Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword v.s. Ocarina of Time

[ZIO]

No, OP is asking which one YOU THINK is better. Not which one IS better.

There's a difference.

 

[GwJ]

SS is a better game

Again...

/thread

 

[Tacket]

No, OP is asking which one YOU THINK is better. Not which one IS better.

There's a difference.

I know, my wording was just bad.
I choose OoT.

HAcoreRD

 

[Luigitoilet]

No, OP is asking which one YOU THINK is better. Not which one IS better.

There's a difference.

There really isn't, though.

 

[tm]

Oh please, a Zelda game with ever lasting gameplay? Every single one I played through and beat shortly, and only picked it up again much MUCH later to beat it again, maybe. At least Skyward had it so you can start a new game with double the difficulty.

You've clearly never seen any OoT/ MM speedruns.

And 'doubling the difficulty' is really not that at all. It just means that if you **** up, you'll die more easily. It just makes the game take way longer, not more difficult. Unlike OoT: Master Quest, where you're actually forced to do the dungeons in the WRONG ORDER, and where all the dungeons are revamped, now that is what I call more difficult.

So basically, gameplay can be unthoughtful and badly constructed but if it has a good story and succeeds on other superficial levels, you still have a great video game

I don't get you people

^What he said.

Also, not every gamer that played OoT when it was new was a kid. It got critical acclaim through the entire audience. You can all pick favorites now, but will SS have the legacy of OoT or even MM?

Even ten years from now, OoT will be more well known than any other zelda game. Based on the 'OoT is only loved because nostalgia' logic, then SS should become far more famous, because there are children today that will have that nostalgia in the future, AND the game is just so much better, as most of you say.

 

[GwJ]

Stop talking about things like legacy and nostalgia; that skews your decision.

Judge them as if they're both new games.

 

[ZIO]

f you were to do that, it's only fair to judge OoT as if it were a new game at the time of its release (in 1998). The credentials of what makes a video game such TODAY is drastically different from that time.

It would be unfair to do that to OoT because it was a stepping stone for many games today. It has aged. It can't beat out SS on a technical level.

 

[Tacket]

f you were to do that, it's only fair to judge OoT as if it were a new game at the time of its release (in 1998). The credentials of what makes a video game such TODAY is drastically different from that time.

It would be unfair to do that to OoT because it was a stepping stone for many games today. It has aged. It can't beat out SS on a technical level.

That was the point I was trying to make in my previous post about the time difference between the two games.

HAcoreRD

 

[ZIO]

Well you obviously have an issue with articulating your thoughts coherently.

 

[Tacket]

Obviously.

In all seriousness, I don't think I do, but if you believe so then that's fine too .

HAcoreRD

 

[GwJ]

f you were to do that, it's only fair to judge OoT as if it were a new game at the time of its release (in 1998). The credentials of what makes a video game such TODAY is drastically different from that time.

It would be unfair to do that to OoT because it was a stepping stone for many games today. It has aged. It can't beat out SS on a technical level.

I don't think that's accurate. If you were to judge OoT at the time of release, it would be good because it revolutionized 3D gameplay and stuff that is already considered staple styles in modern games. I meant as if they both came out today. Put everything on an even playing field.

 

[ZIO]

That doesn't put them on an even playing field because one came out in 1998, and the other in 2011. They were both met with different standards and built around different standards.

You do as you say and then OoT feels like an iOS game you'd pay $5 for.

 

[GwJ]

Are we judging the games as they are now or as they WERE? If it's as they WERE, then we're not judging which is better, we're judging how well they were received at the time of release.

 

[etecoon]

It would be unfair to do that to OoT because it was a stepping stone for many games today. It has aged. It can't beat out SS on a technical level.

