Iridescence
Emancipated Wind Fish
- Joined
- May 11, 2014
- Location
- United States
I originally wanted to convince myself that this was better than PH because it seemed to have topped it in nearly every single way, but in the end, Spirit Tracks, just wasn't, at least to me, very fun.
I think about Miyamoto's design processes of games, like Mario 64 for example which started out as just Mario chasing a rabbit in a garden. What he does with his games is that he asks himself at the very core (the controls and basic gameplay): Is this game fun or not? If a game is not fun at the core, why spend so much work creating vast environments and such?
With Spirit Tracks, it feels like Aunoma had a concept but worked out the actual game mechanics of it afterward. Riding a train is not fun. Backtracking to areas numerous times via train is not fun. There is no beautiful scenery in the N64-ish graphics to be had while you're watching idly. Having to re-route to dodge death-trains that will instantly kill you is not fun. Having an abstraction of an overworld instead of having a real one, is not fun.
The flaws of this game also extend in it being so similar to Phantom Hourglass. Tower of Spirits beat TotOK, but who said we needed another giant hub-dungeon. The puzzles in Spirit Tracks are more complex (note: not more creative or clever), but the dungeons still have lazy level design and really no personality to distinguish themselves).
The puzzles in the game are kind of like asking "what's 212 multiplied by 49". It's not hard to solve. It's not much different than solving 2 times 4. It's just much more involved and annoying. In a sense, despite my love of more complex Zelda games, I enjoyed the serene simplicity of Phantom Hourglass
I agree that Spirit Tracks is the more ambitious of the two (though still formulaic). It gets some points for taking some risks in its (good enough - not great) story, but I can't say any of its concepts were executed well. Playable Zelda is great but I would have rather had her in a better game.
I think about Miyamoto's design processes of games, like Mario 64 for example which started out as just Mario chasing a rabbit in a garden. What he does with his games is that he asks himself at the very core (the controls and basic gameplay): Is this game fun or not? If a game is not fun at the core, why spend so much work creating vast environments and such?
With Spirit Tracks, it feels like Aunoma had a concept but worked out the actual game mechanics of it afterward. Riding a train is not fun. Backtracking to areas numerous times via train is not fun. There is no beautiful scenery in the N64-ish graphics to be had while you're watching idly. Having to re-route to dodge death-trains that will instantly kill you is not fun. Having an abstraction of an overworld instead of having a real one, is not fun.
The flaws of this game also extend in it being so similar to Phantom Hourglass. Tower of Spirits beat TotOK, but who said we needed another giant hub-dungeon. The puzzles in Spirit Tracks are more complex (note: not more creative or clever), but the dungeons still have lazy level design and really no personality to distinguish themselves).
The puzzles in the game are kind of like asking "what's 212 multiplied by 49". It's not hard to solve. It's not much different than solving 2 times 4. It's just much more involved and annoying. In a sense, despite my love of more complex Zelda games, I enjoyed the serene simplicity of Phantom Hourglass
I agree that Spirit Tracks is the more ambitious of the two (though still formulaic). It gets some points for taking some risks in its (good enough - not great) story, but I can't say any of its concepts were executed well. Playable Zelda is great but I would have rather had her in a better game.
Last edited: