The trouble with Twilight Princess

April 2, 2008


By any objective standard Twilight Princess seems head and shoulders above Ocarina of Time. The dungeon design has improved, the battles require more strategy, the world is bigger, the plot is deeper…I could go on, but I suspect many of you have played or read about it by now. Suffice it to say that Twilight Princess is an incredibly ambitious title that improves upon Ocarina in nearly every area.

So why am I loath to say that it’s a better game?

I have a theory, but first allow me to make a somewhat labored analogy between the Zelda and Mario games. If we distill the series into just their most groundbreaking titles,1 they follow similar trajectories.

The Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros. are the seminal titles, and they establish the basic mechanics for future games to expand upon. Though simplistic by today’s standards, they’re still fun and eminently playable. Both are universally considered classics of the medium.

A Link to the Past and Super Mario Bros. 3 are similarly analogous. They’ve fleshed out and refined the gameplay elements of their predecessors; now Link can visit full-fledged towns instead of random old men hiding in caves, and now Mario has more items and an overworld instead of just a Fire Flower and series of barely connected levels. Both games represent the pinnacle of 2D gaming in their respective genres and, once again, are hailed today as classics.

Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 defined their series in the 3D realm, with new controls and revamped gameplay, and both enjoy widespread acclaim for their genre-defining innovations. The analogy begins to break down a bit here; while Super Mario 64 was quite well-received, you’d be hard pressed to get a consensus that it’s the greatest Mario game ever.

On the other hand, it would be difficult to overstate how well-received Ocarina was. Despite a staggering amount of prerelease coverage and speculation that it could never live up to the hype, critics and fans both adored the game. It seemed to get more perfect scores than non-perfect ones, and it still routinely lands near the top of those ubiquitous Best x Games of All Time lists. Rarely in the history of the industry has a title been anticipated so highly and still exceeded expectations to the degree Ocarina of Time did.

Now we have Super Mario Galaxy, which has gotten widespread critical acclaim, as is to be expected by now. One could make a case for including it on this list of groundbreaking Mario titles with its motion controls, asymmetrical two-player mode, and physics-defying gravity. But what news from the Zelda front?

They’ve certainly been busy. After the seven-year gap between A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, Nintendo cranked out three console Zelda titles in five years, including Majora’s Mask and The Wind Waker. These games have been critical successes and fan favorites, but none have been the post-Ocarina phenomenon Nintendo has been looking for.

Enter Twilight Princess, a game explicitly promoted as the best Zelda ever.

During development, Nintendo Power magazine interviewed several people working on the game for their “Inside Zelda” feature. Nearly all of them mention Ocarina of Time as the benchmark for success, which assistant director Makoto Miyanaga picked up on in one of the articles:

You’ve heard from many people on the team that we’re under great expectations to exceed Ocarina of Time. I see Twilight Princess’s development from a privileged perspective, since I work with many teams almost every day. So I’m in a unique position to see how the pressure from Ocarina translates for different people: sometimes good, sometimes not so good. For example, there’s a feeling that we absolutely can’t “lose” to Ocarina. And that creates a lot of pressure.

So how did they do? Incredibly well, actually — it’s a great game, and fully deserves the accolades it’s received. As I said in the introduction, it improves on Ocarina in nearly every way.2

Unfortunately, that’s also Twilight Princess‘s biggest fault — that it improves upon Ocarina in nearly every way. After ten years, I don’t really want that; I want a revolution. I want something analogous to the jump from The Legend of Zelda to A Link to the Past. I want a Super Mario Galaxy — something to take the series to the next level.

Instead, what I got in Twilight Princess is a refinement of the same formula that’s powered the Zelda games since the Nintendo 64. Is it the best Zelda ever? Maybe if you look at it out of context. Ultimately, though, it’s just another iteration — not a bad one by any means, but an essentially familiar experience. That’s why Twilight Princess “loses” to Ocarina despite Makoto Miyanaga’s best efforts.

I’m reminded of the quote I mentioned in “Bridge games” where Shigeru Miyamoto says Twilight Princess will be, “without a doubt, the last Zelda game as you know it in its present form.” If the series is to continue, we badly need that to be true.