And since when are games judged solely on a technical level? There is no age adjustment necessary here, OoT is flat out better than SS as far as game design is concerned. SS features faulty motion controls(sword combat is good, pretty much everything else is deeply flawed and they shoehorn it into places where it doesn't belong), a personal assistant that treats you like a mentally handicapped ape and you can't elect to ignore her even on new game+, lack of attention to flow caused by things like extremely slow unskippable text, treasure messages that you are forced to sit through every time you restart the system(way to learn from how everyone hated TP's rupees nintendo!), segregated regions, unecessary camera zooms which are not only a flow killer but also work in tandem with fi to ensure that a player never has to use their brain even in the slightest-the game just literally tells you what to do every step of the way...

If OoT's fans are blinded by nostalgia here, SS' are even more blinded by the new paint effect, prisoners of the moment. And going back to the original point here, even on a technical level SS falls short with things like the flying and swimming controls, or the harp OHGODTHEHARP. the harp not only is lolmotion controls but it also forms the perfect storm with the games tendency to tell you how to do everything, because it actually tells you how to do it the wrong way. OoT may not look pretty in 2012, but it still PLAYS well, and you can't say that about SS.

 

[ZIO]

Fair enough. Those are legitimate complaints.

When I have the time, I'll sit down and critically think on OoT because I do feel SS is the better game.

Right now, I have a final drawing project I need to focus on.

 

[etecoon]

in the interest of fairness I will give SS that it is less glitchy(though this can be a bad thing itself but I'll give it points here anyway), has real time instant item menus, and I would say a better overall set of dungeons although OoT's best are better(but the childhood dungeons are straight up bad, SS does a better job avoiding that).

 

[Jam Stunna]

I strongly disagree that Skyward Sword has better characterization than OoT. With the exception of Groose and Ghirahim, there was close to zero character development for anyone. I was actually angered by the dumb look on Gaepora's face the entire game. Your daughter is missing, could you at least act like you care?

I'm not saying that OoT did characterization better; they're both equally bad in that department. But even though the characterization in OoT was weak, the story of the game at least pushed the characters in directions that had consequences. Saria and Link would never be together as friends again, and that was at least something to think about, as opposed to the doofuses on Skyloft walking around in circles for eternity.

The two Zeldas that really did characterization right were MM and WW, and I don't think that it's a coincidence that both of those games are pretty different from the other 3D Zeldas for a host of reasons.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You've clearly never seen any OoT/ MM speedruns.

Uh... wait... what does that have to do with it having long replay value? XD

And 'doubling the difficulty' is really not that at all. It just means that if you **** up, you'll die more easily. It just makes the game take way longer, not more difficult. Unlike OoT: Master Quest, where you're actually forced to do the dungeons in the WRONG ORDER, and where all the dungeons are revamped, now that is what I call more difficult.

Having to actually be careful makes the game more difficult. I'd use your own logic against you and say the dungeons being revamped makes it take longer and not increase the difficulty, for even in Master Quest enemies deal the same amount of damage and thus you don't have to be as careful, you just have to do more things. In Skyward the times where you have had missing hearts, well, those are doubled in the new game+. The game gains more difficulty that way, especially in the Boss Rush mode.

Also, not every gamer that played OoT when it was new was a kid. It got critical acclaim through the entire audience. You can all pick favorites now, but will SS have the legacy of OoT or even MM?

It doesn't really matter if you were a kid or not, the game got such critical acclaim because of the time it came out and how it compared to how things were back then. To say that since SS will not have the legacy that OoT did for the next generation is a bit odd considering that the gaming industry has already evolved to the point where games are quite commonplace and everything had already been done in general. It doesn't make sense to have another "OoT". That time has gone and passed.

And since when are games judged solely on a technical level? There is no age adjustment necessary here, OoT is flat out better than SS as far as game design is concerned. SS features faulty motion controls(sword combat is good, pretty much everything else is deeply flawed and they shoehorn it into places where it doesn't belong), a personal assistant that treats you like a mentally handicapped ape and you can't elect to ignore her even on new game+, lack of attention to flow caused by things like extremely slow unskippable text, treasure messages that you are forced to sit through every time you restart the system(way to learn from how everyone hated TP's rupees nintendo!), segregated regions, unecessary camera zooms which are not only a flow killer but also work in tandem with fi to ensure that a player never has to use their brain even in the slightest-the game just literally tells you what to do every step of the way...


