The OoT effect.

[superyoshi888]

Link to original post: [drupal=2940]The OoT effect.[/drupal]



For today's blog I'm just going to take a look at something that makes me rather annoyed.

But firstly, what is the OoT effect? Anyone familiar with The Legend of Zelda(practically anyone who can call themselves a hardcore gamer) knows that OoT stands for Ocarina of Time, a game that consistently appears alongside Super Mario Bros. 3 as as one of the greatest games of all time. However, I believe that term is being used rather incorrectly.

best(adj)- excelling all others

Anyone who is willing to take the time and look at the games will know this isn't the case. Both the Wind Waker and Twilight Princess top OoT in terms of gameplay. However, they are often thought of as inferior simply due to them not being as innovative.

innovation(noun)- the introduction of something new

With that in mind, innovative is something that brings innovation. OoT brought the Legend of Zelda to the 3D world and refined the 3D gameplay that Super Mario 64 introduced(both started development around the same time, so it's only logical that OoT plays similar to an advanced version of SM64). Likewise, Super Mario Bros. 3 took the gameplay from Super Mario Bros. and went all out with it. Pokemon Gold and Silver versions added a full 100 more Pokemon, added a new region, 2 new types, the Special stat Split, and retained the monsters and region from the previous games.

I could go more in depth about other games, but I'll get to my point. WW and TP are better than OoT, Super Mario World and New Super Mario Bros. Wii are better than SMB3, and Pokemon R/S/E and D/P/Pt are better than Pokemon G/S/C. What they all lacked in comparison to their predecessors were the innovation that made them popular games in the first place.

Next time you see a "List of the Best Games of All Time" list put out by a big gaming website or magazine, keep in mind games are probably going to be placed based on popularity and subjective feelings rather than the actual objective comparison of a game to others. This means that SMB3 and OoT will likly top the lists, given their popularity as innovative games.

And with that overly lengthy blog, I leave you guys to debate my opinion.

 

[Requiem]

For one, twilight princess definitely does not top OoT in terms of gameplay.
Secondly, one of the biggest arguments for placing games like OoT so high on rankings, is because at the time, it's viewed as how it was in the time it came out. For that time it was simply ****ing amazing. I would definitely not call Twilight Princess ****ing amazing, when it came out.

 

[Clint_Eastwood]

I disagree with everything you just said. Twilight Princess was not fun, Super Mario Bros. 3 Had very little to do with it's franchise counterpart on the N64, and OoT was far more innovative than any other Zelda game excluding the original (for obvious reasons).

 

[Jam Stunna]

I agree that WW topped OoT in terms of gameplay, but I don't see the same argument being true for TP.

 

[finalark]

That wasn't overly lengthy. I would have perfered that you went on longer.

Anyway, I agree with what you have to say. I found TP much more enjoyable than OoT, and Mario Galaxy is not only better than Mario World, but Mario 64 as well.

 

[Jim Morrison]

keep in mind games

This caught my eye.
I will be watching this thread VERY closely.

 

[superyoshi888]

Hahaha, I knew people would be pissed when I posted my thoughts.

For one, twilight princess definitely does not top OoT in terms of gameplay.
Secondly, one of the biggest arguments for placing games like OoT so high on rankings, is because at the time, it's viewed as how it was in the time it came out. For that time it was simply ****ing amazing. I would definitely not call Twilight Princess ****ing amazing, when it came out.

In other terms, innovation. OoT was ****ing amazing at the time because nothing like it really had been seen before. TP is seen as just another version of OoT, which reminds me of something for my arguement.

http://wii.kombo.com/article.php?artid=15253

And I quote:

"There were a lot of things we couldn't do [back with OoT] due to technical limitations. But I think we've been solving those issues with every Zelda since then. With each entry, I've tried to add things I couldn't do before. Actually, it's like I've been remaking it during these years. So if you ask me if there's going to be a Zelda remake… I thought I was making it all this time! So it maybe I haven't done well enough, I haven't been up to the expected level."

