The Degree of Difference

[Spirit]

I've been thinking about this for a while but I've eventually come to a dead end...

We all know that one of the most general and widely known criticisms for Twilight Princess is that it tried too hard to be OoT. Somehow the completely different landscape, entirely new dungeons, characters, items, story, gameplay gimmicks, music, art-style and bosses were thought to be ripped directly from the untouched potential of OoT had it been made about ten years later prior to its original release...

This is a criticism of TP... So why is it that few other Zelda games are criticised as such when the notion is still true, if not truer, for other games?

For example, the Oracle games weren't made as direct sequels to Link's Awakening yet they play and look almost exactly the same yet they aren't criticised as being more of a clone than TP ever was...

Conversely, the very first thing that strikes you about playing Minish Cap, for those of us who have played A Link to the Past prior to having played MC, is how very similar to ALttP MC actually is. i spent the first hour or so of MC saying to myself "wow i remember this layout in ALttP", which is something i never did with TP where OoT was concerned.

While Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass have the excuse of being on two very different consoles as well as being direct sequels to each other, there is no great Excuse for PH and ST which are the main offenders here, yet still they aren't criticised as being clones when the play almost exactly the same. Like TP, ST had a different story, gameplay gimmicks (to a degree), new characters, items and locations (despite the plot of the game being a carbon copy of PH with having to return to a hub temple), yet it is still TP which is criticised for its likenesses to OoT so much so that the notion has become a negative staple of the game as far as fanbase is concerned, when in my eyes, TP is one of the few Zelda games to set itself apart from what had come before...


So, with the backdrop in place- the question is:

How much of a varying degree must a Zelda game have for you as a Zelda fan to not consider it a copy, clone or opportunistic game that feeds off previous titles?

 

[JuicieJ]

Twilight Princess is criticized for this because it directly re-uses exact features and puzzles from Ocarina of Time. While I think these are sometimes nitpicky complaints, it's absolutely true that TP doesn't make any legitimate attempts to separate itself from its predecessor.

I don't mind seeing sameness in Zelda. I think Zelda recycling the tried and true formula is a good thing. It's when things are pretty much exactly the same -- like in TP and PH -- that I start to put up the red flag. However, I do like when Zelda games try to do something different and actually attempt to take the series in some new directions. Games like A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, and Skyward Sword. It's nice to see fresh approaches to old ideas in any series, so I'll never complain when said thing happens (so long as it's good). I just don't want Zelda to stray from its roots and stop being an Action/Adventure title.

 

[Cfrock]

Honestly, Twilight Princess never felt even remotely similar to Ocarina of Time for me. Of course there are things that connect them (like the four poes in Arbiter's Grounds) but those minor things felt like reference or even homage to such moments, not simple re-use or 'copy/paste'. The Zelda series does it with every single new release so I too find it unusual for people to complain about it in one specific game and not others. Twilight Princess did far, far more that was different to Ocarina of Time than was similar so I think such claims are totally unfounded.

If Twilight Princess tried too hard to be Ocarina of Time, then Ocarina tried too hard to be A Link To The Past. And yet when people make that comparison, it's usually in a positive way. It boggles the mind.

 

[Kupsacker]

To be honest, Twilight Princess is one of the least clone-ish games. I really don't get where that criticism comes from.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

I know TP gets the heat for being a clone most but honestly most Zelda games to me seem either clones or at least very heavily influenced by those that came before. Most Zelda games I've played I've felt "This is fun, but I've done this sort of thing before." (LA, OoX, MC, TP, PH, and ST come to mind) Basically, if the settings, art styles, music, etc. are generally similar to those that came before, I consider them to be heavily influenced by those that came before. That's the issue with TP, so much of the music, art styles, plot development, gameplay elements, and so on were connected to OoT that I felt I was playing a reskinned OoT rather than a completely new Zelda game (except for the Twilight realms and Zant, those were awesome). Also, TP was far more mainstream than the others, so it got a lot more of the public eye and thus was compared to OoT far more than the other titles.

Note that I am not hating on these games, they are all great games. It's good that games keep certain things about those from before and incorporate them along with new ideas. Especially with TP, I still consider it a really great game and is among my favorites. But I'm not going to deny that it was extremely heavily influenced by OoT, moreso than any other game I've played. The feeling of familiarity was a bit too strong with TP for me.

Basically, for it to be a new Zelda game for me, it has to be a completely new type of game in general. All new graphics, all new settings, all new music, story, etc. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. OoT, MM, and SS take quite a few liberties with the gameplay, story, characters and such, and like what JJ said, they attempted to take the series in a new direction. Other times this backfires, AoL I don't even consider a true Zelda game at all. I don't want the series to end up like Final Fantasy after all, where every single game that's not a direct sequel are set entirely apart from those before and it all feels very disjointed.

