Zelda TP: A Summation

The latest and greatest Zelda game was one I had great anticipation for. I had been pining for this game literally for about 5 years, possibly longer. When I bought my Gamecube way back in 2001 (or was it 2000, can't remember...) the biggest reason I bought it was to have the ability to play through a new Zelda adventure. I had resisted the tempation that Grand Theft Auto III and Ico held for the PS2. I had composed myself when I saw the crystalline graphics and online plans for the Xbox. Needless to say, I had very high expectations. I made a $350 investment because I believed the new Zelda (in addition to some other various titles, but none more so than Zelda) would be worth it.

When Wind Waker came out I thought it was a joke. Like everyone who witnessed the video at E3 it left me in a kind of disbelief. I couldn't deny what I had seen but I desperately wanted to. This was not the game that I was promised years before when I purchased my Gamecube. It was not the game I wanted. But, having come to terms with it and acknowledging that it was a Zelda title I purchased it with the extra incentive of getting a GC copy of OOT (though I never played it, controls never felt right) and played through all of Wind Waker. Why? To this day I'm not exactly sure. The game started off well enough but really just went downhill from there. The worst part of the game was when the developers actually teased you by showing you Hyrule underneath the sea. Just seeing it there made you want to go explore it and made you wish the rest of the game took place there. But it didn't. It took place on a boat that forced you to play a song every time you wanted to change direction. It became incredibly tedious and lost whatever charm it could have had. It was a mistake.

So why would I bring up Wind Waker in a post about Twilight Princess? Well, after having played completely through TP I realized something that had never occured to me before. Initially I thought WW used the art style it did because creating a realistic version of Hyrule would take too long. I thought the graphic style and use of the boat was a trick the developers used, like putting up visual barriers (such as a wall or fence) in a place the gamer is never intended to go instead of putting up an invisible wall. It might not make sense to have a wall there but it's enough to let the gamer know it is a border they can't cross. However, once I played through TP, and after seeing all of the elements of WW that TP incorporated in a realistic visual setting the more and more I was convinced that WW was, more or less, a Beta version of TP. Nintendo use a graphical style that didn't demand a lot of artistry, they packaged it with OOT to ensure it would sell well, and they tested out several gameplay elements to ensure that fans would respond. The more I played TP the more I was convinced that Nintendo never wanted to make a Zelda game like WW, and in trying to make TP as incredible as they wanted it to be they needed to 1) appease Zelda fans by producing some type of Zelda game while they worked on their masterpiece, and 2) test out some of the gameplay elements in a simpler setting.

Now, having said that I can't help but feel that production of the Wii had some part to play in all this. Nintendo was aiming high with this Zelda game, and they were taking a lot of risk with the Wii, combining the success of one with the success of the other seemed to make sense. Just another reason to throw Nintendo fans a bone (WW) while they wait for the main course (TP). However, I think Nintendo's choice of 1) making Wind Waker before TP and 2) waiting for the release of the Wii to release TP, was really what killed the game for me. TP was the game I was looking forward to when I bought my GC in 2001. Since then I have played various games that have done what TP has done, except better. Okami's gameplay, Shadow of the Colussus's ambience and boss battles, Resident Evil 4's graphics and action, they all took away from the TP experience. Had TP come out before those games, which I believe to be Nintendo's initial plan, the game would have been a wonder, rivalling the experience that OOT provided.

As it stands, the game simply came out too late. It came out after other games had already stole the show. It came out after fans such as myself lost interest. It came out after one system had launched and during the same month as the launch of two others. And at the end of the day, it looked and felt like a GC game that could have and should have come out years ago. On top of that, it was too easy, it was too short, and it was too small. The scope and imagination of the game was grand, but there were already games that had come out that topped it. As well, TP never really took advantage of what it did do right. Despite a plentiful amount of weapons you rarely use any of them more than once or twice outside the temple you gain them in. Despite an interesting and playful gameplay dynamic with your horse you rarely need to do anything but rapidly tap b to kill enemies, that was if you took the time to stop and kill them at all. And last but not least, fighting with swords should not feel the same as though you're fighting with clubs. Link doesn't need to draw blood on his enemies or anything like that, but if he's using a sword it should feel like you can cut your enemy, not just club them.

