I have an ex whose introduction to Zelda was via my copy of Phantom Hourglass. She started playing one day, intrigued by the game’s physicality: the puzzles involving the closure of the DS, the mortifying embarrassment of yelling, “I WANT A CRANE!!!” on a crowded bus. When she was done, she felt duty-bound to backtrack, through Minish Cap, all the way to Link to the Past, and she soldiered doggedly through them. But when Spirit Tracks was announced, she was overjoyed at the prospect of returning to “real” Zelda gaming. So when she messaged me the other day to announce that she was bored stupid by Spirit Tracks – which for her was like being made sad by a Polyphonic Spree song or calmed by an Ann Coulter interview – I had to wonder: what went wrong?
The Good Old Days.
The Zelda games are inherently progressive, as the Mario games are inherently conservative. Mario’s games evolve with the slow pace of the guy who has a good thing going and doesn’t want to jinx it. The basic formula – dude in hat jumps for coins, brutalizes fungi – may receive small augmentations in the form of having Mario carry things or having things carry Mario, but the gist remains the same. Thank God for the illegitimacy of Doki Doki Panic spicing up the gene pool, or Super Mario Galaxy would just be reaching the 3D phase.
Whereas every new Zelda is a crapshoot for new elements. This has been a constant ever since the notoriously divisive The Adventure of Link‘s addition of RPG elements to the Zelda formula. I worked in a games store when The Wind Waker was released, and the cries of disappointment from thick-skulled Nintentoughs at the game’s “cartoony graphics” was equaled only by the shrieks of delight from more adventurous aficionadoes. Zelda games try new things. That’s what they do.
Remember how before The Phantom Hourglass was released, the idea of a Zelda game controlled entirely with the Stylus caused consternation roughly equal to that created by the Global Economic Crisis or an outbreak of Ebola? The DS Zelda playing stance – hunched over the handheld like an antisocial teenager – now feels so natural that already, the mere idea of moving the little tyke around a portable Hyrule with D-pad and action buttons somehow seems ridiculous.
So, with Phantom Hourglass having done the hard work – persuading players that chasing the stylus’ tip was just as valid as D-padding doggedly onward – Spirit Tracks ought to have been a true leap forward. Hourglass was like Radiohead’s Ok Computer: giving fans permission to enjoy samples ‘n’ keyboards, clearing the way for Spirit Tracks to usher in an epic of Kid A-like sweep and texture. Or at least not an Eraser-calibre feast of plodderry that defied you to wring an ounce of fun out of its flaccid husk of an experience.
Skilled analogy-followers may be able to discern the author’s attitude, confessed only now in the fullness of time, toward The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks. I like most everything with Zelda in the title, but excuuuuuse me, Princess: damned if that game was not some desperately boring crap. Sailing with Hourglass‘ Linebeck was constant joyous freedom, a treat so effervescent that even the game’s third-act fetch-quest couldn’t stop the fun. But riding the titular Spirit Tracks brought everyone’s least favorite filler genre – wahey, it’s a rail-shooter! – to Zelda.
I pronounce thee boring as all get out.
And the cutscenes! Where Phantom Hourglass was short ‘n’ sweet with the cinematics, Spirit Tracks aimed to become the DS’ own little Guns of the Patriots, making players munch huge chunks of hopelessly drab story to get to the meat of the thing. All of which is a shame, because when Zelda is on point, it’s basically everything a reasonable person could want from a videogame, and Spirit Tracks was no exception. The puzzles were still ingenious, and there were still those forehead-slappingly bittersweet “oh, of course!” moments that mark every Zelda adventure. And the action – rail-mounted boss-battles aside – was still a joy. But it feels doubly mean to dole out these moments of purity so stingily: bad enough we had to wait four years for the game, we then had to tap the screen through endless model-train semi-interactives?
Pictured: Fun?
Twilight Princess suffered from the same paucity of innovation. The Wii-specific immersivity – draw the Nunchuk back to notch an arrow, then release your grip to let it fly! – was dropped lest fans find the game’s newness alienating. The game became the darker-’n'-edgier Ocarina sequel that fans professed to want, instead of the flurry of Wii-grade innovation they deserved to be confounded and delighted by. It was like seeing your favorite indie band release a 3:30 pop single: the games seemed to have lost that experimental spark that gave us the epic sweep of Link to the Past, the assured 3D transition of Ocarina of Time – and the Stylus-driven freshness of Phantom Hourglass.
An optimistic view of Spirit Tracks might see it as nothing but a sophomore misfire. Hourglass taught that Stylus-driven Zelda can be great, and Tracks warned that it’s not inherently great. Hopefully the next DS Zelda installment will take the innovations of Phantom Hourglass and use them to craft an adventure that avoids the plodding mediocrity of riding the Spirit Tracks. And by extension, here’s hoping the games start charting that new land promised a couple installments back. What with these being basically the best series in gaming and all – try and argue that Mario or Sonic or Final Fantasy or Halo don’t put a foot at least as wrong as Zelda on a regular basis – here’s hoping another rush of innovation is imminent.
