Pages

Monday, December 26, 2011

How Zelda Became Uninteresting


The Legend of Zelda, for a brief period of time, was one of the most vibrant, experimental video game franchises around. Now it's a shell, having been browbeaten into apology after apology for having dared be so interesting. The "trilogy" of Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Wind Waker, spanning 1998 to 2003, are the key games in the series, as they represent the apex, destruction, and transformation of the design that began with the original Zelda in 1986.

Zelda series helmsman, Eiji Aonuma, who took over from Shigeru Miyamoto after Ocarina of Time, has said repeatedly he feels haunted by that game. It looms large in the imagination of gamers as The Classic, never to be equaled, and Aonuma's job has increasingly become to replicate this platonic phantom - this mythical 'ideal Zelda' - that arguable never existed. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. Enough to hold a man's entire career hostage.


I was at Aonuma's talk at GDC 2007, which was a double apology. First he apologized for making Wind Waker. Then he apologized for making Twilight Princess, the game that was an apology for Wind Waker. After the Western gaming press responded badly to Wind Waker, he tried to guess what this mysterious audience wanted. He did his best. He threw in a werewolf because he didn't have any better ideas (yes, he said that). But he still wasn't personally thrilled with it. The game was still a polished piece of craft, but the spark was gone, the bravery that made Majora's Mask and Wind Waker such stand out experiments, almost arthouse games.

Twilight Princess was a ploy to regain the audience that had rejected the creative direction the series was going after Ocarina - the right creative direction. This direction was not only different, fresh, and exciting. It was the only logical thing to do after the classic Zelda formula reached its highest expression. Ocarina of Time was the classic, dumb hero tale of every other Zelda game (boy has to save girl, goes through trials, finds sacred items, defeats wizard, etc.) done with exceptional epic flourish, culminating in the most awesome knight-versus-bad-mutherfuckin'-wizard fight ever in a video game. It was the game every other Zelda had been trying to be, and there it finally was. Done. What's next?


What came next was a marvelous dark fantasy mind-fuck. Majora's Mask was not only thematically and narratively the best thing ever associated with the Zelda name (it was what Shadow of the Colossus would get credit for being some years later, only deeper, richer); it was one of the most complete narrative worlds in a commercial game. Ocarina had dabbled in world-simulation, with its day-night cycles and open 3D terrain, but Majora's Mask was like Ultima VII on redbull. In a time when 3D graphics where inspiring most developers to make big, shallow worlds (Morrowind, GTAIII) Majora's Mask focused on being narrow and deep. Its nuance, the lives of NPCs as they existed in time, was unseen. And the time-travel mechanics, the clockwork social puzzle they formed, has never been equaled.

This all dovetailed together into one of the most total experiences I've had in a game. Majora's Mask inverted, subvert, destroyed - it ravaged Zelda every which way, all with a wicked smile. Never has a formula's self-destruction been so well-deserved, so resonant, and so wonderful. It did for Zelda what Watchmen did for superheroes, what Planescape: Torment did for Dungeons & Dragons. Saying it was the best Zelda game doesn’t begin to express its value. No other game in the series comes close. No game in the series ever will.


If Major'as Mask was the bonfire that burned Ocarina to the ground, Wind Waker was the phoenix that arose from its ashes. It was a Zelda game about a changed world, a post-apocolyptic regeneration to Majora's apocalyptic misery, though it remains one of the brightest, most pleasant destroyed worlds you’ll visit. It goes out of its way at every turn to emphasize the changed-ness of Zelda, from the cel-shaded graphics to the sailing mechanics to the story about how Hyrule is a relic of a dead past that should stay dead. Wind Waker is, if you’re clever enough to notice, an elegy for the series, a meditation on its irreversible transformation.

