Topic: Not a hater but...is BotW gonna suck?

[Stogi]

I mean...


It's Zelda, so odds are against it. Even so, there's a very real chance it could be pretty terrible.

We all don't like to admit it, but the jumping off horse back and aiming with the entire gamepad looked pretty shitty. It looked like Max Payne, which was amazing, but more discombobulated.


Is the game beautiful? Most definitely. They blended the best aspects of TP, SS, and WW into one delicious feast for the eyes.


Is the game huge? It truly feels like it. But so did TP's world and WW's world and they both left us feeling a bit ripped off in terms of things to do.


The only thing I'm hyped about truly, fucking truly, is the fact that this game is the first HD Zelda. I'm not talking about just the graphics, but the ability to pretty much put any kind of boss or puzzle up on the screen. The limits are broader than ever and with the team this large, this focused after five years of development, it could be the greatest game of all time...again.




Or it could be a complete let down.

[NWR_insanolord]

We know almost nothing about it at this point, and what we have seen was over a year ago and may have changed substantially in the meantime.

[TOPHATANT123]

http://www.ask8ball.net

The last build we saw is atleast like 14 months old now. Other than gut instinct there is nothing to suggest it will lean one way or the other. In my heart though I feel that so long as you go in expecting Zelda and not Xenoblade Chronicles X, you'll have a good time.

[Enner]

I still like motion controls, so that arrow aiming is alright by me.

I my excitement for Zelda Wii U is eager in the broadest sense and becomes highly anxious in detail. So anxious that I can't understand anyone who only has favorable anticipation for the game.

I'm anxious as to how the big world will be filled and made alive. This is Nintendo's first attempt at such a design in a high-definition 3D environment. While Nintendo has support studios to assist, Monolith Soft's experience with the Xenoblade games can only go so far in the action-adventure space of Zelda. With Nintendo's lack of experience and past history of designing filler quests, I fear that the open world of Zelda Wii U will be disappointingly dull.

Secondarily, I'm anxious if Nintendo has learned how to pace a Zelda game. Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword have received plenty of criticism on how their adventures were paced. A Link Between Worlds looks to have been a response to that with how fast the game moved. Optimistic minds will think that Nintendo's experience with A Link Between Worlds will carry over more than Skyward Sword; I'm not of that mind.

There's so little that is known that you can think of anything in anticipation for Zelda Wii U. As it is, my thoughts dwell heavily on doubt.

Oh! In that 2013 video, Aonuma hinted at some sort of multiplayer functionality. Assuming that has made it through to the final game, I'm genuinely curious as to how that will be. It might be something as passive as Xenoblade Chronicles X's reward tickets, or it might be HD and 3D Four Swords.

[Khushrenada]

Is Zelda Wii U gonna suck?

Naw, it's gonna blow....




...up!

[Evan_B]

The game certainly does not look as good as the original trailer, I feel that much is certain. Everything we've seen since then has looked a bit washed out and lacking the detail of that first video.

That being said, I truly think that 3D Zelda needs to be more like 2D Zelda, but A Link Between worlds was not a good example of this. They gave away the whole map of ALBW too easily in favor of the free-order mechanic, and while the game didn't suffer from a lack of variety, it went by too fast.

We can only hope that the Zelda Team has put a lot of thought into how this game is going to progress, and also hope that the world, while feeling dangerous and isolated, also feels alive with things to do.

[King of Twitch]

if they can throw in some non-bob ross trees into that scene, it'll be great

[Shaymin]

It is in quantum superstate. It may collapse to #2 on a GOTY list behind Federation Force, or original Majora's Mask and be an abomination unto the Goddess.

I wish I could give a more informed opinion, but that won't happen until June.

[Triforce Hermit]

Probably.

[MagicCow64]

At the risk of repeating myself, and out of boredom, I think there are only a few actual conjectures to scry from the bones at this point.

-Something clearly changed with the game after the initial reveal/off-screen follow-up at the VGAs.
-It might have something to do with NX features given a probable cross-platform release.
-It might be something more related to core game design. My pet theory is that Nintendo tried to confront full open-world game architecture head-on and came to the conclusion that it just kind of sucks as applied to 3D Zelda (and 3D games in general!).
-It could be a mix of both things. In any case, a major retool was required.
-Based on the later gameplay footage, it does indeed seem like the reveal teaser was aspirational in a way that Nintendo doesn't usually risk. 
-As a result of the above factors, it's going to be very hard to beat the expectations game.