  1. I’ll probably raise the ire of Mario and Zelda fans with this sort of cherry-picking. All I’ll say is that I’m focusing on what I see as the truly revolutionary titles — ones that significantly changed and improved upon the core gameplay. I have nothing against games like Majora’s Mask or the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2, but they are pretty closely derived from their immediate predecessors.
  2. There are actually some things that I think Ocarina does better, but that’s a post for another day.

11 comments

I think we’re all pretty much together on the need for the next big Zelda game to go in a new direction. You and I want it, and apparently Aonuma and Miyamoto want it too – so who else matters? ;-)

Of course, the biggest barrier may be the Zelda fan base, which can be a pretty resistant bunch (the amount of hate directed at Wind Waker was pretty enormous). But as Nintendo has proved over the years, they often plow right through this when they have an idea they believe in. Remember when they announced the name of the “Wii”? Exactly what I mean.

Thanks for your essay.

by Michael Abbott on April 3, 2008 at 12:48 am #

Well put. Something about TP felt… tacked onto the series. The character design was a bit all over the map and I was struck that a design goal seemed to be, “let’s not do the same things wrong with this one that we did with the last couple.”

As a result you wind up with a game that tastes pretty good while you’re eating it, but doesn’t leave you very full afterwards.

by Corvus on April 3, 2008 at 5:47 am #

Kind of like a GIANT CHEESEBURGER… hmm… spooky real life parallels right there….

by Ben Abraham on April 3, 2008 at 10:34 pm #

Michael: I’m cautiously optimistic. I can’t shake the ominous feeling I get from that Miyamoto quote…

Corvus: I agree to a point — characterization is actually one of the elements alluded to in my footnotes that I think Ocarina did better — but I’m not as displeased with Twilight Princess as I probably came off in the essay. It’s more of a vague, generalized dissatisfaction. :)

Ben: I’m sure I don’t know what you’re talking about!

by Dan Bruno on April 3, 2008 at 10:57 pm #

It’s more of a vague, generalized dissatisfaction. :)

I feel that way about all together too many games these days. I thought it was just because I’m getting old.

by Corvus on April 4, 2008 at 3:21 pm #

Although I can buy what you’re saying about Twilight Princess feeling “tacked on” to the success of Ocarina of Time, I have to say that it has an eerie, more adult overtone to the game, which provides for a different experience. I just started the game a few days ago and was surprised at how dark the matter was within the storyline. In particular, the cut scene where Link envisions the three dark Links and the girl “raining” from above in a black abyss…very creepy.

Regardless, I’m very excited to see what Nintendo does with the series next.

Cheers.

by Frankie Reedy on July 16, 2008 at 2:03 pm #

Frankie: Twilight Princess certainly takes a different (and, indeed, welcome) direction with tone. To be fair, I thought the game was an improvement in many ways; it’s just that for me it didn’t move far enough away from its roots. I can’t deny that it was a great game, but I was left wanting something more. Okami is doing a good job of filling that gap for now, but like you I’m eagerly awaiting the next Zelda title to see what Nintendo has up its sleeve. Thanks for stopping by the site!

by Dan Bruno on July 16, 2008 at 11:44 pm #

The biggest fault I see in Twilight Princess when comparing it to Ocarina of Time is that Twilight Princess is too linear.

In Ocarina of Time, you could start and finish the Forest, Water, and Fire temples in whatever order you wanted. You did have to get the bow to finish the Fire and Water temples and get the hammer to finish the Water Temple, but nothing stopped you from grabbing the items and immediately exiting the temples, completing the Water Temple, and then going back to finish the Forest and Fire temples. Likewise, you could take on the Shadow and Spirit temples in whichever order you preferred.

In Twilight Princess, however, you had to tackle the dungeons in a set order. In fact in every Zelda game after Ocarina of Time you have to follow a specific order, while those before Ocarina of Time at the very least allowed you to attempt some of them out of order, if not finish the dungeons out of order. This linearity isn’t out of place in a Zelda game, as each dungeon will have puzzles that can only be solved with certain items.

