Skyward Sword

I'm a gamer.  I've been playing video games since the Commodore 64 was launched in 1982. My father bought the computer for me because he had hoped I would learn to program and help create a spreadsheet for our family finances. I was 9 years old. I remember working on a piano program to play music on my keyboard, but I think that's as far as I got. I started playing Space Taxi and GI Joe and it was over. From there, I got my first console, the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), followed by the Super Nintendo, and up to the present day Wii, PS3 and Xbox 360. I love Nintendo and have happily supported the Mario and Zelda franchises over the years, though the latest installment, Skyward Sword, has me questioning my brand loyalty and response to change. Nintendo revolutionized console gaming with their motion controlled Wii system released in 2006. Some of the functionality of the traditional button-based control scheme was cast aside in favour of motion sensors. Skyward Sword uses the Wii motion plus control as a sword and senses the direction the user is pointing and slicing. The concept is wonderful, however, I do not believe the technology is quite there to support this innovative idea. If I am to get on board with this, I need the technology to be precise. If it proves unresponsive, I have little patience for the innovation.

So, how have my expectations for games changed over the years? What am I looking for in a game? How do my past experiences inform my future decisions? How does a company like Nintendo innovate on an established franchise without isolating and turning away their core audience?

To explore answers to these questions, I turned to the blog collective. Thomas & Brown (2011) stated that "blogs that survive and thrive do so because they create a strong collective of users who build conversations around an author's posts" (p. 787). I explored Michael Abbott's Brainy Gamer blog to find what he had to say about the Zelda franchise.  He posted, "The latest Zelda release, Skyward Sword, was my favorite game of 2011" (To Dream Again, para. 5). If I were to engage in this conversation and either agree or disagree with Abbott, what might my response be? As I read through the comments section of this blog, I found a number of posts in agreement with Abbott. One in particular, however, resonated with how I felt after playing the game. Patrick said, "The motion controls were too finnicky in a lot of places and things really dragged on too long towards the end (in my opinion). I wished for a standard controller option the whole time" (Patrick, para. 1).  I wholeheartedly agree with Patrick, but what does this matter? Where would this information go? I'm not sure what the purpose of my participation in this conversation would be. Is this an opportunity to vent to the community about my beloved franchise gone horribly wrong? Is it a chance to connect with other gamers and see what their thoughts are? Is it a chance to speak out against Nintendo's innovation and ask for them to get it right before they bring it to market? How would I know that Nintendo executives are listening? I would like to believe that the purpose of this blog would be to enact change. Is this the best forum to achieve this? Should I choose to contribute to the conversation about this game on Brainy Gamer or am I better off voicing this elsewhere?

Abbott, M. (2012, January 18). To dream again. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/

Patrick. (2012, January ). Re: To dream again.
[Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/

Thomas, D. & Brown, J.S. (2011) A new culture of learning: Cultivating the
imagination for a world of constant change. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/New-Culture-Learning-Cultivatingebook/dp/B004RZH0BG/ref=sr_1_?ie=UTF8&m=AZC9TZ4UC9CFC&s=digial-text&qid=1307924795&sr=1-1