Baseless conclusion:

-The final product will come out something along the lines of Twilight Princess, solid but seemingly pared down from a more ambitious original vision while retaining a few vestigial mechanics. My personal guess is that it will feel like a land-based Wind Waker.

[ejamer]

Do you feel that many Zelda games (on Nintendo consoles) have sucked previously?
I suspect the answer to that question will be strongly related to the answer for whether the next Zelda will suck.


I don't love all Zelda games, but don't feel like any of them truly suck and most end up being in the running for "best in genre" when compared to their contemporaries.  The next game in the series probably will be the same, regardless of whether it lives up to expectations upon release.

[michaelbaysuperfan616]

I haven't liked a console Zelda game since Ocarina of time so my expectation is already low. I did think Majora's Masked sucked it was an odd game at the wrong time. I hated Wind Waker upon initial release, I got the HD remaster mostly because there just wasn't a whole lot on Wii U at the time, I haven't come around to liking it yet. I tried to get into Twilight Princess but I got bored really easy. I think that I lost interest in Zelda when I realized I was just replaying the same game every time just the dungeons were arranged differently and a few mechanics were broken to fit whatever new idea Nintendo had come up with.

I think what happened with Zelda is Nintendo use to trot it out as a core gamer game and that was the game that could convince a nay-sayer to give a Nintendo console a try but once Nintendo started doing all those odd things with Zelda it became a cult of followers who just dug their heels in convincing themselves they still liked the game when in fact it was no longer the same thing they fell in love with. Of course I could be way off here so feel free to ignore my theory or offer an opposing argument it's up to you.



I think if I worded it differently it might make more sense. I guess I see it as Nintendo fans have to believe in Zelda because they have nothing else so they have convinced themselves that every game in the franchise is good until they get away from it then they can judge it as harshly as it deserved to be, then somewhere along the lines nostalgia kicks in, not just nostalgia of playing the older, greater, games in the franchise but also the nostalgia of the announcement of a Zelda game exciting the entire gaming industry instead of just exciting the shrinking die hard fanbase that is increasingly split over what it wants.


For me personal haven't even played Skyward Sword because I despised Wind Waker and wasn't happy with Twilight Princess either. You can put me in the camp who wants the game to be great so I can enjoy it and get excited for it but based on recent experiences isn't hopeful just yet.

[ThePerm]

I think you are way off. People who like subsequent games like them based on their merit.

Zelda gameplay is comparable to something like portal. There is a gimmicky weapon mechanic that makes that level different. That is a very Zelda-esque thing to do.

The core gameplay will always be swordplay and puzzle solving. (and boss fights)

[Evan_B]

Every Zelda is someone's first Zelda. It's why I love Minish Cap and hold Twilight. Princess in higher regard than most people. That being said, I'm not too keen on other titles in the series. But I accept that every Zelda impacts people differently and that aspect also being one of the flaws of the series, since people are general impatient and don't want to wait through world building and introduction of mechanics.

I can think of a handful of ways that "open-world" gameplay can work in action adventure games, and even how traditional Zelda gameplay could be integrated, so the argument that it's not working out for the development team is silly, to me. The first two Zelda titles were very open-world in design and translating that concept to a three-dimensional environment should really be that difficult. In fact, I think allowing the open-world concept to merely serve as a backdrop for the game would allow them plenty of time to focus on filling the world with unique, memorable content.

I also hate to be this guy, but Zelda, at it's best, has many elements of RPGs in it - this comes from the beginnings of the franchise. Even if Miyamoto isn't a huge fan of that genre, I do think Zelda needs to embrace equipment and damage "upgrades" a bit more, and I'm hoping the new game adopts this mindset (as it has been a focus in recent titles).

[michaelbaysuperfan616]

I don't buy the first Zelda you are exposed to defines Zelda for you, or any franchise for that matter. I can name a dozen franchises where the first in the series was the first I was exposed to but is not close to my favorite or the best in the franchise.


Mortal Kombat is a prime example, aside from nostalgia and historical curiosity there is no reason to re-play that stiff, lifeless piece of **** today. Any kid growing up on Mortal Kombat is going to look at that game and wonder how the hell it turned into a franchise. MK 2 is regarded by many as the best in the series, of the 2D games I wouldn't even go that far as I think Trilogy was Mortal Kombat perfected in 2D. As for 3D games MK 4 was the first and it is generally considered the worst, but Deception which came after the acclaimed Deadly Alliance is also criticized. I think there are always going to be those people who like the most current game in a series and there will always be those who feel an attachment to the first but people can over look that.