"It's complicated. Past things belong to our memories, and they grow bigger in there. If you play Ocarina of Time nowadays, you notice that it's not that good. Sometimes it doesn't move as fast as it should, graphics aren't as beautiful as they should be; there are some confusing parts… Any present Zelda is technically superior. Everything goes faster, more fluid… but to best Ocarina of Time, a great change –comparable to what happened back then- must be introduced. And that'll be rather complicated".

A quick Google search brings up more info on Aonuma's thoughts about the game. But even Aonuma himself admits that a new Zelda will likely never make as big of a splash in the eyes of gamers like OoT did.

I disagree with everything you just said. Twilight Princess was not fun, Super Mario Bros. 3 Had very little to do with it's franchise counterpart on the N64, and OoT was far more innovative than any other Zelda game excluding the original (for obvious reasons).

Fun is a subjective matter. For me, I had more fun playing New Super Mario Bros. Wii than I did any of its predecessors. Likewise, I got bored of Scribblenauts quickly and discovered how amazing Metroid Zero Mission was.

You obviously missed the point if you think I was comparing SMB3 to SM64 in terms of gameplay. I was simply showing how OoT built upon what SM64 introduced and made it better, like what SMB3 did with SMB's gameplay.

And I absolutely agree with you about OoT and the Original Zelda being far more innovative than the others.

I agree that WW topped OoT in terms of gameplay, but I don't see the same argument being true for TP.

This is simply another subjective matter. It is close to impossible to compare two games objectively without your subjective experiance affecting your views. For example, I think Pokemon Red and Blue are some of the best of the series, simply because they have so much replay value for me. Of course, objectively this isn't true.

That wasn't overly lengthy. I would have perfered that you went on longer.

Anyway, I agree with what you have to say. I found TP much more enjoyable than OoT, and Mario Galaxy is not only better than Mario World, but Mario 64 as well.

Well, I felt that the blog was longer than my usual.

keep in mind games

This caught my eye.
I will be watching this thread VERY closely.

Mind games, son. XD

 

[finalark]

I agree that WW topped OoT in terms of gameplay, but I don't see the same argument being true for TP.

I have to agree with you here, Jam. WW was amazing, my only problem with it was the Triforce hunt near the end of the game. However, while I personally think that OoT was better than TP in terms of gameplay, I found that TP was an overall much more satisfing game.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Although I disagree with many of the claims you make in the OP, I agree with the fundamental idea of the blog.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Although I disagree with many of the claims you make in the OP, I agree with the fundamental idea of the blog.

That's a pretty fair way to characterize it.

 

[Jim Morrison]

You know, nostalgia makes almost any game seem good. I know games that weren't good AT ALL that look great when I look back. Think of Tekken 3, it wasn't THAT good, just fun when you were young. Or NBA street 2. That game looks so great, but it's really not <_<
Of course, games like Spyro were great and stay great.

Dont forget the nostalgia factor! Ever!

 

[finalark]

You know, nostalgia makes almost any game seem good. I know games that weren't good AT ALL that look great when I look back. Think of Tekken 3, it wasn't THAT good, just fun when you were young. Or NBA street 2. That game looks so great, but it's really not <_<
Of course, games like Spyro were great and stay great.

Dont forget the nostalgia factor! Ever!

I raise this point in every argument against older games. And I always get blown off for it.

And thank you for mentioning Spyro. Although Spyro was much better when I was six years old then it is now. However, I still find the games to be highly enjoyable.

 

[_Keno_]

I agree that WW topped OoT in terms of gameplay, but I don't see the same argument being true for TP.

I agree if you don't count all that **** sailing you have to do.

Anyways, TP was only better than its predecessors in graphics. We all know that graphics don't make anything better (transformers 2 lol).

 

[Jim Morrison]

Lol, I'll never stop making to love to that game disc, the game is just too good (just the first 3 on the PS1, not the ****ty ****ty *** *** new ones).

Also, you deserve to get blown off for it cause nostalgia factor should be taken into account on rating a game lol. It's how memorable/impressive it was.

 

[superyoshi888]

This caught my eye.
I will be watching this thread VERY closely.

Oh yeah, I made "keep in mind games" my sig. Now someone can click the arrow and find your post.

