities at all.

I don't even really care about the score, but it's just so poorly written that in this case I had to look at it to even understand how he felt about it. Was it the best Zelda ever? The worst? Somewhere in the middle? I had no idea where he stood, based on his writing.

Patrick really needs to improve his writing style. It comes across as very amateur, technically. He has been doing this for years now, right?

I think calling it college level filler is being pretty generous. The two most important parts of the review, the tagline and the last sentence, are a complete mess as are many sentences in between . This review would have trouble passing muster in a high school class. Step up your game and put more effort into making your points clearly and concisely. This level of quality reflects poorly on the site.

Posted by Foxtrot0245

Sometimes I get the distinct feeling that games are given less than perfect scores simply because Giant Bomb is making a statement about how people automatically assume it will be scored as perfect...

Posted by Gordo789

@chilibean_3 said:

@Gordo789: I don't see the issue with 4/5 being converted to 80. Like, at all. The game is good. You should definitely play it if you're into these kinds of games. That's what both those scores say.

I agree 100%, but I don't think that's the common perception that people have of metacritic scores. It starts to break down a little more at lower scores. For example, 3/5 is a pretty good score, but it shows a metacritic score of 60 which I don't think anybody considers good. I was just commenting that it seems a little dismissive to accuse people of being affected by confirmation bias, and using that accusation to completely dismiss their concern. Maybe I'm reading more into it than the original comment that started the discussion, but it's food for thought.

Posted by sp
It’s unacceptable now that Link doesn’t have access to any catch-all quest log.

man i am going to have to completely disagree with this, a catch-all quest log might add something for completionists or lazy people or people rushing through the game...

but merely by placing all the things you can do on a single list and equating them all as "quests", you trivialize them. it decreases the perception of uniqueness and makes the world feel more mechanical and less open

Posted by SpudBug

I respect patrick's opinion but he feels like he is complaining about how this zelda game is a zelda game a little bit.

Still, a great review.

Posted by jasondesante

Lets end this by looking at every other review, and how much everyone else loved it

http://kotaku.com/5858648/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-pierces-game-critics-hearts

note that giantbomb gave it the lowest score. All of patricks criticisms were as if he had better game design logic than miyamoto, which is sad because Nintendo has proven to be good, and patrick's opinions on game design getting in between him enjoying the game just shows what he actually wanted to do for a living but has yet to realize.

Posted by Overbite

Who the fuck cares what the score is. If you think it should be rated as a perfect game (even though you haven't played it) then good for you. Patrick played it and enjoyed it and had some criticisms about it. Why do you people think that every reviewer needs to think exactly the same? If you are complaining about this review you are an idiot and possibly an asshole.

Posted by Dalai

I will repress my inner Nintendo fanboy feelings until I play the game for myself, but I can say that Klepek and I will probably have conflicting opinions.

Edited by Shaanyboi

This review feels like it's not really saying anything.

It seems to be a GiantBomb stigma lately where whenever there IS a Zelda game, all they say is "It's a Zelda game." Well no shit, and Uncharted 3 "is an Uncharted game", Assassin's Creed "is an Assassin's Creed game", and so on... It's the laziest thing you can say about anything.

It feels like it's jumping between saying "Zelda shouldn't have to be something else...." and then saying "BUT MAN I WISH IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE." Is it not enough of an RPG, or is it trying too hard to be one? Is it a fault that it's trying to deepen its mechanics, or a benefit? It gives it a bunch of praise like "MAN THIS WORLD IS SO INSPIRED" but then it just goes "Yeahhhh it's just a Zelda game."

Not your best work Patrick... I have no issue with a score, but this review feels like it's not saying anything about anything.

Posted by Dan_CiTi

I can't wait!!

Posted by TwoLines

Ya know, you can talk about the arguments used in the review, and look at the different aspects of the game, what you think should/shouldn't be in the review and so on. But for god's sake, don't argue about the score, and don't be a huge asshole that says that the review is poorly made. That's just the worst.

Posted by Loki

Some of the comments here and around the internet are absolutely pathetic. It blows my mind that people can get angry over a review, which is ultimately an opinion piece when it comes down to it. But the fact that people are getting angry at Patrick for giving this game 4 stars, when NONE OF YOU HAVE EVEN PLAYED THE GAME is completely and utterly insane. Get a life, all of you!

Posted by Marokai
@Tiago said:

There goes the Metacritic score. I normally don't care but I wanted this game to be one of the highest rated this gen... 8/10 won't help. Crappy 5 star system.

Cry me a river about the identity crisis BS.

You are part of the problem.
Posted by Scodiac

Next week will be one of those extremely rare moments in which I wish I had a Wii.

Posted by spilledmilkfactory

This is probably Patrick's best review. I'd love to try the game myself if I still had my Wii, even though I was never the biggest Zelda fan.

Posted by RANTER

Giant Bomb, I officially don't get you and your rating system. Why? Since yesterday I have been playing Skyrim for quite some time now and although this game is quite great and deserves great scores, some sites mentioned it's huge bugs and they're right. You guys had to give it a 5/5 star score when just this morning I couldn't complete a quest because the game kept bugging me out of the next step?

Now, most sites don't mention any bugs whatsoever in Skyward Sword and you guys just happen to find reasons to lower its score to a 4/5 which is not bad but compared to the other 88 games you guys have rated with 5/5 rating, this just gotta be a joke. Flower 5/5? Kirby's Epic Yarn 5/5? NBA 2K12 even with its huge online failures? GTA: Chinatown Wars? Wow...

But hey, it's your opinion and everybody is entitled to their own but thanks to this I now know where NOT to look for a general reference in game-buying...PEACE!