If OoT's fans are blinded by nostalgia here, SS' are even more blinded by the new paint effect, prisoners of the moment. And going back to the original point here, even on a technical level SS falls short with things like the flying and swimming controls, or the harp OHGODTHEHARP. the harp not only is lolmotion controls but it also forms the perfect storm with the games tendency to tell you how to do everything, because it actually tells you how to do it the wrong way. OoT may not look pretty in 2012, but it still PLAYS well, and you can't say that about SS.

Actually, you can say that about SS. Because, well, people do say that. Like I've said, OoT bares less flaws than the rest of the games, but it is quite plain and safe considering how it was the first 3D Zelda game being put on the 64. I feel as if we agreed that OoT was the best, we'd have to presume the oldest games of all of the franchises that
we know and love are the best because of their simplicity and safe design. When playing Super Mario Bros... why hate it? Seriously, why hate the game? Hard to come up with a reason, and yet people can find things bothersome for the games that came out much much later that took more risks and has more ambition. The Galaxy games are my personal favorite and have many objective better qualities, and yet there are those that are sickened by the games.

This is partly why the later games are superior, because they offer more to love at the risk of losing their dull and simple design. The older games were great for their time, but if I am to submit they are better, it'd be like asking for Nintendo to continue doing such simple and safe games, and I refuse to do that.

I strongly disagree that Skyward Sword has better characterization than OoT. With the exception of Groose and Ghirahim, there was close to zero character development for anyone. I was actually angered by the dumb look on Gaepora's face the entire game. Your daughter is missing, could you at least act like you care?

What people mean when there is better characterization is not development but the actual characters themselves having more of a personality and having a more interesting one at that. In terms of characters in OoT, it is almost like there isn't one, just figureheads like Zelda and Ganondorf that you remember because they are important to the story. And when you mentioned Ghirahim, and especially Groose, these are people that receive more character, and development for the latter case, than anyone else ever on the home consoles. (Not too knowledgeable of the DS Zeldas, but they aren't part of the discussion).

 

[etecoon]

I feel as if we agreed that OoT was the best, we'd have to presume the oldest games of all of the franchises that
we know and love are the best because of their simplicity and safe design

the NES zeldas might be the most radical games in the series actually, the "zelda formula" that has characterized so much of the series came into existence with LTTP. if you wanted to claim that LTTP is better than OoT I would have no problem with that, I disagree but my position on that would basically be another topic entirely. in any case, with the exception of SS the games became more stale and safe as time went on, TP follows in OoT and LTTP's footsteps rigidly.

I agree that SS has good characterization but that to me is ancillary, story, characterization, and presentation are nice, but a video game must be fun to play above all else IMO

 

[Jam Stunna]

What people mean when there is better characterization is not development but the actual characters themselves having more of a personality and having a more interesting one at that. In terms of characters in OoT, it is almost like there isn't one, just figureheads like Zelda and Ganondorf that you remember because they are important to the story. And when you mentioned Ghirahim, and especially Groose, these are people that receive more character, and development for the latter case, than anyone else ever on the home consoles. (Not too knowledgeable of the DS Zeldas, but they aren't part of the discussion).

Yeah, that's what I disagree with. Like I said, OoT is not a masterpiece of characterization, but SS is not better than OoT. Saria, Mido, Ruto and the rest may not be the most deep characters to ever appear in a game, but they're certainly just as well drawn (which is to say not well drawn at all) as any character in SS, with the exception of Groose and Ghirahim.

As to the two G's being better developed than any other console character, I also disagree there. Skull Kid from MM was better done, as were Anju and Kafei, Ganondorf and Tetra from WW and Midna and Zant in TP. Basically, Zelda has had some great characters, but they're largely not found in OoT or SS. Actually, I do think Groose is one of the best Zelda characters, so I'll put him with the rest. Ghirahim, not so much. His impact comes more from tons of screen time, not the quality of his character.