In the end I suppose I really took a round about way of saying this, but TP really was dissapointing. It did not meet my high expectations, and for this particular case I think the game should be faulted for that. Realistically, this game could have come out years ago when it would have exceeded all expectations, but it didn't. It is a solid game, but there are many solid games out there, and there's nothing that particularly stands out about this one. And if there's one thing I definitely expect from a Zelda game, it's that it raises the bar for adventure games, instead of simply becoming yet another adventure game.

An interesting and well thought out response. Certainly the antithesis to my postulations. However, allow me to scramble for credibility, just for one moment.

While Shiggy may say that WW was the Zelda he always wanted, my conspiracy theory would still hold true. Obviously if Nintendo was trying to "pass off" WW as a legitimate Zelda title the grandfather of Link would of course have to give it his "ok." The game had enough problems being taken seriously by the gaming public at large, if Shiggy stated that it was never his initial intention to take Zelda in this direction, the gaming public would have lost even more faith in this game. Nintendo is a business, and it was in the best interests of the business to fully back WW for the reasons I stated above. If Shiggy always wanted a light hearted romp through Hyrule why wasn't either OOT or MM taken in that direction? I know he wasn't directly involved in MM, but certainly the series did seem to be going in a darker direction, and it sold very well. Then there is the Spaceworld 2000 demo to consider. Obviously Zelda fans were liking the direction the franchise was going in. If Shiggy always envisioned Zelda to be akin to WW why weren't either OOT or MM steered in that direction? Why the Spaceworld 2000 demo? And if those are explainable then why would Shiggy be surprised by the general public's reaction when the franchise did a 180? He, like anyone, could see the direction the series was going on, shouldn't he have expected this curveball to throw people off?

I also have a hard time believing that Shiggy always wanted a Zelda game that revolved around sailing. Cel-shading is not unique, and it's not what ruined WW as a game. It didn't help, of course, but it wasn't the end all be all of the game. To me it just seemed to be an art style choice of convenience, rather than purpose. I may be wrong, of course, and I acknowledge that what you have said is plausible and there's no way I can prove it wrong, but I think it does deserve a little discussion at least.

Also, you made mention of there being enough dark games out there, and therefore Zelda doesn't need to be. I do agree that there are plenty of gritty, realistic games, but I think it is in the best interests of the series to go in that direction. Just as there are plenty of dark games, there are plenty of happy-go-lucky games as well, particularly on Nintendo's consoles. To make a game lighthearted simply because darker games exist is not going against the status quo, it's upkeeping another status quo. And at the end of the day, you have to give gamers what they want. I think Nintendo knew that people wanted a Zelda game like TP. I also think they saw certain advantages to teasing their fans with giving them what they wanted, and in the end, it did not work on me.

Interesting that people have that feeling considering the 8 bit Zelda games were not dark and gritty.

Click to expand...

You show me a dark and gritty 8 bit game and I will produce a person who did complain about the NES Zeldas being too cartoony. The art style and choice for those games was done so out of necessity. When OOT was released no one complained about it being "not cartoony enough." It seemed to be a natural evolutionary step for the series due to the new technology. To say that WW is more in line with the original direction of the Zelda series than TP is like saying that the new Metroid games are deviating from their original direction because they were never that realistic on the NES. Or like saying the New Super Mario Bros. is a departure from the series because the 8 bit versions didn't use 3d and never intended to.

Beyond even that, I'm not saying that TP needed to be grittier and darker (although I personally would have liked it). I am saying that the games should have a more realistic look to them as the technology becomes available, but that is also neither here nor there.

As for the boat in Wind Waker it's simply another vehicle, like Epona in OoT, and playing a tune to change the wind's direction is no different from playing the flutes in other Zelda games to travel around.

Click to expand...