About nostalgia: this plays a major role in subjective views of games. A reviewer looking at two similar games might be less inclined to be harsh on an older game he grew up with than a newer one, even if the newer game is objectively better.

That's pretty much the tl;dr of my blog right there.

 

[finalark]

Lol, I'll never stop making to love to that game disc, the game is just too good (just the first 3 on the PS1, not the ****ty ****ty *** *** new ones).

Also, you deserve to get blown off for it cause nostalgia factor should be taken into account on rating a game lol. It's how memorable/impressive it was.

Spyro 1-3 were amazing. Then Insomniac dropped it.

I have to dissagree on the memorable/impressibe thing. Nearly every game has a bigger impact on you when you're younger. For instance, when I was a kid I loved the very first Crash Bandicoot back on the PS1. However, I recently picked it up and suddenly realized that the game kind of sucks. Had I not played it as a kid, then I wouldn't have had such memories that distorted my perception on the actual quality of the game.

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

Regarding Wind-Waker vs Orcarina of Time, there were 2 big flaws in WW which make it immpossible for me to call it better than OoT: Sailing and The Trifroce Piece fetch-quest.

Those are easily the most tedious, frustrating, pace-killing concepts I have ever encountered in an otherwise good game. The closest thing I can compare it to in OoT would be the windmill/under the well segment, but that's one instance as opposed to about 7 collective instances for WW's Triforce moment.

And I played and beat Wind Waker before I played OoT, so nostalgia can't play a part in this.

 

[Insetick]

Innovation is great, but it's risky. LoZ II was innovative compared to the original LoZ, but it was generally hated by fans.

Games should have a solid foundation. I liked Super Mario Galaxy for its creative premise, but it lacks the freedom of exploration in previous iterations. I personally think Sunshine was the best of the 3D series because it didn't recreate the SM64 wheel.

Recently, I went to IGN to see if any good games were out. It seemed that every game was unique but poor overall. I would have bought Cod6 if the pc version's multiplayer didn't suck. Torchlight seemed like a great dungeon crawler, but it isn't even multiplayer! No game has approached the 10/10 quality we saw in OOT for a while.

I think gamemakers should focus on making a solid base before adding creative ideas. Halo has been very successful because it does such a good job at its multiplayer. Smash is still a great party game because it's balanced and bug-free (for most players). For a game to even get close to 10/10 quality, it must have a strong foundation.

 

[finalark]

I'm about to prove exactly how subject most of this is.

I agree if you don't count all that **** sailing you have to do.

Sailing

I liked the Sailing in Wind Waker. I enjoyed drinking in the atmosphere and I thought that it did a great job at giving you a sense of freedom and exploration.

 

[Firus]

The problem is that you're trying to gauge how good/bad something is objectively. Good and bad are subjective by definition.

Also, here's the thing about nostalgia; if you replay a game and realize it isn't as good as you thought it was, that's no longer nostalgia. You can't accurately judge a game you haven't played in 10 years.

At which point we go back to the "objective/subjective" problem. Everyone's so worried that someone disagrees with them. Same thing happens with religion. Why is everyone so determined to run in and complain because someone else might be affected by nostalgia or *gasp* subjectively analyzing a game?

I can see people having a problem when someone pretends that they're objectively analyzing a game and therefore have proven you wrong. I can understand if people are elitist and refuse to accept that you could possibly even dislike a game. For example, I expressed on another forum that I found Galaxy to be mediocre, and this is the EXACT RESPONSE that I got:

You calling out Super Mario Galaxy as "mediocre" proves you are only here to troll and stir stuff up.

But when that's not happening, I don't see the problem.

 

[Alphicans]

Sailing in Wind Waker was awesome. The music that went a long with it, and how much the game focused on it was amazing. I'd say Wind Waker was just as innovative as OoT or even moreso.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Firius please stop trolling the smashboards

 

[Insetick]

You can argue against subjectivity all you want, but I doubt you'll have a useful answer.

I judge games based on success and popularity; it's not perfect, but it gives me a good idea of the majority of players.

 

[finalark]

I judge games based on success and popularity; it's not perfect, but it gives me a good idea of the majority of players.

By no means to I intend to offend you, but I see way to many flaws in this logic.