Ganon is the villain of Wind Waker because he wants to resurrect the Zelda formula. Why can’t things be like the good ‘ol days in Ocarina of Time, when everything was cool and epic? Because we all have to grow up sometime. Ironic that Wind Waker’s cel-shaded graphics got labeled “childish” by mouth-foaming fanboys who pined for their adolescent notions of adulthood, their cool wizard fights, their Link and Ganon who looked like they were drawn for Marvel Comics. Wind Waker’s gentle plea was a very adult one, and its rejection proof of how children, of all sorts, still hold sway over the art form.


Wind Waker was one from the heart, a game close to Aonuma. (His band, in which he plays percussion, is called 'The Wind Wakers'.) Twilight Princess, on the other hand, radiates desperation. Aonuma was grasping at something, anything, to give the global market what it seemed to want. What it wanted of course was crawl back into the womb, into its fuzzy memories of Ocarina, but have this infantile nostalgia obfuscated with so-called "darker" content... as if werewolves, shadows, a scarier Ganon with big biceps, and a mean-lookin’ teenage Link were the very definition of seriousness.

Twilight Princess is sheer pap of course, just a muddled variation on Ocarina’s good-versus-evil nonsense. It has none of Majora’s moral anguish and none of Waker’s transformative maturity. It barely registers in memory next to Ocarina, which at least had the benefit of straight-forward mythic simplicity. People liked it, but since it’s chief value was reminding people of Ocarina, it lacked any sort of future-trajectory of its own, rendering the creative evolution of the series effectively dead.


Skyward Sword represents a cautious step back towards the creative energy the series once had. Traumatized, but yearning to pick up its lost strands of inspiration, Skyward feels like a calculated attempt to bring back the color and spark of Wind Waker while avoiding the superficial elements that drive petty fans berserk.

Link and Zelda are cool-looking teens, with relatively human proportions, but the world and characters around them exhibit a stylized freedom closer to Wind Waker's. The fully open sky world, with its endless billowing clouds and floating islands, feels like a reiteration of the ocean from Wind Waker. The town and characters are fleshed out in a way closer to Majora's Mask, and the puzzle/dungeon design - which makes extensive, often ingenious use of the Wii motion controls - gives the most basic challenges (combat, navigation) a sense of newness. 


Who knows what Zelda might be today had it not been side-tracked by the blood sacrifice Aonuma was forced to make to the Western market. Skyward Sword might be truly exciting, yet another balls-out experiment in world/game/story fusion, rather than a surprisingly well-executed puzzle/dungeon exercise with clearly partition barriers between innovation and fan-service. While it's nice to see the series regain a bit of its purpose, this surgical approach to innovation makes it clear Nintendo is still scared shitless.

Where will it go from here? No doubt Aonuma is up nights trying to figure that one out.  God help him.

11 comments:

  1. Great post Matt... And I remember having fragments of this post in a conversation with you in August.

    Agreed on most of the points, though personally I still prefer Ocarina to the other two, for its more abstract and mythic meaning and realization of what I felt was the original vision of Zelda, but I do agree that Majora's world is one very much missed, with the depth of the characters in relation to their world, and no other game comes close in making you pay attention to the NPCs in the game (even though Radiata Stories did try).

    I'm about 10 hours into Skyward Sword now, and while I celebrate it's execution in the innovative use of motion controls, I can't seem to muster the same kind of magic and wonderment that I had when I played the said 'trilogy'.

    Speaking of which, I think Aunoma was in more of a production role in Skyward Sword, and I wonder if he'll be helming the next Zelda or will Fujibayashi be?

    - Jeremy Kang

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, amazing post. You put down in words what I've been feeling when it comes to Zelda. I could never quite figure out why I started to hate the series with Twilight Princess, but you summed it up well.