Super Mario Bros. was the first in the franchise and the game many of us grew up on but how many people honestly will say it is the best or their favorite? I bet very few if they are being honest. Super Mario 3D World is considered by many to be the greatest 3D Mario, others say it was Galaxies, neither of which were close to the first anyone outside of really young children would have been exposed to first.

And you would be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks the original War Craft is is any way superior to the insanely popular WoW.

It's like with D&D gamers try to claim that the first rule set they were exposed to will become their definitive rule set but that is not true, most will either pick the most current as their favorite or those who have played them all will decide based on their experiences. I have played all rule sets old and new, my first exposure was OD&D and I still prefer 3rd edition as my favorite, but I also enjoy 5 gen very much.


How many people who played the original Pokemon are going to dismiss the games that followed as inferior? They will argue its place in the franchise but does anyone think of it as the best but all others are terrible? Or that all others are inferior?

The first exposure syndrome sometimes comes into play but only when the person is incapable of branching out and trying different things. I started out on Zelda NES I loved them both and I enjoyed A Link to the Past very much and Ocarina of Time was the last console Zelda i enjoyed but I never finished because it just felt like it was A Link to The Past in 3D which felt like the original Zelda in 16 bit. Sure there were changes but after you played two or three Zeldas aside from getting the new weapon and the new, usually annoying sidekick, what else is there? Sure my opinion is the minority opinion HERE on the Nintendo fansite but out there in the wider gaming community Zelda has been seen as the best Nintendo can do for twenty years and aside from the loyal fans the appeal has been diminishing, Zelda isn't the system seller it once was and this game is not looking to be that here.

But here is the problem with Zelda, people like me gave up because they grew too hard, were too repetitive  and they just take too long to get going and drag out as you go. But the fans grew tired when Nintendo made the games larger, more "immersive" and then dumbed them down with all the hand holding that hard core Zelda fans hated.

So how is Nintendo going to make a game that appeals to a divided fanbase that is either growing tired of the franchise or putting all their hope in it to be the greatest game ever? Nintendo bets way too much on Zelda and they have to realize that the audience is starting to demand unrealistic expectations. Is the game going to be great, well as long as it has the core game play the fans want it will appeal to them, but if it doesn't appeal to a wider audience then it will be just another typical Zelda, it will sell sure but not massive numbers, not system seller numbers and there is a chance, as blasphemous as it may sound, it will flop or at least sell worse than games like Splatoon or Mario 3D World.

[Evan_B]

I get your argument that the first game a person plays is not the definitive experience for them. The examples you gave were of the first installments in franchises that improved as time went on, or refined their gameplay. In many ways, the same thing has happened to Zelda but the additional layers of depth, like time travel, overworld traversal, motion controls, and even emphasis on story have altered the experience a great deal. Now, if you think those titles are garbage, that's fine, and it is your opinion. But the reason I think the Zelda series serves as a great entry point for video gamers is because it has an established formula that has undergone many transformations as the medium itself has changed. Will Zelda Wii U adhere to the open-world formula enough to be considered relevant by today's critics? Only time will tell.

You seem to hold the original Legend of Zelda in high regard, but I would argue that A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are not like the original Zelda at all. At their very core, perhaps, but in terms of their level design, story emphasis, and other  Wind Waker was my first Zelda experience. However, I hold Minish Cap and Twilight Princess in high regard because they are the Zelda titles I stuck with until the end, and ultimately gave me a satisfying sense of accomplishment. It's okay to want specific things out of a Zelda experience, but what is the issue of a game playing like the foundations of its franchise? Mario is always about platforming, sometimes in a 3D space, sometimes in a 2D space. It's not uncommon to find people who are able to appreciate and play classic Mario titles today, which means there must be something "right" about the formula. The same goes with Zelda.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, that your opinion of Zelda and its stale state makes little sense to me. As a Zelda fan, I find your generalizations a bit insulting, but not enough to dislike you about it. Your critique of the series seems largely based on not liking Zelda's core gameplay, and if that's the case, then I doubt the new Zelda will appeal to you all that much. However, I can't really pin down what you dislike about the franchise or its progression because your critique is either nondescript or boils down to "I don't like running dungeons and getting items". You argue that Zelda isn't an appealing franchise for a number of reasons that don't really correlate. Zelda hasn't really been hard in a very long time. The "trend" of the game taking a long time to start is something that has only occurred in two games, at least in my memory. And while Zelda has lots of repeated themes in regards to environment, character, and enemy design, it also has a unique fold to its gameplay in just about every installment. Its had a number of releases and spinoffs lately, so it obviously holds power as a franchise. So what is the problem with the Zelda franchise? It seems to sell quite consistently across platforms. It also does well critically, consistently garnering high reviews from esteemed sources. Are they all members of this "cult" that has high standards? If so, the Zelda team seems to be delivering on them.