If you're bassing a game on success, and popularity, then this must mean that the Sims is ten times better than nearly every PC game ever made. And that System Shock was just a mediocre attempt at survival horror. Or that NiGHTS was a failure of a project that should have never seen the light of day.

In other words, sales =/= quality.

 

[Ganonsburg]

For the comment about the religion, you don't even have to stop there. It's just human nature. Even people who claim not to do it do it. People just naturally care too much about what other people think.

As for the OP, I concur. I have yet to play OoT, but I'm working on playing through every Zelda game. I think Zelda II was a good game (hard, but good), WW was amazing except for the triforce hunt, which was simply too much. The sailing was a bit tiresome at times, but it was still good. Certainly not the horror that people make it out to be.

I actually prefer the graphics in WW over TP because TP was a bit lazy. The edges were hazy, the graphics were a bit pixelated in areas and it just wasn't as clean as it could be. So while WW was a simple look, it was far cleaner and didn't detract from the awesomeness of the game. TP and WW were both great. I think WW had a slightly better story.

Minish Cap was good, PH was not as good as MC, and ST surprisingly was amazing. Not as amazing as TP or WW, but I thoroughly enjoyed ST. The biggest complaints were that it lagged in some fights while you were on the tracks, and that the story wasn't as fleshed out as it could have been (and I really wanted to see Malludus actually be Ganon...I miss Ganon...).

I'm betting if we were too look at the games from current standards, WW or TP would actually score higher than OoT. Its just that people refuse to believe that OoT is anything less than perfect. The series has improved much since then, and expecting every game to be just as innovative as OoT is just going to make you lose your interest in a fantastic game.

So basically, I agree with your claim about the term, "OoT effect."

 

[superyoshi888]

The problem is that you're trying to gauge how good/bad something is objectively. Good and bad are subjective by definition.

Alright, I see your point here. But as I already stated, it is impossible to gauge something objectively....no matter what, you WILL judge it at least somewhat subjectively.

Objectively here is simply within context. If good and bad are subjective, then the games are just compared as objectively as is possible. Usually, within technical reasons, later games are better, but not always. That is as close to being objective as a person can be, really.

Also, here's the thing about nostalgia; if you replay a game and realize it isn't as good as you thought it was, that's no longer nostalgia. You can't accurately judge a game you haven't played in 10 years.

Nostalgia doesn't have to be deeming something good or bad. You can play a game and feel nostalgic and yet still see the game for what it is. This can happen with anyone, and doesn't even have to apply specifically to games. Godzilla films will forever hold a special place in my heart, yet I can see them for what they are. Low-budget special effect films with poor acting. Well, actually, the first film is a masterpiece, but that is another debate.

At which point we go back to the "objective/subjective" problem. Everyone's so worried that someone disagrees with them. Same thing happens with religion. Why is everyone so determined to run in and complain because someone else might be affected by nostalgia or *gasp* subjectively analyzing a game?

I don't really have a problem when people do that. I do have a problem when people think their beliefs are fact. A major problem with many best game lists is that they really don't take into consideration how good a game is when being as objective as possible. They usually go strictly by what is currently popular, how popular something was when it came out, and by how innovative the game was. They should be called the most innovative games or the most popular games.

But obviously, my opinion of what games are good and bad are going to differ from yours. As you said, what is good and bad is based subjective thoughts by definition. I might think Pokemon Red and Blue are the most amazing games in the world, and that New Super Mario Bros. Wii was more fun than SMB3, but maybe you don't. I'm okay with that.

I can see people having a problem when someone pretends that they're objectively analyzing a game and therefore have proven you wrong. I can understand if people are elitist and refuse to accept that you could possibly even dislike a game. For example, I expressed on another forum that I found Galaxy to be mediocre, and this is the EXACT RESPONSE that I got:

You calling out Super Mario Galaxy as "mediocre" proves you are only here to troll and stir stuff up.

But when that's not happening, I don't see the problem.

Sorry if I implied I thought the games I listed were more fun than their predecessors. For a few of them, I feel the opposite.