The difference is that I don't have to play a song in order to turn Epona in another direction. In WW to turn around you had to pull down your sail, which brought you to a dead stop, bring out your wand, wait for the correct 4/4 timing sequence, choose the direction you wanted to go, put your sail back up, and then actually physically turn around. Tedious, monotonaus, ridiculous. With Epona, you played a series of notes once as fast as you wished for her to come, and that was it. Turning was all done with quick flicks of the joystick.

fhqwhgads said:

Bump because I can't find the actual topic where this was being dicussed.I told you it was harder to do cel-shading. :/

Click to expand...

It's only "harder" in the sense that there is an extra step in rendering the object. The arguement is that polygonal objects are designed for a cel-shaded game the same way they are designed in any other style of game, but once the final object is completed they add the cel-shading "layer" which converts the regular object into a cel-shaded one. An extra step, I agree. But my point was that going with a cel-shaded style saves the designers the task of doing any detail. Because of the look of cel-shading (flat, single colored, cartoony) adding extra texture and detail would look out of place. Cel-shading in its own right may be "harder" than just leaving an object as is, but cel-shading combined with the art style of WW means that creating vast expanses and vistas because much less time consuming than having to add in all sorts of rich textures and detail. You don't need an artist to draw and create 3d objects and textures like grass or sand if flat green and yellow gets the point across.

Asii said:

I'm very surprised that you consider Wind Waker to be somewhat of a false Zelda game. I'm okay with you not liking it, because everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but to assume that Shigeru Miyamoto or even Nintendo itself merely made the game to tie Zelda fans over seems quite ridiculous. It took a lot of time to develop, after all. Cel-shading, as previously pointed out, is no laughing matter. If Nintendo thought that Twilight Princess was so great as you say they did, they never would've bothered making WW, and would've went straight to developing Twilight Princess.

Click to expand...

Elements of Wind Waker that worked were brought over to Twilight Princess, so time was not wasted on Wind Waker for two reasons. 1) Because it was a Zelda title (and because Nintendo put the right "spin" on it) the game sold like hot cakes, made Nintendo a lot of money, and bought them more time to try and perfect TP. 2) The game acted as a beta of sorts, a chance for Nintendo to try out some new gameplay mechanics in a simplified setting. Plus, as I pointed out before, Nintendo had initially planned to go straight into developing Twilight Princess, but after initial work began on the Wii Nintendo wanted to hold off on Twilight Princess. The Gamecube had not met the expectations of Nintendo's top tier, and so a massive effort began on making the next console (the Wii) a success. What better way to ensure a console's success than releasing it with a new Zelda title? The reason why TP was delayed was because they thought it was that incredible, and they wanted to capitalize off of its popularity as much as possible, by releasing it with a new console.

Asii said:

As for the graphics, I really liked WW's unique, cartoony style. It was really refreshing after a game like Majora's Mask, which kinda had a dark undertone to it. The game still scares me.

The dungeons were also really cool, and the sailing was one of the best parts of the game! The idea of exploration was one of the things that made the first Zelda so great. It was interesting to see what each new island had in store, and completing my map was actualy fun, not tedious.

Click to expand...

I agree that exploring is perhaps the single most important aspect of a Zelda game; which is why I personally disliked WW. My exploration seemed to be constantly hindered with the entire concept surrounding Wind Waker, that is, the wind. Completing the map should have been fun, and actually exploring each new island was intriguing, the problem with the game was actually getting from island to island, which became such a chore that no discovery on the mystery island ever seemed worth it.

Asii said:

Besides, it'd be way unrealistic if your boat could blast across the sea in all four directions without any wind change.

Click to expand...

I'm the one arguing for more realism (at least in the presentation). The gameplay mechanics don't need to be realistic so long as they are fun (in fact, the exact opposite is therefore true in Wind Waker if your arguement is believed). Unrealistic abilities in a realistic environment is practically a formula for fun. But I don't think the "realism" of the game was the reason for having the wind change the way it did in the game. I think Nintendo thought it was a good idea, and in concept maybe it sounded really convincing. But the end result seemed to be far from what they initially intended.

---------------

I don't really care if you did, or didn't, like Wind Waker. I'm not trying to establish it as a bad game, or a game that can't be fun. My point was more or less that it was not a Zelda game, and never should have been. It was only made into one because of monetary interests and project timelines. Which, in my opinion, ended up ruining my perception of both Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.