 

[r2d93]

The "clone" arguement is complete garbage IMO.

The game was designed to take place in the same area as OoT, after the events of OoT child timeline. This being true, not much has happened in Hyrule in the time between the two games (not on a major scale anyways). This being said, having similar landscape, geography, and areas to OoT does not make it a clone. Nor does having Hylians, gorons, and Zoras, some of the most common LoZ races throughout all of the installments. Also, the two games have completely different enemies, plot lines, dungeons (excluding the 1st 3), etc. TP doesn't have an instrument at all (excluding Ilia's charm whistle thing), and OoT is based entirely around a central instrument. OoT doesn't have Zant, or Midna, or Twili/Twilight, or Snowpeak, or a wolf form, or half the items in TP, or hidden skills. TP doesn't have Kokiri, or Sheikah (that we know of), or Gerudo besides Ganny, or Lon Lon Ranch, etc.

OoT's story: young boy is thrust into helping out princess Zelda to help Hyrule, Ganondorf takes over, Link ages 7 years, and must travel through time to awaken the sages to help defeat Ganon and save Hyrule

TP's story: young adult/adult ventures out to save his hometown friends. Along the way he meets an imp- from then on the story is based around what she wants- the fused shadows, then the mirror shards- transforms into doing it for the greater good and saving Hyrule from the Twilight and Zant and his master..... we all know who that is.

The only similarities- the transformation into saving hyrule. that's it.

I don't believe TP tried to be OoT 2.0. I believe TP wanted to one-up everything in OoT due to the placement on the timeline. I believe TP succeeded in doing this.

 

[Ventus]

The clone argument stems from the idea that TP was supposed to be that ground breaking "omg realistic" game, the Zelda of Zeldas, but it plays on previous hype, content and other things generated in Ocarina of Time. In a way, TP felt "copy and paste" due to its extreme similarties to OoT. I myself do buy into the clone argument (somewhat; I'm not saying the entire game is an OoT clone but where the similarties exist, it is like C/P rather than 'let's incorporate this mechanic under some sorta guise!'), but it is faulty in many accounts.

 

[JuicieJ]

If Twilight Princess tried too hard to be Ocarina of Time, then Ocarina tried too hard to be A Link To The Past. And yet when people make that comparison, it's usually in a positive way. It boggles the mind.

Ocarina of Time took A Link to the Past's formula and did its own things with it, much like Skyward Sword did with Ocarina of Time. Twilight Princess basically tried to relive Ocarina of Time's glory. There's nothing inherently wrong with such a thing, but the lack of originality was kind of disappointing, especially considering it came absolutely nowhere close to its predecessor.

 

[Cfrock]

Ocarina of Time took A Link to the Past's formula and did its own things with it, much like Skyward Sword did with Ocarina of Time. Twilight Princess basically tried to relive Ocarina of Time's glory. There's nothing inherently wrong with such a thing, but the lack of originality was kind of disappointing, especially considering it came absolutely nowhere close to its predecessor.

I see it the other way around. For me Ocarina of Time did nothing to put its own spin on A Link To The Past's structure. I have always seen Ocarina as 'A Link To The Past 3D' and, in my eyes, it was never close to as good. A great game, yes, but not in the same league as A Link To The Past.

For me, Twilight Princess borrowed from both, certainly, but I honestly think it did a lot more to distinguish itself from them than Ocarina ever did. Sure, Zora's Domain is frozen again, sure you chase 4 Poes in the 4th dungeon, sure it goes back to the more realistic art style but they did so much more with it. The art style complimented the scale and tone of the game perfectly, the Poe chase was expanded on into one of the franchises better and more interesting side-quests and the freezing of Zora's Domain was not only visually stunning but also used to add a bit of emotional depth to the Zora's as a race and we see the damaging effects it has a lot more too. It felt like a properly thought out plot point whereas in Ocarina of Time it felt like a consequence-less tacked on element to lead you into the Ice Cavern.

Besides all that, the horse-back combat, wealth of unique (if under utilised) items, variety and imagination of the dungeons, greatly improved narrative, well developed characters and improvements to the combat all make Twilight Princess a far, far better game than Ocarina of Time as far as I'm concerned. Nintendo put a hell of a lot more effort into it and a few minor throwbacks (which are done much better in Twilight Princess) do not make the game a 'clone' or 'copy/paste job' or anything like that. Twilight Princess has its own totally unique identity in the franchise and is just as seperate yet inherently connected to Ocarina as Skyward Sword is.