And hey, maybe you’ll be able to download The Legend of Zelda: In Hyrule’s Rainbows for free off the Internet. Let’s be optimistic.
I also think that the Zelda games are based on innovation. I didn’t like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker game much, but most of the other Zelda game were fun. I hope that the new The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks is good because I haven’t played it yet.
Zelda games are not based on innovation – when you really look at the the whole series, how many big changes do you really see? Not many.
Wind Waker is easily the best in recent years, but since that game, the series has started to slide. While I enjoyed Phantom Hourglass, the temple was a flaw to have to redo every floor constantly. They fixed it with Spirit Tracks, but then added in the horrid mechanic of guided tracks with ‘enemy trains’ just to piss you off.
As much as I love Zelda, the next game isn’t a guaranteed purchase until I’ve tried it out first.
I too am skeptical about the idea that Zelda games are innovation-centric. All of the major gameplay elements put forth in A Link to the Past (Heart Pieces, musical instruments, completely linear dungeon progression, and so on) are still in place. There has been no shake-up. There have been variations–stylus controls, cell shading–but are these changes really more significant than giving Mario a water-shooting backpack, or giving him planetoids to play on?
Comparing Spirit Tracks to Kid A might actually be more apt than you think. If you put aside all the shock over how “new” it was at the time, what is Kid A? It’s an album with some moments of brilliance, buried under a whole lot of repetitious self-indulgence. (Does the title track really need to be that long? Does the last track really need that last section?) This lines up with your description of Spirit Tracks quite well.
The point being: When people get upset about something being different–that’s novelty, not innovation.
We can agree on this, though: The Eraser wasn’t very good.
Zelda doesn’t belong on the DS, period. I’m hoping the 2010 Zelda will redeem the series.
one of my fav series
too bad its only for nintendo
The Zelda games on the DS were terrible. I think they got worse over the years. The portable games only. I’ve never tried the ones on the consoles.
@Drew: You make some good points, but I like to think that as one man’s “repetitious self-indulgence” is another man’s “exploration through repeated motifs”, so one man’s “cutscene-laden plod-fest” is another’s “perfectly adequate installment.
I stand by my statement that Zelda is inherently progressive. I’ll agree with you that that’s not the same thing as innovative.
I couldn’t get into a stylus only Zelda game. I am very curious about what Miyamoto has in store for the next one on the wii. He says there will be things that haven’t been done in the series before. That could mean a lot, I just hope its good.
@Tom
Of course, it’s a matter of opinion. There is no objectively good or objectively bad album, or game, or what have you. But some positions are still more reasonable and defensible than others. If that weren’t true, then there would be no point in discussing anything, ever, because the conversation could never be interactive. Everyone would just state his own opinion without considering it.
I’m certainly willing to entertain the idea that the Zelda games are progressive, but I’m not convinced as of yet. The Adventure of Link was a bold departure. Majora’s Mask was a bold departure. They both tried new things. But other than that, the games have been re-hashing the Link to the Past formula again and again, with diminishing returns.
Ocarina of Time made the leap to 3D, of course, but was that really progress? There were no major gameplay elements in that game that weren’t already in Link to the Past, in some form or another. Heart Pieces, bottles, sword upgrades, new tunics, the Hookshot, the bow, the parallel worlds, the settings (forest, mountain, desert, swamp) spells (which were crystals instead of medallions)… none of that was new or progressive.
And to my mind, the most interesting thing about Wind Waker was its sense of free exploration, which was not so much progress as a return to the non-linear form of the very first Legend of Zelda.
I love these games, but I’m not sure that they count as progress. Not in retrospect, anyway.
Mario and Zelda both lack innovation. The games have remained essentially the same their entire lifespans. They each have minor tweaks that come along as they aged, but that’s about it. If anything, I’d say Mario is MORE innovative, because of Paper Mario and the Mario RPG’s, Mario Party, and all the other spin off titles.
Zelda as a series died for me after a LTTP. Ocarania of time was simply a 3d remake.
To be honest I finished Phantom Hourglass in a couple of days and I’ve still not gotten around to finishing Spirit Tracks. It’s just not as engrossing or as fun. Maybe that is because its just more again with rails, or maybe I just really dislike the formulaic travel. [whats next, hangliders? a bi-plane? okay a bi-plane would be awesome.]
But What I’m REALLY hoping for, is that one day, Nintendo release a Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door style Sidescrolling Zelda game in the vein of Zelda II. Complete with levelling up magic and spells and all that jazz. It would be incredible! Paper Link.