    I've seen some positive reviews of Skyward Sword, but not enough to inspire me to play the game. If they bring some innovation back into the series I would once again be a loyal customer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For me, Zelda first became uninteresting with Ocarina of Time. It's not that I don't like the game, but it can be very irritating, and I have difficulty understanding why it's considered to be the crown jewel in the Zelda franchise; the game that Nintendo simply has to recreate time and time again. When it begins, it's too cutesy. I feel like I'm in the Smurf Village. I realize that the previous Zelda titles weren't exactly what one would call "mature," but in '98 this game felt especially childish even when compared to the previous titles (save for perhaps the CD-i games, but I never played those). That fairy Navi mostly speaks when it's annoying and rarely when it's necessary. Whenever I'd hear her shout "Hey!," I usually wanted to strangle her. She constantly interrupts the game usually to tell me some mundane information that I could usually have figured out on my own. Much of the early parts of the game are taken up with irritating text which explains every single aspect of the game mechanics and story in excruciating minutiae, and I often feel like too much of the "gameplay" is made up of boring side-chores (i.e. "Help me find my cuccos!"). It gets better as it goes, and for what it's worth, when I actually completed the game over a decade ago, I did feel a certain admiration for the overall product, but as far as pure Zelda formula goes, I feel they never really improved that much on A Link to the Past.

    In A Link to the Past, they waste virtually no time. Right out of the gate, you have to infiltrate the castle, get your sword and shield, and you're off on what actually feels like an exciting adventure, as opposed to an extended series of errands put forth by overly chatty characters. It's far more streamlined, but still epic. When I reach the conclusion, it really feels like an accomplishment, not so much for myself, but for the people who made the game. It also says something that I replayed and completed Link to the Past several times in the '90s, yet I've only finished Ocarina once (though I'm currently replaying it). Ocarina is a good game overall, great in some ways, but I generally find the early parts boring as hell and annoying, and this exactly how I'd describe Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword. Cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  4. (Cont'd from last post.) I've never really played Majora's Mask or The Wind Waker. Twilight Princess was the first game since Ocarina where I really decided to bother playing a Zelda game all the way to the end. I've always regretted that for some time now, and it sounds, if nothing else, like I really should give Majora a go. I have a funny, by which I mean fairly pathetic, history with that game. I either received it as a birthday or Christmas present, and I was really looking forward to playing it. I don't think ever in my life have I anticipated something so much, only to have it wind up taking up space in my basement, and later the garage, without me ever really touching it. Christ, it's almost like that episode of The Simpsons where Homer chucks his copy of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery into the fireplace after realizing that it doesn't actually give tips on how to *win* the lottery! Okay, maybe it wasn't *that* bad, but it kind of feels that way to me.

    I was really looking forward to Majora's Mask and was very happy to receive it as a present. My brother asked me if he could play it first. I acted like a sport and let him. And then I watched him play it. Simply put, if I remember correctly, it was a game where you're constantly on a timer. I *hate* timed games. If the game has no patience for me, I generally have no patience for it. Especially if it's something like Zelda, and I wanna explore. It's not like I decided then and there that I simply wouldn't play it at all, but every time I'd consider giving the game a try, the proverbial voice in my back of my head would remind me of how timed games often equalled some of the most miserable gaming experiences I've ever had. Back on the shelf it would go and I'd play something else. "I'll play it later," I'd tell myself. It's been over a decade later, and I've never even touched the game. The person who gave me that present may as well have thrown their money out the window. I hate myself a bit for that. I don't even know where it, or my N64, is at this point. I have Majora and Ocarina on VC now. I'm replaying Ocarina, and I intend to finally play Majora. Oh, yeah, and eventually Wind Waker, which I'm not even sure why I didn't really play that one. I mean, I started it, but never got very far. Maybe I was just sick of Zelda in general at that point, I don't know.

    It figures that the two main console Zelda games I decide to pass on turn out to be the games that, years later, I read in an article to be masterpieces, while the ones I did decide to play, and actually finish, turn out to more-or-less be ephemeral. But I have to ask, would you be willing to offer a full review/analysis of Majora's Mask? I have read reviews of the game claiming it to be an underrated gem, but none that I know of so far have actually compared it to, say, Watchmen (I assume you mean the comic, not the movie). I still intend to eventually give the game an honest try, but I suck at picking up on subtleties and your handing it this level of praise has more than piqued my interest.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Matthew, you can't tell your reader a game doesn't register in memory compared to an other game as though it were an objective fact. In my memory, it registers faintly less than 'Ocarina', but then I was eleven years old when I played that game the first time. 'Twilight' is some-what less deep than the two N64 games, but a game need not be original to be deep, and I don't play games, read books or watch movies in search only of 'balls-out experiments', but of great works of those media, boundlessly original or not.