 

[tm]

If we are judging them as if they are both new games... That's just absurd. OoT would be laughed at ridiculously for using exclusively 90's technology. That just doesn't even make sense.

And even so, I would still say that OoT is better, even if they were both new. Honestly, yes, I mean that. Why? He said it all there:

And since when are games judged solely on a technical level? There is no age adjustment necessary here, OoT is flat out better than SS as far as game design is concerned. SS features faulty motion controls(sword combat is good, pretty much everything else is deeply flawed and they shoehorn it into places where it doesn't belong), a personal assistant that treats you like a mentally handicapped ape and you can't elect to ignore her even on new game+, lack of attention to flow caused by things like extremely slow unskippable text, treasure messages that you are forced to sit through every time you restart the system(way to learn from how everyone hated TP's rupees nintendo!), segregated regions, unecessary camera zooms which are not only a flow killer but also work in tandem with fi to ensure that a player never has to use their brain even in the slightest-the game just literally tells you what to do every step of the way...

If OoT's fans are blinded by nostalgia here, SS' are even more blinded by the new paint effect, prisoners of the moment. And going back to the original point here, even on a technical level SS falls short with things like the flying and swimming controls, or the harp OHGODTHEHARP. the harp not only is lolmotion controls but it also forms the perfect storm with the games tendency to tell you how to do everything, because it actually tells you how to do it the wrong way. OoT may not look pretty in 2012, but it still PLAYS well, and you can't say that about SS.

And regarding the difficulty, master quest does not 'simply take longer', because the puzzles are almost all new, and you're not told exactly where you have to go next (or that you need fire arrows before you can usually even get them, for example). With SS, the 'difficulty' is only is being careful. You already know how to do everything, it's simply a matter of recreating it without having to start from the last save (And even if you forgot, there's still a freaking guidebook for you every time you don't know what to do). And yes, speedrunning does increase the replay value of a game, IMO.

I'm not saying I want game makers to go back to glitchy, pixellated, and already-done games. I'm saying I want game makers to cut the flashy bull**** and make games that PLAY WELL, and make you think. Sure, it's fancy that swinging the remote and pointing it does stuff on screen. Impressive, but it's a one-trick pony, and its back is breaking.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I don't think most people try speed runs on Zelda games, I think a very very VERY small fraction spend time beating the game over and over again using glitches and stuff just to try and shave a few seconds off your best time. That sounds really boring. .___. Only the most hardcore of hardcore can bear doing that, like, the kind of people that somehow discover those glitches. Seriously, how the **** did they end up doing that?

 

[Jam Stunna]

I love watching speedruns. The only thing that prevents me from trying them myself is a lack of time, ironically enough.

 

[tm]

Well OoT is only speed-ran more than any other game. By quite a bit

http://speedrunslive.com/gamelist/
http://speedrunslive.com/gamelist/game.php?game=oot

yeah yeah, only 358 people on that site have done it, but there are plenty that don't belong to that particular community, or that haven't been recorded. Even just implementing some speedrunning strategies (but not actually trying for speedruns) can make the gameplay reinspiring.

edit:
And I'm not saying that this is a super-valuable aspect, I'm just saying that it does add to the value, just a little, so I'm not just going to give this part of the argument up and concede that it's irrelevant.

 

[Matador]

How is Master Quest part of this discussion? Lol...

I also disagree with any of the Zelda games having more character development than SS, especially as far as Zelda herself. Just think about the whole beginning before she falls from Skyloft. Which Zelda game developed Zelda as a character THAT much? She actually had a personality, Link's relationship with her is made extremely clear, the way she tells off Groose for picking on Link, the way her entire demeanor changes when you actually see her again with Impa. I dunno about you, but that added a lot to the game for me.