And everyone, keep this in mind: those games were just examples. I've only played a bit of SM64 and SMS, I haven't even played Galaxy yet, and I've only sampled a bit of the gameplay from the 3 Zelda games I mentioned. I think Pokemon R/B/G/S/C are more fun than any of the later games. Do not think that this is a good reason to think that I am wrong. I'm just going by technical reasons and, in the case of the Zelda games, what one of the designers actually feels about his games.

We all have opinions. I'm just expressing my thoughts about why people shouldn't say games are better because of so and so reason and think they are right. I don't mind if people say they had more fun with this game and give their reasons, but are willing to accept that others have a differing opinion from theirs.

 

[Insetick]

By no means to I intend to offend you, but I see way to many flaws in this logic.

If you're bassing a game on success, and popularity, then this must mean that the Sims is ten times better than nearly every PC game ever made. And that System Shock was just a mediocre attempt at survival horror. Or that NiGHTS was a failure of a project that should have never seen the light of day.

In other words, sales =/= quality.

Like I said, it's not perfect. I could argue that System Shock and NiGHTS didn't appeal to the general population. However, they are pretty much cult classics now. I'd say that those two games were great in the eyes of their intended audience, but not very good as a whole.

Games that are very successful clearly do something right. Halo aims for a hard-core audience, but is incredibly popular among many kinds of gamers.

Rather than criticize how I judge games, can you explain how you do it? Or do you just argue subjectivity again and say there is no answer?

 

[_Keno_]

I liked the Sailing in Wind Waker. I enjoyed drinking in the atmosphere and I thought that it did a great job at giving you a sense of freedom and exploration.

It did at first, but you are just a bit slow if that feeling last 4 hours.

 

[finalark]

Rather than criticize how I judge games, can you explain how you do it?

Easy. I simply ask myself "am I having fun?" and "do I feel like this game was worth the money I payed for it?"

After all, that's why we play games, right? To have some fun.

Now, when I get into the nitty-gritty-nit-picky I usually think about what I've heard discribed as the almight trnity of Story, Gameplay and Presentation. I usually look at these and think about how enjoyable the gameplay is, how interesting/good the story is (well, only if it's an important enough part of the game) and finally, how well the game presents itself.

Finally, I usually try to pintpoint two things; what the point of the game is and the game's intended audiance. Then I consider how well it does what it's ment to do, and how enjoyable it's target audiance may find it.

And that about sums it up.

EDIT: Basically, face value, depth, then reccomendations

 

[Insetick]

Easy. I simply ask myself "am I having fun?" and "do I feel like this game was worth the money I payed for it?"

After all, that's why we play games, right? To have some fun.

Now, when I get into the nitty-gritty-nit-picky I usually think about what I've heard discribed as the almight trnity of Story, Gameplay and Presentation. I usually look at these and think about how enjoyable the gameplay is, how interesting/good the story is (well, only if it's an important enough part of the game) and finally, how well the game presents itself.

Finally, I usually try to pintpoint two things; what the point of the game is and the game's intended audiance. Then I consider how well it does what it's ment to do, and how enjoyable it's target audiance may find it.

And that about sums it up.

EDIT: Basically, face value, depth, then reccomendations

Alright, so this is what makes a game good to you. How should gamemakers make games?

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

*stuff about innovation*

I can agree with a lot of this, actually. I'll take a solid, well-made non-innovative game over a game that tries to re-invent the wheel but has some obvious issues. When some people say "This game isn't innovative" I'll be the looney in the back prasing it for "same great gameplay we know and love!"

*stuff about subjectivity vs objectivity

This is also something I largely agree with. These days it feels like so many people just throw around the word "objective" in an attempt to make their opinions look better. I've probably seen a forum for every 2d Mario game every being declared as the "best" Mario game with valid reasons to back it up.

Spoiler

I'm not claiming anyone in this topic is doing it, just a general statement

 

[finalark]

Alright, so this is what makes a game good to you. How should gamemakers make games?

They should makes games that are a blast to play. They should try to make something that's going to make me sit down at six, then look at the clock and suddenly it's ten. If I'm going to play a game, I'd like something that the develpers clearly cared about and put time and effort into, prefrebly looking for new and original ways to make their game enjoyable.