I think something we can both agree on, however, is anyone who thinks each new Zelda has the potential to be the greatest game ever is a moron. In my personal opinion, anyone who thinks Zelda Wii U is going to be terrible is really underestimating the potential of the development team. Say what you will about Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, or Skyward Sword... each game experimented in their own right and worked with gameplay concepts that were unique enough that, if any incompetent developer focused upon them,  they likely would have made a shitty game.

[michaelbaysuperfan616]

I honestly can't figure out why I lost interest in Zelda myself either man. I won't lie to you I LOVE the franchise and aside from Sky ward Sword that came out after I sold my Wii, I have played every console Zelda pretty much as they were released.

I also hated Galaxies and Sunshine so what do I know. I am also in the minority that it took Wii U to get me back into Nintendo so there again makes me a conundrum.


But if you haven't noticed I am inconsistent it drives me crazy too, I am the most indecisive person on the planet. I watched a movie last night that I expected to love, I was excited going in then half way through I got bored out of my skull then got sort of excited again the closer it go to ending. I do that a lot. I changed my mind a lot on what games I used to enjoy that I now can't stand and games I used to hate I now enjoy. If I could figure it out believe me I would be a much saner person. It's frustrating trust me.

Maybe at the core of it I still want to love Zelda but I just don't have the time to get into a good game that requires that much time commitment and it isn't so much the games don't appeal to me as games just they take too long to play and when the beginning parts take too long to get to the goods, I lose interest. Once I finally, no FINALLY, got to the REAL Zelda underneath the terrible early parts of Wind Waker, I loved it, but god damn it too fucking long to get there and by that time I lost interest and had too much going on in my life whenever I did get around to playing it I would lose my place, forget where I was. The original Zelda was petty much the same way but I was a damn kid I could sit and play for hours on end and not give it a second thought.

I felt the same way with Twilight Princess, I went in excited to be playing a Zelda game that wasn't going to make me do all that silly non-Zelda stuff up front and it turned into Harvest Moon for Zelda fans for a while which almost made me give up early on but the hype kept me going but work, life, got in the way and finally I got to the good stuff it was too late I had to go back in short spurts and never could make any progress. That is what my complaint is, they are not made for people who can't devote their lives to them. I stopped playing RPG games for the same reason. I tried really hard to get into Diablo 3 a while back but after a couple of weeks well I kept forgetting what I was supposed to be doing.


Maybe I just need to develop better time management skills or just be honest, if I am forcing myself to play through a game that I am not enjoying maybe I don't really like the game as much as I convinced myself I did. Good chatting with you man made me realize some stuff.

[Triforce Hermit]

Zelda isn't the system seller it once was and this game is not looking to be that here.

Because it is coming extremely late to the Wii U party. It's missed the prime time to hit shelves and there won't be another opportunity like it. It is going to be shuffled onto the Wii U at the latter end of the console's lifetime when nothing is going to be much of a system seller because it has run it's course.


Had it come last year or the year before, it might have been. Splatoon/Smash and Zelda as a duo? That would have been a major system seller.


If Nintendo had shown off more of what the Wii U can do with Zelda, other then just two short ass videos not showing much of anything, then it would have been better. The development time (assuming because "HD is hard for Nintendo") and the lack of anything showing off the game is hurting it. Look at the original post in the thread. We have 3 things we know about the game. Open world, it's pretty, and bullet time. That's it. I'm not sold on it and I'm a giant Zelda fanboy.

[Ian Sane]

The only Zelda games that I really felt "sucked" were the DS ones.  Well I never played Spirit Tracks because Phantom Hourglass turned me off but since the controls are the same in both and that's what I hated about it I'm assuming I would dislike both.  The problem with those games is that Nintendo had an agenda.  The goal was to "prove" the validity of touchscreen controls.  If this new Zelda "sucks" it would be because Nintendo went in with the same sort of approach, where they felt the need to force something in to use Zelda to sell us on something.  If the game sticks to the Wii U and the main design is "force the Gamepad in no matter what" then, yeah, it could suck.  If they just aim to make a great game then I trust them.