What is odd about Twilight Princess, though, is that there is no reason why you shouldn’t be able to tackle Snowpeak Ruins, the Temple of Time, and the City in the Sky in any order. None of them require the items from the others for any of the puzzles in each dungeon. Additionally, the in-game character who guides you to each of these three dungeons is a different character that doesn’t rely on the others. There is no storyline reason that forces the order through these three dungeons, either (unlike the rest of the dungeons in Twilight Princess). Aside from Eiji Aonuma not wanting you to, there is no reason why you shouldn’t be able to choose you own order through these three dungeons. Likewise, there is no reason why the Earth Temple and the Wind Temple in The Wind Waker have to be in a set order (in The Wind Waker this forced linearity is even worse, since the game doesn’t point out the order like Twilight Princess does with the guide characters).

Getting off of Twilight Princess, I wanted to say that I think A Link to the Past is better compared to Super Mario World rather than Super Mario Bros. 3. Aside from the obvious matter of which console each is on, Super Mario World is the larger evolutionary step: Yoshi, the ability to replay completed levels (and with that, alternate exits as a precursor to Super Mario 64′s stars), the dragon coins, Mario’s increased capabilities, streamlined powerup system, etc. All that said, I have more fun playing Super Mario Bros. 3, I just see Super Mario World as evolving the franchise in more ways.

Also, where you say “The analogy begins to break down a bit here; while Super Mario 64 was quite well-received, you’d be hard pressed to get a consensus that it’s the greatest Mario game ever.”, I’d argue that you’d have just as hard of a time getting a consensus that Ocarina of Time is the greatest Zelda game ever. There are the people who favor the 2D gameplay and usually hold up either A Link to the Past or Link’s Awakening as the best; and there are those who favor 3D, among which Ocarina of Time, Majora’s Mask, The Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess are all cited as the best for varying reasons.

Lastly, I wanted to say that I just found this blog yesterday, have bookmarked its RSS feed, and felt compelled to comment on at least one of your posts. I love reading your posts (although probably 99% of the music theory stuff goes right over my head).

by Daniel M. on February 15, 2009 at 3:00 pm #

Some people stated that the game (Zelda: Twilight Princess) was “too linear” or not as good as Ocarina of Time (oot). There are a few problems I had with that…I just recently got done with my favorite installment of the Tales series and LOVED IT, and even abandoned Twilight Princess for it. I let Emil and Marta say their goodbyes in Tales, and then picked up and dusted off Twilight Princess. I must say that the difference between the games was shocking. I had a pre-conceived notion of what RPG’s were supposed to be like, and Twilight Princess wasn’t fitting it. But after a while, I thought, “Gee, this game really is something!” I realized that you didn’t have to stay directly on the story; you could go play Flight by Foul or herd some goats…I thought the game was not linear at all! I for one think the character development was amazing and the graphics were astounding! I don’t know what people are talking about when they say that Oot is better than tp! I’ve never played Oot, but I’ve watched people play it…It doesn’t look that great at all…I think that all games should be like Twilight Princess…ESPECIALLY FOR WII! Does anyone else notice a lack of decent RPG’s for Wii? If so, why are you complaining about Twilight Princess?! I really loved it and wouldn’t ask for any more in a game.

by Chloe L. on June 14, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

Hey Chloe,

I think of the Zelda games as action adventures more than RPGs, but I agree that it was a great game. My complaint with it isn’t that the game itself is bad, but that it isn’t a revolutionary change. I don’t mind iterative versions of the same game — I’ve been playing 2D Mario games for years — but I think Zelda is due for something more.

by Dan Bruno on June 17, 2009 at 7:12 pm #

The reason Twilight Princess wasn’t as revolutionary as Ocarina is because it was originally planned for the GCN; and because the game was delayed too many times, the GCN passed away by the moment the game was finally released. It remained outdated in graphics, music and even gameplay (the Wii controls didn’t feel as innovative because the game wasn’t programmed to work with them.

In contrast, Super Mario Galaxy was designed for the Wii since the beginning, so was Metroid Prime 3, hence how their respective franchises managed to debut properly on the Wii, as well as to offer new in-game gimmicks and mechanincs; TP has some of its own, sure, but they were ultimately under-utilized.

Now that I mentioned Metroid, also this franchise walked through a similar path Zelda and Mario did. Metroid for NES started it all, Super Metroid refined many aspects of the gameplay, and the Prime sub-series took that into 3D.

by Gustavo on February 28, 2010 at 8:32 pm #