 

[r2d93]

I see it the other way around. For me Ocarina of Time did nothing to put its own spin on A Link To The Past's structure. I have always seen Ocarina as 'A Link To The Past 3D' and, in my eyes, it was never close to as good. A great game, yes, but not in the same league as A Link To The Past.

I totally agree. OoT is much more of a clone of ALttP than TP is to OoT. From ALttP to OoT it's basically the same thing minus a few minor details (like where and why link begins his adventure). Yet instead of having the Agahnim/Dark World twist, in OoT the "Dark World" is the future 7 years later in which Ganondorf has taken over. From then on you look for either new sages or descendants of the sages, and then climb Ganon's tower to defeat Ganon once and for all. ALttP and OoT both have very self propelled plotlines- it's really up to you yourself to take action and move the plot forward for a bigger purpose.

Whereas in TP, Midna is pushing you to do things for her benefit which just so happens to benefit others. It also becomes about saving Hyrule from the immediate threat of Zant and the twilight while STILL constantly searching for Ilia, Colin, Malo, Talo, and Beth.

That's just plot. While TP may not have beefed up any difficulty aspect that OoT may have had (i think OoT is an easy game anyways), it enhanced everything else from the overworld to teh main hub to the dungeons to the boss battles to the items

Either way, they're still all amazing videogames

 

[A Link In Time]

I totally agree. OoT is much more of a clone of ALttP than TP is to OoT. From ALttP to OoT it's basically the same thing minus a few minor details (like where and why link begins his adventure).

While Ocarina of Time is a "clone" so to speak of A Link to the Past from a story perspective, it will never be regarded as such because it shifted the franchise to the third dimension. ALttP featured a cliche hero story and OoT was able to improve on that and get away with it because of the novelty of the experience. More people bash Twilight Princess-even if it is less a clone of OoT than OoT was of ALttP-because a 3D Zelda game before it already featured a similar narrative. Majora's Mask and The Wind Waker are safe in this department because they took radically different approaches with unusual antagonists who desired to destroy the world and exact retribution against perceived unfair deities, respectively.

---

What most differentiates Twilight Princess from Ocarina of Time for me isn't the darker aesthetic but rather the variety of mini-plots present in the narrative. Ocarina of Time was rather flat in terms of solely progressing the quest to defeat Ganondorf, largely failing to flesh out minor characters. This wasn't the case with Twilight Princess at all. In previous installments, children like Ilia, Colin, and Beth would have been dismissed after 20 minutes, but in TP, they play a major role throughout the first third of the game as Link endeavors to rescue them from King Bulblin's clutches. Other similar arcs are fleshed out during the Mirror of Twilight half as well. Take the unfortunate case of Yeta, for example. Her unhealthy obsession with the Mirror Shard transforms her into the grotesque Blizetta and a struggle between this creature and the hero in green ensues. More so than any game sans Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess created subtle links tying the player's fate with that of adjacent NPCs. This alone comprises an easy to miss but important difference between Twilight Princess and the N64 classic it's compared to.

 

[JuicieJ]

While Ocarina of Time is a "clone" so to speak of A Link to the Past from a story perspective, it will never be regarded as such because it shifted the franchise to the third dimension. ALttP featured a cliche hero story and OoT was able to improve on that and get away with it because of the novelty of the experience. More people bash Twilight Princess-even if it is less a clone of OoT than OoT was of ALttP-because a 3D Zelda game before it already featured a similar narrative. Majora's Mask and The Wind Waker are safe in this department because they took radically different approaches with unusual antagonists who desired to destroy the world and exact retribution against perceived unfair deities, respectively.

---

What most differentiates Twilight Princess from Ocarina of Time for me isn't the darker aesthetic but rather the variety of mini-plots present in the narrative. Ocarina of Time was rather flat in terms of solely progressing the quest to defeat Ganondorf, largely failing to flesh out minor characters. This wasn't the case with Twilight Princess at all. In previous installments, children like Ilia, Colin, and Beth would have been dismissed after 20 minutes, but in TP, they play a major role throughout the first third of the game as Link endeavors to rescue them from King Bulblin's clutches. Other similar arcs are fleshed out during the Mirror of Twilight half as well. Take the unfortunate case of Yeta, for example. Her unhealthy obsession with the Mirror Shard transforms her into the grotesque Blizetta and a struggle between this creature and the hero in green ensues. More so than any game sans Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess created subtle links tying the player's fate with that of adjacent NPCs. This alone comprises an easy to miss but important difference between Twilight Princess and the N64 classic it's compared to.

Precisely. The only real thing that changed from OoT to TP was the storytelling. OoT changed a lot of things gameplay-wise with its shift from ALttP.

