The "newness" of it? Huh? Do you mean that Twilight Princess is a newer game, so some would be inherently biased against it (a greatly exaggerated phenomenon), or that the redux of Ocarina is "new," and that people tend to prefer the new to the old (also an exaggerated phenomenon, and one that generally excludes intellectuals)?mik1 said:
Zelda 2, fun as it was, was essentially a side-scrolling action game with ultra-simple fighting mechanics, an RPG-style overworld and experience/magic points. In other words, it wasn't wholly original. A Link to the Past was, overall, a return to the form of the original. The dark world mechanic was brilliant (though it was pulled off much better in the tragically flawed Metroid Prime 2: Echoes), but most of the weapons and equipment were unnecessary or were based on the items from the original. Wind Waker did some very original things with the art style and the means of travel, but some poor design decisions (the exact same fighting mechanics as Ocarina with a couple of parry maneuvers thrown in, the deletion of 2 dungeons, the constant breaking up of gameplay to change the wind's direction, the fetch quest at the end) marred the experience. And what do every one of these games have in common, beyond their delivery of a somewhat unique yet quintessentially Zelda experience? They were all very very cartoonish in art style and in execution. Unfortunately, Twilight Princess, one of the only 2 Zelda games that has a more adult art style, also suffers from constant retreading. I felt it as I played the game. Forest temple, then fire/volcano temple, then water temple. Some form of Gohma. Some form of a "Giant hands" boss. Hookshot. Boomerang. Bombs (please don't suggest that "water bombs" are original).
Ever since a Link To the Past, all console Zeldas have had some degree of a two-world mechanic. Link to the Past had the light/dark worlds, Ocarina had the 2 Hyrules separated by 7 years of war and disaster and featured 2 links of 2 different ages. Wind Waker buried Hyrule under the ocean and forced you to visit the forgotten land. Twilight Princess had...the twilight realm, which aside from the Zant level was not terribly interesting and was very repetitive (and the wolf gameplay, cool as it was conceptually, felt antiquated the very first time I played the game). In my opinion and apparently those of many others, Ocarina's two world dynamic was more compelling and more fun, especially when the game required you to interact with both worlds to complete an objective. Ocarina was also Zelda's answer to Mario's leap into 3D, which (though it took a few years) dragged the rest of gaming with it. Ocarina represents to many, myself included, as the biggest leap forward yet experienced in the Zelda franchise, as well as the embodiment of everything they were trying to do previously. To us, it's the pinnacle. A very good analogy would be Resident Evil 4, compared to every one of the other games, remakes and all.
But what's interesting is that the last time I played these games I found that I enjoyed Twilight Princess, overall, more than I did Ocarina. I'm certain that I've never enjoyed any game quite as much as I enjoyed my first run-through of Ocarina back in (was it '97?). But the last time I played through both games, I enjoyed the newer one more. I'm not sure if it had a more modern polish and so seemed less obsolete, or if it was just a more thorough experience, or if my feelings at the time were incidental. Doesn't matter. I'll be playing through both of them again, and possibly the entire (console) series, before Skyward Sword arrives.