    A 'werewolf' wasn't thrown into 'Twilight' any more than a gnome, a merman and Pinocchio were thrown into 'Majora'. As long as there is twilight, Link must have a bestial form. Ganondorf's biceps, you will recall, are under thick clothing and not visible in 'Twilight'. They DO bulge quite a bit in 'Ocarina', though. In my humblest of opinions, this is not a factor in the greatness of either game.

    No man able to tie his shoes would say that 'Majora' is remotely similar to 'Colossus', although I will graciously assume you had not actually played the juvenile, hyperficial train-wreck that is 'Skyward Sword' at the time you wrote those egregious final remarks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will respond the factual bit:

      Aonuma *did* apologize for the wolf being something they weren't entirely happy with, and something they put in because they couldn't think of something better. I was there, at the talk. If you like the wolf that's fine, but that doesn't change what he said.

      Delete
  6. Glad to see someone else who thinks MM outclasses OOT in every way.

    WW on the other hand felt like an unfinished product. While it has the best characterization of Ganon and the best music in the series, the lack of any challenging enemies, really new equipment and omitting of features like fishing and what not seemed like a bonehead move. In terms of the high water adventure scenario, they seemed to drop the ball as well. Take for example the Ghost ship, it seemed like a perfect point to create a riveting mini-dungeon yet it didn't even come close. And let's not forget the terrible Triforce hunt...why that couldn't be mix of deep sea scalvging, NPC interaction, good old trading, questing and other stuff I will never know.

    TP on the other hand had some interesting ideas with the horse-back fighting, magnetized iron boot puzzles, the spinner, ball and chain,etc. Though it too seemed to drop the ball in providing some interesting side missions or expansion on game mechanics (i.e. the Wolf form literally does not change from the first time you acquire it to the end of the game.)

    Story wise I agree it dropped the ball (though Midna has been the best companion so far. I also liked Tetra but she was criminally underused)

    SS was neat in its challenge and seems like a fusion between WW/TP. However it's sequence of events also seem to be lacking. The narrative thread that is supposed to link all the missions and quests you undergo is almost ridiculously thin at some points.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As always, interesting points, Matthew. I think that you need to couch any discussion of the Zelda franchise in a discussion of Nintendo's tech or direction.

    Wind Waker was a statement-of-intent to capture a market of younger gamers as dictated by Nintendo's plan for the Gamecube's success. As beautiful the animation and sailing were, it was designed and plotted to be a kid's game, very simplified. After Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, it was a regression for the series.

    Twilight Princess was similar in a statement-of-intent: Nintendo understood the failures of the Gamecube and its games' market and recognized that a franchise like Zelda should be used to retain a market of older gamers. Hence, the game was on the opposite end of the simple-complex spectrum from Wind Waker.

    I think that Ocarina of Time was the best game in the series; Miyamoto was at his peak. Majora's Mask was the perfect sequel: it quickly distinguished itself from its predecessor (largely, by its three-day plot/mechanic) and Koizumi crafted a game that didn't directly compete with Ocarina of Time (largely, with the transformations). Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are opposite extremes and I prefer the game that assumes I'm a veteran of the franchise, Twilight Princess.

    I read Aonuma's musings on various Iwata Asks interviews and I don't know that if anyone else gets the impression that he is someone stuck in a lucrative and prestigious job that he has no idea how to do. This does not surprise me:

    "He threw in a werewolf because he didn't have any better ideas"

    I guess that he's a social and fun-loving guy that everyone loves around the office, but completely inept for the job he is supposed to perform. It's a position difficult to receive bad feedback. The franchise receives universal praise from media and fans and has a lot of goodwill banked over a couple of decades. The only time that the franchise received bad feedback from a majority was Wind Waker and its style. And as I said, that was a company directive and not a decision of the designers or Aonuma; therefore, he couldn't be faulted. I haven't played Skyward Sword, but I think that the sooner Koizumi takes control of the franchise, the better.