 

[Terminus]

Well, TP is one of my top 3 video games PERIOD, and I played it before OoT so my thinking is warped (at least more than usual). However, TP may have been similar, but they are very different. Then again, most games after OoT have been accused of being clones to some degree. Unsurprising, since OoT had such a good plot.

 

[Random Person]

Honestly, I don't know.

I think MC is the best example of a Zelda game I've played that cloned another (that being ALttP) but I've never criticized any Zelda game for it because all the games have separated themselves enough to be distinct in some way. That being said, I don't see TP as a clone at all, but as a legitimate sequel. Twilight Princess did what many fantastic game series are known to do (but the Zelda series isn't), it took core concepts of a game and did its best to improve all the while continuing from the story of the original. The problem people have with TP alone may consist in the Zelda series being such a unique experience up until TP's arrival. The Zelda series takes core concepts, but not on the same level. Zelda's storyline was not set in stone until recently, so Nintendo could really do whatever they wanted without just cause for an explanation. Thus Nintendo would whoop out sequels, some behaving like sequels while others taking a completely different route because they never gave the expectation that they would behave like a sequel. However, Twilight Princess set out to be a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time in every way (which is good literature practice for a game), meaning there will be ALOT more similarities to its predecessor than past Zelda games have had as well as a good amount shout-outs to its predecessor because that's simply how good sequels tend to work. It also brings back a nostalgia factor for all of those who played OoT and went a really long time without having a similar experience. Now not all good sequels have to be like their predecessors. Sequels are allowed to bring change, but they are also aloud to build off of what has already happened. Saying that Twilight Princess is a clone of OoT is similar to saying inFAMOUS 2 is a clone of inFAMOUS, or Gears of War 2 is a clone of Gears of War, or Jak 3 is a clone of Jak 2. It's easier to see why these games do what they do because their stories directly continue from their predecessors' while TP takes place some 100 years after OoT, but it was still doing the same thing as these games: trying to continue where its predecessor left off.

I don't think TP should be criticized for good "game series" practice, especially if the experience didn't come with other negatives. Imo, it's not a clone, it's a sequel. If people try looking at it as such rather than looking for criticism, perhaps then they could see the game for what it's worth.

 

[JuicieJ]

Honestly, I don't know.

I think MC is the best example of a Zelda game I've played that cloned another (that being ALttP) but I've never criticized any Zelda game for it because all the games have separated themselves enough to be distinct in some way. That being said, I don't see TP as a clone at all, but as a legitimate sequel. Twilight Princess did what many fantastic game series are known to do (but the Zelda series isn't), it took core concepts of a game and did its best to improve all the while continuing from the story of the original. The problem people have with TP alone may consist in the Zelda series being such a unique experience up until TP's arrival. The Zelda series takes core concepts, but not on the same level. Zelda's storyline was not set in stone until recently, so Nintendo could really do whatever they wanted without just cause for an explanation. Thus Nintendo would whoop out sequels, some behaving like sequels while others taking a completely different route because they never gave the expectation that they would behave like a sequel. However, Twilight Princess set out to be a direct sequel to Ocarina of Time in every way (which is good literature practice for a game), meaning there will be ALOT more similarities to its predecessor than past Zelda games have had as well as a good amount shout-outs to its predecessor because that's simply how good sequels tend to work. It also brings back a nostalgia factor for all of those who played OoT and went a really long time without having a similar experience. Now not all good sequels have to be like their predecessors. Sequels are allowed to bring change, but they are also aloud to build off of what has already happened. Saying that Twilight Princess is a clone of OoT is similar to saying inFAMOUS 2 is a clone of inFAMOUS, or Gears of War 2 is a clone of Gears of War, or Jak 3 is a clone of Jak 2. It's easier to see why these games do what they do because their stories directly continue from their predecessors' while TP takes place some 100 years after OoT, but it was still doing the same thing as these games: trying to continue where its predecessor left off.

I don't think TP should be criticized for good "game series" practice, especially if the experience didn't come with other negatives. Imo, it's not a clone, it's a sequel. If people try looking at it as such rather than looking for criticism, perhaps then they could see the game for what it's worth.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're assuming people criticize Twilight Princess for telling the same story as Ocarina of Time. That's not the case. As I said in an earlier post, people criticize TP for literally taking events and puzzles used from Ocarina of Time and copying them directly. One of the prime examples is the four Poes in the Arbiter's Grounds. Zelda always plays off of the same gameplay ideas, but no other Zelda title has so blatantly copied something from a previous dungeon like that. I do think TP is overly-criticized for being an OoT clone, but that doesn't meant that it isn't one. Because it most certainly is.