The first encounter with Ghirahim...that was also incredible to me. I walked into the first boss area expecting some big, angry baddie, but instead, there's this guy. With a personality. And a (one sided) dialogue! That was huge to me. And the Ominous music to add to the guy's already bada** atmosphere...it was amazing to me. The only OoT encounter that's anywhere near as good to me is the encounter with Ganondorf at the end...especially after watching him ****ing things up throughout the game. The long stairway and organ were just icing on the cake.

Everything that's been said against Skyward Sword in this thread are pretty much true, especially Etecoon's post regarding the disconnection of the worlds and unskippable treasure text every time you restart the game. The thing is, to me those issues are extremely minor. They don't take away from the game very much to me...not enough to dull the impact of the good aspects of the game.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Wind Waker does the best job with Zelda, by noy treating her like Zelda. SS was doing that pretty well until she fell below the clouds and then disappeared/went to sleep for the rest of the game.

 

[GwJ]

I liked Zelda more in WW when she was a pirate. She wasn't as cool as a princess.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I liked Zelda more in WW when she was a pirate. She wasn't as cool as a princess.

Yeah, this is one of my major complaints about all Zelda games, that Zelda as a character kicks *** until she becomes Zelda:

OoT- Kid Zelda is awesome, Sheik is AWESOMER, grown-up Zelda is encased in carbonite
WW- Tetra is awesome, Zelda is locked in a basement
TP- ...? I'm still not sure what happened there
SS- Girl next door Zelda is awesome, Epic Quest Zelda (which should have been the AWESEOMEST OF ALL)is MIA, then goes to sleep

It really does suck, because they've had some potentially great Zeldas, and totally squandered her every single time.

 

[Matador]

Wind Waker does the best job with Zelda, by noy treating her like Zelda. SS was doing that pretty well until she fell below the clouds and then disappeared/went to sleep for the rest of the game.

I liked both WW and SS Zelda best by far. I just prefer SS Zelda a little more. There was more of a "zomg-I-hafta-save-her!" factor with the personality they chose for her. I feel like that's the way it should be.

 

[theeboredone]

Might be nitpicking here, but Zelda's development in SS was meh. The reason why is because you don't get to see it so to speak. The moment she walls off Skyloft, you never truly understand what makes her mature minus the conclusion of "Oh, she's on a journey." I mean, does she come through some epic revelation? Does some holy Goddess speak to her? By the time you truly catch up to her, she's all "I gotta do this." It's nice to see she changed...but what caused it?

Girhaim...maybe it's all the love he gets, but I truly think he's overrated. It's almost as if Zelda fans have never seen a villain with his personality, let alone that personality. Characters like him have existed in the past, and he doesn't really stand out much from the stereotype. He doesn't really "develop" per say. I mean for the love of God, he's always doing his "I can kill you now...but nah I won't" deal that every villain loves to do. For the love of all that is evil, if you have the chance, just kill the main hero.

Not that I think about it, you only see Groose's development shine the most. I mean, from bullying you, to falling off Skyloft with you, to hearing the old lady's speech which resonates within him, and going from there.

I respect what you have to say Mat, but I am inclined to agree more with Etecoon. All those flaws (and probably some more I could list) just give me a disconnect. Should every game engross me into their world and make me feel in tune? No of course not, but these flaws are so...unacceptable, it just makes me wonder what the hell Nintendo was thinking when they made the game.

 

[Matador]

My deal with Ghirahim is just how unique it is to the Zelda franchise. Such a sharp contrast from your Odolwa/Gohma/The thing on Valoo's tail for a first boss of the game, and his interactions with Link throughout the game haven't really happened much in the past games outside of with Ganondorf. How much personality or character development on that level is present in OoT?

And I obviously understand preferring one over the other. Every game in the franchise is great. I'm moreso just glad that MM seems to have a lot of respect in this thread, which is probably my favorite Zelda game if it's not SS.