There is one other thing Nintendo has been doing recently with Zelda that could seriously damage it and that is that they don't respect the player.  They treat us like idiots, frankly.  Skyward Sword was embarrassingly patronizing with that stupid Fi pretty much telling us exactly what to do before we even get a chance to figure it out ourselves.  Why even let me play if you're to do that?  Might as well make it a fucking movie.  A repeat of that could be a problem.

I'm realizing as I think about it that I cut Skyward Sword a lot of slack for some really terrible design decisions I don't like (motion control, guardians, Fi, tons of padding including fighting the same boss a million times) and I can't tell if it's because the game is otherwise great or I cut it a lot of slack because it's Zelda.  A brand new IP that was otherwise identical?  I might have lost interest in it and wrote it off as an inferior Zelda clone.  I think there is some merit that fans want new games in their favourite series to be great so their opinion can be affected by that.  But then some fans have such insane expectations that they'll sell something short because it isn't exactly what they want.  Delusional fanbases can exist.  Sonic for example?  But Zelda at worst has just had some games that are less good than others.  There hasn't been any outright terrible Zelda beyond the CD-I.

[Triforce Hermit]

If ALBW is any hint to go on, then Nintendo has realized the dislike for the padding and has cut down on it.

[michaelbaysuperfan616]

If ALBW is any hint to go on, then Nintendo has realized the dislike for the padding and has cut down on it.

See this is where you are flat out wrong. Nintendo has known for decades the handheld Zelda games and the console Zelda games are a different thing, that is what Ian was just ranting about the two handheld games he didn't like. I was only talking about the console games myself because frankly I still enjoy the handheld games very much. Sure I haven't beaten one since Minish Cap but to be fair I don't need to beat a game to enjoy it but I have played all but the newest Zelda in handheld form. That is only because I don't have a 3DS but I did have a regular DS for a very long time.

Using the decisions they make with the handheld as proof they "get it" when it comes to the console is the fallacy that has gotten them in the mess they are in considering they somehow continue to get the handheld right every time and get the console almost completely wrong every time. Based on that alone I would expect the console Zelda, this case Wii U, to be the opposite of "fixing" things they never broke in the handheld versions.

I also think Ian hit the nail on the head, which is what I was also saying earlier, some people dismiss the flaws in a Zelda game just because it is a Zelda game, I get the impression they do, or at least did, the same with Mario. Hell I am guilty of that I got Hyrule Warriors entirely on Zelda name alone and I honestly do like the games. I was also mostly speaking in broad general terms until Evan brought it to my preferences which kind of made me rethink what I was even saying. But I think we all give Nintendo a free pass on things we love because we love them so much despite their flaws.

I also see it in the Sonic games, die hard Sonic fans will defend bad decisions to the death just because it is a Sonic game.

[Evan_B]

Apologies if I sounded at all harsh, Mikey. I know you're not a big handheld person, but I think you would truly enjoy A Link Between Worlds. It features the same overworld as A Link to the Past, but the transition into actual Zelda gameplay is very fast, and the game doesn't beat you over the head with story. Alas, you'll have to consider it once it comes out for a home virtual console.


Now, in terms of front-end padding and emphasis on dialogue, I think Skyward Sword was really the only instance of it becoming a nuisance. But, as I said, Ian's argument can go both ways. Do we excuse Zelda for its franchise power when the games aren't "as good as we hope"? Maybe, but I think we're so critical of Zelda because it has such a stellar track record, and that remains constant today. If you aren't fond of Phantom Hourglass or Spirit Tracks, I understand your sentiment, but the touch controls in those games were not bad. They were polished and took mechanics from previous titles and made them work, and I hardly see issue with that. Skyward Sword set the bar for motion controls in video games. It's not likely someone will ever attempt to surpass that bar, which I personally think is a shame, but the integration proved that you could make a full game with motion control. Even if you dislike those games, its impossible to consider them poorly made. They feature steady performance, rarely broken gameplay, and the traditional elements of Zelda.

I know people want to play video games the way they want to. I personally think Skyward Sword is the only case where I felt some controls were integrated for the sake of having motion controls, and even then, I believe that it is still a fine game. In the DS titles, they felt largely unobtrusive to me, and I think that's an example of that sort of game design working. With Zelda Wii U, there is no gimmick. It seems to be taking what they have learned over the past several Zelda titles (touchscreen maps, gyro aiming, non-linear progression, travel management, etc) and integrating them into a larger world. That means they have more time to focus on what is compelling about open-world games and Zelda games. So I have high hopes for the game, but I'm also not ridiculously invested in it being the greatest video game or even Zelda game of all time. I try not to care that much.