    Also, the franchise is now out-of-cycle with Nintendo's tech. Twilight Princess was a Gamecube game ported to the Wii with motion controls tacked on. Skyward Sword was released on very old tech (I'm sure that this was a factor in the decision to change the graphical style). Where will the next Zelda fit-in to the cycle of the WiiU?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I challenge the idea that Wind Waker's style was largely a ploy to reach a younger market, as I do the perception that it was more "simplified" game design-wise.

      I don't find it to be simplified, and the idea that 'colorful' = 'for kids' is a perception of Western journalists and loud-mouth gamers, who have become pathological about their own - very Western - notion of what constitutes "adult" gaming, which, to me, feels itself rather childish, as it basically boils down to a dark, washed out color scheme accompanied by some combination of blood, sex, and foul language. That's a *child's* idea of adulthood, and it has crippled the Western game's industry, forever trapping it in a false notion of what it means to be an adult. Wind Waker has no such hang ups, which makes it actually more adult in my view.

      The Western gaming press/culture's notion of adulthood is so utterly distorted, I cannot take its perception seriously when assessing the causes for Wind Waker's failure Stateside. People who say it was too childish are not a majority. They are a vocal minority with a maturity complex.

      Delete
  8. I fundamentally agree that maturity isn't attained by implementing a specific style or by a character saying 'fuck'. You have to analyse the content of the game itself and the rhetoric of its creators.

    Wind Waker's setting is post-apocalyptic, but it is censored. The sea is a massive black-out of the unpleasant world beneath. To whose benefit is it that the unpleasantness is censored? It's the younger market, right, because contrast that to the images of Ocarina of Time (evocatively, the dichotomy of the bustling vibrant town-square as young Link and dead zombie-infested town-square as adult Link) or Majora's Mask, it's naive to think that it was to the benefit of players who grew up on those games and images and who wouldn't be able to play in an uncensored setting.

    The characters, especially at the beginning, are in a language that a young child can relate to: the doting Grandma that looks after him. For an adult or older child, language like 'girlfriend', 'wife' or 'daughter' is relatable, but for a young child, it's 'sister'; in this game, Link sets off on his quest to rescue his sister.

    At the time, rhetoric from Nintendo was that not all players are accessing all of the content of the game they are purchasing; the solution to this 'problem' was to shorten the length and decrease the difficulty to enable all players to enjoy all of the content. Wind Waker is relatively short in content and low in difficulty, which panders to a younger market and implements Nintendo's rhetoric. It was simplified:
    "One of my other ideas in Wind Waker was more simplified control for the game, which was tied to the graphic style and the theme of that game as well" - Aonuma

    The cel-shading graphical style is more attractive to a younger market. The execution exaggerated the cute and colourful appeal of the style. The obvious facial animations are easier for children to read Link's reactions.

    I remember reading that the idea for the train and tracks in the Spirit Tracks was fleeced from a five-year old children's book. If that was the source of material for that game, what was the source of material for its predecessors?


    Nintendo self-admitted that Wind Waker's direction was wrong for the series in releasing, Twilight Princess, which is the polar opposite of Wind Waker. I don't think that Nintendo would have made that decision if it was just the "vocal minority".

    I hope that I did or do not give the impression that I dislike Wind Waker. I think that it is a good game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the things you feel are coded as "for children" I see as simply being good character design. Just ask Scott McCloud.

      I have no doubt Nintendo wanted to appeal to children with the game, but it comes at absolutely no expense to an adult being able to engage with the experience, anymore than it does in a Pixar or Miyazaki film.

      And... censored? Really? Would you say The Incredibles is "censored" because it isn't Watchmen?

      Delete