 

[theeboredone]

I'll definitely agree Girhaim was the first of his kind in Zelda. But I am from the perspective that...as much as I would love to see story and character development take a huge part in Zelda games...it's currently not a big aspect of it. So it's not something I would consider using to put over the top of other Zelda games. It's like asking for one to praise Mario Galaxy for its "story" compared to that of 64, just because it's a bit more sprinkled. Just not a big part of the game (i'm not counting RPG Marios).

So with that being said, I still feel gameplay is most important, followed by presentation, and naturally things like what sort of critical acclaim it got upon release and the impact it had. Hell, you could easily make a case that MM is better, but I could also make a case it is better, because it improved on what OoT didn't do right in terms of gameplay and presentation.

 

[etecoon]

Everything that's been said against Skyward Sword in this thread are pretty much true, especially Etecoon's post regarding the disconnection of the worlds and unskippable treasure text every time you restart the game. The thing is, to me those issues are extremely minor. They don't take away from the game very much to me...not enough to dull the impact of the good aspects of the game.

I can also see this. the game does have a lot of upside and I did enjoy it a lot on first playthrough, I just can't see myself replaying it too much

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I only ever cared about the villain or the mistress in distress until having playing played Skyward Sword, that is why the character factor hits so hard with me. Yeah, there is Tetra, but it just didn't hit me as hard as the beautiful Skyward princess. And the Ganondorf in that game had like one somewhat almost interesting scene, if I can remember correctly. Nothing compared to the "overrated" Ghirahim.

 

[Jam Stunna]

WW Ganon has far better characterization than Ghirahim. As several posters have pointed out, Ghirahim's whole deal is that he's a surprisingly sexual character for a Zelda game, but other than that, what else is there to him?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

If you think Ghirahim is a sexual character and that is what everyone says has going for him, then there is no hope for you. People say he is sexual to make fun of him or have fun with him, none of his fans actually put that up as a reason why he is great. o-o

 

[Luigitoilet]

Characterization is much more than backstory and origin exposition. Personally, Ghirahim tells me much more about his character with his aesthetic design, his mannerisms and style of dialogue than Gannondorf does telling me a monologue about how sad he was for his people and that's why he's a bad guy. Ghirahim might not be more complex, but he's certainly more interesting than the over-trodden ground of "sympathetic antagonist". To me, anyhow.

 

[Jam Stunna]

If you think Ghirahim is a sexual character and that is what everyone says has going for him, then there is no hope for you. People say he is sexual to make fun of him or have fun with him, none of his fans actually put that up as a reason why he is great. o-o

Ghirahim is sexualized. How can you possibly interpret this scene in any way but sexual?
[yt]p6aBI-aoC8E#t=2m27s[/yt]

Characterization is much more than backstory and origin exposition. Personally, Ghirahim tells me much more about his character with his aesthetic design, his mannerisms and style of dialogue than Gannondorf does telling me a monologue about how sad he was for his people and that's why he's a bad guy. Ghirahim might not be more complex, but he's certainly more interesting than the over-trodden ground of "sympathetic antagonist". To me, anyhow.

I don't consider Gdorf to be sympathetic, just motivated. That's what Ghirahim lacks for me: why does he serve Demise? Was he created by Demise? I always suspected that was the case, but it's never explicitly stated.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Ghirahim being the blade of Demise, serving his "master" throughout the game like Fi does for Link, makes me hopeful, if not a bit unrealistically, that we can see some form of him later on. If Demise is to reappear, Ghirahim should definitely have some sort of appearance as well.

Jam, that had nothing to do with what I said and I'm thinking you are just joking at this point, so I'll pass over it. As for why Ghirahim serves Demise, I just stated why. He is to Demise as Fi is to Link. It is true that they didn't spell everything out for us, but that can be elaborated in another game. Although, it doesn't need to be, knowing Nintendo, in order to appear again.

 

[GwJ]

Well, Demise is basically gone. He's destroyed. The problem we have with Ganon is that he's able to be revived. The reason for that is because what's being revived is Demise's hatred, not Ganon himself. With Demise, he isn't made of something that can be revived like that. When he was destroyed in battle, he was destroyed.