He is a blog writer. Should be self explanatory.

Every once in a while there's increasingly idiotic and controversial topic at Kotaku. They make money from the traffic, so by sharing this, all you do is to help generate them more revenue. Don't like them? Don't share them.

Look, guys, I have a lot of beefs against Skyrim.
But comparing it to Zelda? ZELDA????? I hate the Zelda games, they have the most uninspired character design I've ever seen in any videogame ever, and they're basically kid's games. I never understood why did Zelda ever deserve any popularity, but then again, I pretty much wonder the same thing about any Nintendo mascotte.

You either like it or you don't I guess. Nothing you can really do about that.

Yes, if you advance sufficiently the civil war questline, you don't need (or even can!) do a peace conference near the end of the main quest. Also, if you do the peace conference first it changes what you need to do in the civil war questline depending on how you handled it

And how is that relevant to http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Main_Quest? I did mention that the civil war is the only questline where you can make a modicum of choices. You can't skip capturing the Dragon or find a way to bypass Balgruf and capture him yourself.

I'm an idiot because I chose #3! xD
(conclusion further below, for those who are too lazy to read that much :thumbsup: )

Seriously now, I think the article has a point. despite all the pros and cons for and against Zelda/Skyrim, if you come to think about it, Skyrim could have a wider variety in foes and especially in boss fights. But that was already the same in Oblivion. Did this make Oblivion a bad game? No. And that's exactly the same with Skyrim. You can have a perfectly fine fantasy lore experience with Skyrim for hours and hours, you can lose yourself in the world and the books and so on. If the game does not challenge you enough, there is still the difficulty to adjust. And if the repetitive battles really are an issue, then go play dark souls. It's so simple, why flaming about something when you have the freedom to go play something/somewhere else? :yes:

But I think TES does not need quick time events, which is a common tool for "epic" boss fights in other action/adventure games. Now this would really be "go there and click the blue button, now come back and click the red button, now HAMMER the green button until your controller meets the flying spaghetti monster!" Instead, you are free to chose: Set the enemy on fire and hack away with the sword, summoning helpers and shoot from far away with the bow, use heavy magic and eat heavy damage, and so on and so forth, you all know the game and it's possibilites. How epic is that?

Also, these "epic" moments have an unepic repetition value: If you know the boss, it's (usually) easy to take him/her/it out. Where's the fun in that? I've played quite a few action/adventures and RPG's, and for me it comes down to the depth of my personal playing experience or the intensity of the gameplay experience. For example, God of War - for me - was simply fun to play (besides the cool plot) and thus had a replay value, which it needed since it's not so long. So that's what I mean by intensity of gameplay experience - basically how fun it is to execute the commands which make you advance in the game. The other thing is, that after playing a lot of titles (in every genre), you get spoiled. I for my part only touch the top games or indie productions. Everything else is like "seen it, been there, done that....lame-o!". And that's why I like games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion and now Skyrim so much: I can lose myself in the beautifully vast landscapes and do what I please when I please in the order I please. No more "oh you forgot to pick that magic stone up? You can't complete the game with 100%? well, it's gone now, you've had your chance! what, how you could have known that? well, buy the freaking guide, lol!" (I know these things don't happen too often, but still, some of the older/ more experienced ones of you might know this feeling ). Also, I can specialize my character and have to live with the consequences. Many other RPGs only provide little variety, and when you reach end game levels, it very often comes down to one set of equipment, one ultimate limit break, one configuration of your stats, etc.

Conclusion:

I think Skyrim and future TES titles could use a wider variety in foes or at least in their behavior. This would provide a different way to increase the difficulty without maxing the enemies's damage output. Also, some special bossfights, maybe in the mainquest and some important/big sidequests, would not harm the game. But then these events should be scripted and only used once, otherwise it becomes a dull sensation again, like the one with the dragons (not my opinion, I have only killed two until now due to real life occupations ). In general, I agree to the quality over quantity point, but I certainly don't want TES to become a 20h experience.
Zelda is not better than Skyrim and Skyrim is not better than Zelda. They're both good games with different priorities on different aspects and different approaches. And yes, you can almost always learn something from other games, even if they're another genre. After all, we're way past the time where a game can only be allocated to one genre, aren't we?

After all, innovation IS very important, and I do hope that future DLCs for Skyrim will add more than just some quests!