In other words, I expect my games to be fun and original. Easy as that.

 

[Insetick]

They should makes games that are a blast to play. They should try to make something that's going to make me sit down at six, then look at the clock and suddenly it's ten. If I'm going to play a game, I'd like something that the develpers clearly cared about and put time and effort into, prefrebly looking for new and original ways to make their game enjoyable.

In other words, I expect my games to be fun and original. Easy as that.

You think games should be made to appeal to you; what appeals to you are qualities that are generally appreciated among many gamers.

We nearly agree. I took an empirical route: games that are very popular have similar qualities (eg. a strong base). Thus, games should be made to have a good foundation, which will appeal to many players and likely myself.

 

[teluoborg]

Hmm Superyoshi888 you don't understand gamers.

What a gamer means when he says "it's the best game of all time" is "they took something good and made it better in every way".

Following this logic OoT, SMB3, LttP and SM64 are the best games of all times. Heck even Spiderman 2 can be the best game of all time.

Now look at WW, it's good but too short and the sailing part is boring.
TP has good graphics and gameplay but side quests are few and stupid, and some items have no use outside their dungeons.
And the thing that shocked me the most : you can't do side and back jumps indoors anymore.

The last point is ******** I agree, but it illustrates the fact that as long as you lose something in a sequel it can't be called "best of all time".


TL;DR it's not about objectivity, it's about evolution.



Oh and by the way, to me MM and Link's awakening are the best Zelda games, but that's totally subjective.

 

[Sucumbio]

****, I thought this was gonna be some crazy time travel experiment thread, or like maybe we discovered Hyrule on a distant planet or something. Well one can always hope.

Link to original post: [drupal=2940]The OoT effect.[/drupal]
WW and TP are better than OoT, Super Mario World and New Super Mario Bros. Wii are better than SMB3, and Pokemon R/S/E and D/P/Pt are better than Pokemon G/S/C. What they all lacked in comparison to their predecessors were the innovation that made them popular games in the first place.

WW and TP are better than OoT because OoT lacked the innovation that made its predecessors popular? NSMBW also?? I don't play pokemon games so whatever, but .... dude, really? scuse me I have to wrap my noggin around this a bit. ... ... ... ...

Ok. OoT... ok, so its predecessors for the most part were LoZ, LOZ2, ALttP. LoZ was popluar cause it was the first game, and a good NES game. 2 was, arguably harder, at least in terms of physical game play, not so much in terms of puzzle solving/item finding. And so wasn't as popular. And it looked kinda silly too. Battle for Olympus did right what LoZ2 failed to do. Tangent end. OK so... LOZ>LOZ2 ... then ALttP, a 16-bit remake of LOZ essentially. A much needed return to Top View, etc.

Then bam, 64... 3D. 3D zelda. And not some crappy game like king's field (god remember swinging your sword in that? It was like swinging a building, only slower.) Fast paced, great use of 3D modeling, great Zelda feel, a close enough respect for the classic Zelda elements (heart containers, etc) ... everyone's 64 WOW game, basically. A system seller the likes of which only Goldeneye came close to matching (and technically did for me, I got my 64 for that, not OoT).

WW, was... OoT w/cell shaded graphics, a dangerous choice (which didn't pay off, mostly). And a small boy link the whole time, instead of just 1/2 the time. And lots of sailing. ya know you can beat WW very quickly if you skip all the side quests? You really HAVE to like side questing, to get your 50 bucks worth, otherwise it's one of the shortest Zelda games, if not -the- shortest. The triforce hunt seems like an add-on side quest to punish people that don't side quest, forcing the issue. Meh. I get sea sick.

TP WAS good! It was a nice return to OoT style, with the graphical prowess GC could deliver. I loved it. Adult link again. Fishing. And getting rode by some female, sexy. And wooo wo wooooo wooo wo woooo ok yeah no the wolf singing bits were gay as F. STICK TO FLUTES! (notice the flute in ALttP is an ocarina? is it THE ocarina? betcha it is )... but yeah, overall not a bad game. Too bad everyone was so embittered they couldn't enjoy it. I dunno for me it was cool, but many objections I come across are the wolf, the spinning surf board dealy, the "dark" atmosphere, and the length of game. But I actually liked it...

