
My princess is in another castle!
November 4, 2009 | 12:29 PM PST
Over the years I've owned or played every console incarnation of the Mario and Zelda primary franchises, and a number of the handhelds even. Over the last few years, I've realized something. My appreciation for Mario games is actually growing as I play more of them (even if Mario Galaxy did make me feel a bit ill) while my interest in Zelda games is rapidly waning.
I could end this with one word—variety—but that's not fair to either franchise. There's a lot more to say.
There's no question that the original Super Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda games are two of the all-time classics. Games still copy design ideas from them, and the franchises are still among Nintendo's most loved and most successful. I feel like the two have gone in different directions as the years have passed, though. More accurately, I feel like Mario has gone off to do his own thing while the Zelda franchise has spun its wheels.
In an attempt to create a classic fairytale, Zelda has taken to telling the same story over and over. From the items you pick up, to the dungeons you visit, and the bosses you fight, it seems like each time I pick up a Zelda game, I know exactly what I'm getting into. I'll admit that sometimes it's fun to see how the designers try to bring in some fresh ideas, and by no means am I saying they're bad games; Ocarina of Time didn't pull 10s from review outlets around the world for no reason.
I just don't feel any excitement for Zelda games anymore. I know what to expect, and seeing a few screenshots or renting the game for a couple days gives me all I need to see before I'm done with it. Playing the new Zelda DS game at Nintendo's press tour just reminded me vividly of what's missing. This game visually identical to its predecessor, with a few gimmicks swapped out for a few other gimmicks. It's a perfectly good game, and I wouldn't disagree with anyone who calls it a great game. I just feel like there's nothing new to see.

The most recent example of Zelda's more and more static design came when I was playing the upcoming Spirit Tracks game at a Nintendo press event. While the Wind Waker visual style works well on the DS, this makes for the third or fourth game using that art style. The same story can be interesting when told a different way or given a new look, but when you tell it using the same look, it's hard to go back to. Twilight Princess, similarly, looked like a much better-looking Ocarina of Time. The game, too, felt nearly identical to OoT mechanically, albeit with some weird wolf segments and the tacked on Wii waggle.
I think it's worth reiterating that these are not bad games. They deserve the review scores they pull. And there's no shame in using elements of past games when creating new ones. It's becoming a trend, however, and I just find myself losing interest.
Mario, on the other hand, always seems to be doing something different. Each game has a new visual style and does something to change or add to the gameplay. It doesn't always work (Mario Sunshine), but it has also left an indelible mark on gaming (Mario64), and even Mario's worst core games are still memorable games. New Super Mario Bros. Wii refines the 2D platforming with brutal precision and then adds in a multiplayer element that is competitive and cooperative all at once, bringing something entirely new to the series, even after two decades of games.
I think Mario's strength is that it is, at its core, about running and jumping. Every game has maintained that balance that keeps the game welcoming without sacrificing the intensity. Zelda seems more about getting its fairy-tale story on every platform, and while each game has a couple things worth writing home about, most of it is just rehash. What's worse is that with that constant retelling, it starts to feel forced. It keeps repeating and loses some punch in the process.
All the games I've talked about today are good or great games, but in one I see new ideas and possibilities, and in the other I see the same old thing. Even if the same old thing is done well, I'd still like to see something new.
I could end this with one word—variety—but that's not fair to either franchise. There's a lot more to say.
There's no question that the original Super Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda games are two of the all-time classics. Games still copy design ideas from them, and the franchises are still among Nintendo's most loved and most successful. I feel like the two have gone in different directions as the years have passed, though. More accurately, I feel like Mario has gone off to do his own thing while the Zelda franchise has spun its wheels.
In an attempt to create a classic fairytale, Zelda has taken to telling the same story over and over. From the items you pick up, to the dungeons you visit, and the bosses you fight, it seems like each time I pick up a Zelda game, I know exactly what I'm getting into. I'll admit that sometimes it's fun to see how the designers try to bring in some fresh ideas, and by no means am I saying they're bad games; Ocarina of Time didn't pull 10s from review outlets around the world for no reason.
I just don't feel any excitement for Zelda games anymore. I know what to expect, and seeing a few screenshots or renting the game for a couple days gives me all I need to see before I'm done with it. Playing the new Zelda DS game at Nintendo's press tour just reminded me vividly of what's missing. This game visually identical to its predecessor, with a few gimmicks swapped out for a few other gimmicks. It's a perfectly good game, and I wouldn't disagree with anyone who calls it a great game. I just feel like there's nothing new to see.

The most recent example of Zelda's more and more static design came when I was playing the upcoming Spirit Tracks game at a Nintendo press event. While the Wind Waker visual style works well on the DS, this makes for the third or fourth game using that art style. The same story can be interesting when told a different way or given a new look, but when you tell it using the same look, it's hard to go back to. Twilight Princess, similarly, looked like a much better-looking Ocarina of Time. The game, too, felt nearly identical to OoT mechanically, albeit with some weird wolf segments and the tacked on Wii waggle.
I think it's worth reiterating that these are not bad games. They deserve the review scores they pull. And there's no shame in using elements of past games when creating new ones. It's becoming a trend, however, and I just find myself losing interest.
Mario, on the other hand, always seems to be doing something different. Each game has a new visual style and does something to change or add to the gameplay. It doesn't always work (Mario Sunshine), but it has also left an indelible mark on gaming (Mario64), and even Mario's worst core games are still memorable games. New Super Mario Bros. Wii refines the 2D platforming with brutal precision and then adds in a multiplayer element that is competitive and cooperative all at once, bringing something entirely new to the series, even after two decades of games.
I think Mario's strength is that it is, at its core, about running and jumping. Every game has maintained that balance that keeps the game welcoming without sacrificing the intensity. Zelda seems more about getting its fairy-tale story on every platform, and while each game has a couple things worth writing home about, most of it is just rehash. What's worse is that with that constant retelling, it starts to feel forced. It keeps repeating and loses some punch in the process.
All the games I've talked about today are good or great games, but in one I see new ideas and possibilities, and in the other I see the same old thing. Even if the same old thing is done well, I'd still like to see something new.
