+1

If you hadda said all that in two or three sentences, i'd have just written it off as fan-boy troll crap. That you did not is interesting.

What is with the extremely biased polls on these forums? Abusing them polls like true politicians. :thumbsdown:

Linearity vs Sandbox =/= child's game vs advlt's game. Not to mention Zelda games have a considerable amount of freedom usually, and many sidequests, just not as much freedom as TES games.

Likewise, your anology is just plain bad.

it definitely is a pretty bad comparison
but you can't really blame the guy for liking zelda better
reviews are just the subjective opinions of the writer
not some asbolute truth worth arguing

he doesn't like the game
you do

I don't see the big deal really
go write a review if you think it's so unfair

I don't think I can really have an opinion as I haven't played a Zelda game since Super Nintendo. Guess I grew out of it, or something.

I think Dungeon's and Dragons (pen and paper) is better than Chutes and Ladders.

l2compare same genre games, lol

This article is ridiculous.

He makes the claim that there aren't enough epic moments in Skyrim, right after making the argument that there are too many epic moments in Skyrim for them to all feel epic. He needs to make his mind up.

Also, he needs to try comparing games that have at least one thing in common.

Well to be honest, I agree with him saying the dragons and giants get repetitive. In fact, I chuckled when he next said he began cherishing the draugr bosses more because this was exactly my thoughts before even reading the article. I haven't played Skyward Sword but the number of different bosses he is mentioning sounds great. In Fallout 3, I wished there were more behemoth type enemies. I was hoping Bethesda would do this in Skyrim but not so much. The dragons are great, but far too many. In Fallout 3, there were 5 Behemoths, it was so exciting to encounter one. Fighting Alduin felt like fighting any other dragon.

Now I'm not saying Zelda is better because I havent played it obviously but there are some things Bethesda could learn, at least when it comes to bosses anyway. Imagine a huge squid like creature you have to battle off the coast of a city, or a legendary colossal troll that destroys an entire village like Alduin did Helgen, etc.. The article is a bit annoying though because he makes it seem like Bethesda doesnt know what they are doing, but I agree with some points.

The peace conference is a part of the main quest. You can altogether skip it through your actions in the game. Isn't that what you were asking?

I've never been a fan of Zelda games, but I do enjoy games in a similar genre, like Soul Reaver and Darksiders. That said, comparing Zelda and Skyrim is the same as those that compared Darksiders to God of War. Sure, they both have combat, and a few other similarities, but they are very different games. So, IMO, due to comparing the two games, yes, he is an idiot. There are two things I would like to mention though.

First, I will have to say that complaining that there are too many dragons is ridiculous. Why? Because you need 3 souls for nearly all of your dragon shouts. In 150+ hours I still have not killed enough dragons to unlock all of my shouts on my main character, who does not fast travel. Also, the dragons were quite numerous, a civilization in itself. To say that there are too many would be like saying there are too many people in Skyrim.

Second, can you play through Zelda, explore nearly every location, hit the level cap and never touch the main story? Freedom of choice.

Again, comparing the two games is poor journalism. Next week's article will probably be comparing Saints Row with Gangland. They both have gangs, right?

Dragons were too common and too easy to be as epic as they should've been, he has a point.

The guy must have been paid quite a bit to write that article~
NintendoscaredofBethesda :spotted owl:

While Dragons may be common for fantasy, no one has pulled them off like Bethesda has in a videogame.

It amazes me the amount of idiocy that fills Bethesda fanbois heads.

That article was no different than if you and your friend ( or mom, in your case most likely ) were sitting there talking about games and decided to compare the game he's playing to the game you're playing.

There was no "ZOMGWTFBBQSKYRIMBASHING" going on, at all. No more than it was bashing Skyward Sword ( which I happen to be playing right now instead of Skyrim because unlike Skyrim, Skyward Sword works perfectly right out of the box ).

Grow a brain and pull your head from Beth's ass OP and you won't see "conspiracies" as much.

I'm stuck at "Why would you ever compare these two games??"

Yeah, i gotta get myself a Wii

OP is a bigger idiot.

Skyrim is a great game but Zelda Ocarina of time remains the greatest game i have ever played. Have not played the new one as i dont have (or will ever get) a Wii but if that game is good enough then i just may splash out on it.