{"id":2058,"date":"2010-02-12T00:55:13","date_gmt":"2010-02-12T00:55:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/danielprimed.com\/?p=2058"},"modified":"2012-03-11T09:54:00","modified_gmt":"2012-03-11T09:54:00","slug":"zelda-okami-and-the-question-of-stamina","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danielprimed.com\/2010\/02\/zelda-okami-and-the-question-of-stamina\/","title":{"rendered":"Zelda, Okami and The Question of Stamina"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"ameratsu-okami-wolf\"<\/p>\n

\n

The similarities between Okami<\/a><\/em> and Zelda: Twilight Princess<\/a><\/em> are incredible, to say the least. More so, after you’ve considered the calibre of their developers and the close proximity in which the two games were released. I mean all this from a primarily contextual level, rather than a structural and mechanical level, mind<\/a> you<\/a>. The most interesting difference, I’ve found, has been the effect that the 40+ hour journeys leave on their players.<\/p>\n

\n

Twilight Princess<\/em> took me an incredible 62hrs to complete with basically all the side quests completed. Okami <\/em>took me about 42hrs to complete, with significant portion of the side quests mostly completed too.<\/p>\n

\n

Twilight Princess<\/em> feels appropriately sized. Indeed, it’s a HUGE quest, don’t get me wrong there, but one which can be overcome. Okami<\/em>‘s story, on the other hand, feels like a burden and leaves the player reeling from its lethargic length. The contention is simple: why does Okami<\/em>‘s endearing length work against the player and Twilight Princess<\/em>‘ not?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The answer is also simple: the Zelda games are tacitly understood as a collection of units, whereas Okami<\/em> is not (it’s continuous). This makes the Zelda games quantifiable and regimented, in turn making it easier to digest over a long play time, instead of feeling like the Never Ending Story<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Let’s unpack that a little, shall we?<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

In regards to Okami<\/em>, what I mean by \u201ccontinuous\u201d<\/em> is that Amaterasu follows a stream of connected areas linearly (ie. a river crossing->field->town->castle). The story is malleable, although generally keeps itself within this structure, with scenario’s starting and finishing within their selected area. Now, there is a goal in sight, collect the 13 brush strokes and destroy Orochi, however, brush strokes are sporadically dolled out, front-ended at the start of the game and then only very carefully handed out thereafter; in effect weakening the grip which the celestial brush has over the narrative. Furthermore\u2014and yes, there will be spoilers ahead\u2014the player is deceived into thinking that they’ve defeated Orochi (thereby completing the game), not just once, but twice. The implication of this tomfoolery is that it puts a damper on the rest\u2014and by rest, I mean majority\u2014of the experience, leaving the player with no clear indication on their progression. Personally, I felt left out of the lurch, decidedly distanced from the experience that I was keen to immerse myself in.<\/p>\n

One could quite rightly argue that Zelda: Twilight Princess<\/em> (and Ocarina of Time<\/em>) also tricks the player, right? Well, yes, they do, however the trick does not allude to the game’s completion, Link doesn’t defeat Gannon at the start of the game, he defeats him at the end, the same cannot be said for Okami<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

The initial 10hrs of Zelda:TP<\/em> and Zelda:OOT <\/em>are treated as prelude chapters. The end game is unclear and there are many absent spots in the player’s inventory, so the player suspects the game to open up at some time, but is uncertain. Zelda’s \u201cgotcha moment\u201d<\/em> therefore works successfully then because:<\/p>\n

\n