I haven't played Skyward Sword. I'm not even that interested, which says a lot about the series that sucked me into video games in the first place. It's easy to just assume that I grew out of these titles, that I'm nothing more than nostalgic for childhood, but that's bullshit. Dude, I play more games now than I did when I was ten. I haven't changed at all. If anyone changed, it's Zelda.
On a related note, here is an excellent article to read.
The article really pins down what constitutes an adventure in a video game, which is so god-damned interesting. A lot of what is considered excellent design is put to question by Tevis, and you know what? He makes some really good points. Granted, if Tevis's wish came true and Zelda actually did return to it's roots, the game would sell less copies. Maybe a lot less. I'm almost positive on this, so I have to ask if what Tevis wrote down, this article that has me so excited, is it good game design?
Better question: Is it wise to label something as good or bad design when it's the essential concept of the game that's being questioned? Tevis is suggesting a return to a different genre, and the appeal of a genre depends more on a player's taste than a designer's skill.
I'm getting slightly off-topic. The original topic was: Read Tevis's shit. He's smart, and he certainly makes a better case for changing Zelda than I ever have.