[Ian Sane]

I want Zelda, and frankly all Nintendo games, to have a real organic development process.  I rag on gimmick controls a lot but it is because I feel they result in forced game design.  You look at LttP and OoT and they're arguably the best entries in the series and there was nothing really forced about them at all.  They were on a newer console from their predecessor with improved hardware and it was like the approach was "okay, what did we want to do before but couldn't and now can?  And what new ideas do we have and can these be done this time around or will they have to wait for a sequel?"  I could probably throw WW in there as well as they probably couldn't get that graphics style on the N64 and possibly some of those wind physics either.

The gimmicks change the mindset.  The approach then becomes to incorporate the gimmicks into the game and that's an unnatural process.  It's really no different then how corporate mandates for DLC or product placement or incorporating feature X that all the kids are into this days and it screws up a game.  When Nintendo feels the need to incorporate something into a game it hurts the game.  We've seen it since the GC-GBA connectivity.  Although they finally did something really awesome with Four Swords Adventures the rest of their ideas were pretty weak.  It was obvious that they came up with the feature and then tried to incorporate it into their games.  It wasn't a natural process so it didn't work.  Even FSA is really just using connectivity as a cludgy workaround to not going online.

Nintendo should be looking at Zelda and just brainstorming ideas and bringing up ones that couldn't be done on prior hardware.  Not ideas to incorporate this or that feature, just ideas in general that they think would make for a fun game.  The improved hardware of the Wii U will allow for more of those ideas to be feasible.  Now if in the process they come with some idea and then realize that the Gamepad is the way to make it work then so be it.  That's just part of the natural design process.  The analog stick is like the big example of Nintendo putting in some weird feature into a controller and it becoming industry standard but that was a natural process.  When making Super Mario 64 they realized they needed something beyond a d-pad for movement in a 3D space so they created the analog stick to accommodate the ideas they already had.  They didn't put in the feature and then go "okay so what can we do with this?"

Even going open world isn't the right approach if the decision to go with that came from it just being the in thing these days.  It needs to be the solution for the concepts they themselves came up with.  They need to have ideas that they feel would work well for Zelda and then come to the conclusion that open world is the approach to make those ideas reality.

[pokepal148]

Skyward Sword set the bar for motion controls in video games.

With aiming controls that weren't even as good as the IR pointer based system that  was tacked onto the Wii version of Twilight Princess

[ThePerm]

The only Zelda games that I really felt "sucked" were the DS ones.  Well I never played Spirit Tracks because Phantom Hourglass turned me off but since the controls are the same in both and that's what I hated about it I'm assuming I would dislike both.  The problem with those games is that Nintendo had an agenda.  The goal was to "prove" the validity of touchscreen controls.  If this new Zelda "sucks" it would be because Nintendo went in with the same sort of approach, where they felt the need to force something in to use Zelda to sell us on something.  If the game sticks to the Wii U and the main design is "force the Gamepad in no matter what" then, yeah, it could suck.  If they just aim to make a great game then I trust them.

There is one other thing Nintendo has been doing recently with Zelda that could seriously damage it and that is that they don't respect the player.  They treat us like idiots, frankly.  Skyward Sword was embarrassingly patronizing with that stupid Fi pretty much telling us exactly what to do before we even get a chance to figure it out ourselves.  Why even let me play if you're to do that?  Might as well make it a fucking movie.  A repeat of that could be a problem.

I'm realizing as I think about it that I cut Skyward Sword a lot of slack for some really terrible design decisions I don't like (motion control, guardians, Fi, tons of padding including fighting the same boss a million times) and I can't tell if it's because the game is otherwise great or I cut it a lot of slack because it's Zelda.  A brand new IP that was otherwise identical?  I might have lost interest in it and wrote it off as an inferior Zelda clone.  I think there is some merit that fans want new games in their favourite series to be great so their opinion can be affected by that.  But then some fans have such insane expectations that they'll sell something short because it isn't exactly what they want.  Delusional fanbases can exist.  Sonic for example?  But Zelda at worst has just had some games that are less good than others.  There hasn't been any outright terrible Zelda beyond the CD-I.

I wish skyward sword was actually better at telling me what to do. I got stuck, and bored. Probably havent played it for 2 years.