SO yeah, of these which is the most innovative? OoT. It's the only one that changed, really, save WW. 2D to 3D > textures to cell shading, one is a total change, the other just a surface change. And on top of that, OoT sold more. So yeah, it rightfully takes its place in the many lists of greatest games of all time.

Super Mario World and New Super Mario Bros. Wii are better than SMB3....

Super Mario World was a remake of SMB3 w/yoshi added. It's many people's favorites, except anyone that was young enough to play SMB3 when in launched. In that case THAT one is the funnest. Some people got both, and do still like the SNES game, but it's far more rare. Me, I like SMB3 better, cause I can beat it, lol and know all the secrets and junk. I get more fun of it because of that. I could get a FAQ for the SNES game and whatnot, but, I actually don't care enough to, I'm ok just playing SMB3, and beating it down. Sales for SMB3 were huge, considering it was not included w/the system. In North America, the SNES shipped with the SMW game, originally, so its sales are skewed, anyway. The shear magnitude of sales for SMB3 puts it atop many greatest games lists. As for innovation one must look deep into what the game offered. Being one of the later NES games to come out, it was miles ahead of its time. It almost could have passed for an SNES game, with its superior sound quality, music and graphics. It introduced the above-world map, also, something SMB and SMB2 did not have. This made playing the game possible on 2 levels, and created strategies via the above-world item menu, etc. SMB3 well deserves its spot in greatest game lists, for its innovation to the franchise, and it's popularity and sales.

Next time you see a "List of the Best Games of All Time" list put out by a big gaming website or magazine, keep in mind games are probably going to be placed based on popularity and subjective feelings rather than the actual objective comparison of a game to others. This means that SMB3 and OoT will likly top the lists, given their popularity as innovative games.

Popularity, of course. Subjective feelings, not so much. A game list of this sort includes games that sell tons, and are considered innovative to their franchise or genre. And in both the series I outlined, we can see that OoT and SMB3 totally innovated, and whose sales were chart topping, setting standards that even today are hard to meet.

 

[Browny]

oot introduced z-targeting, the greatest innovation for 3d games ever. every other advancement may be good, but nothing as critically important as that. For anyone who disagrees, play resident evil 0.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Haven't read the thread so excuse me if I'm saying something that has already been said.

I'd say that OoT is better than TP and WW. WW has that obnoxious triforce fetch quest towards the end of the game, is a lot easier, and has an overworld map that is too big. TP is easier (thought not as easy as WW), forced us to do the tear fetch quest, and has a completely barren overworld (WW is excused from this because pretty much every island in that game had something of interest on it). OoT has an overworld map that was just the right size, has a decent amount of hidden areas, had a good difficulty level, and has gameplay that still holds up today.

OoT is better. It is absolutely ridiculous to try and argue that. Do you know why Aonuma says he's still trying to surpass OoT? Because he hasn't (Well, until you throw MM in there, in which case he has, but that's not what we're aruging here). OoT is designed better. The dungeons are more deadly. The puzzles are more puzzling. The overworld is more of an actual world. WW was a vast, empty ocean and TP felt devoid of life.

OoT is just better designed. New doesn't mean better for the same reasons why we should stop having such nostalgia for old games. Games need to be judged on their own merits, not for their age. OoT's merits are just better than any non-N64 Zelda game. Zelda was at its prime during the N64 stage. Why? OoT and MM were just designed better than anything to come after it.

 

[Requiem]

You can argue against subjectivity all you want, but I doubt you'll have a useful answer.

I judge games based on success and popularity; it's not perfect, but it gives me a good idea of the majority of players.

You have certainly never played Cavestory then.

 

[Jimnymebob]

I'm still happily trudging through OoT, and unless it gets better when I turn to adult Link then I'm completely underwhelmed, especially since the hour I've played of MM was much more enjoyable.

I don't find the gameplay dated, it just shares the same problem with Mario 64; it doesn't give you any hints as to what to do next, so if you take a break for a few months coming back to it you'll probably have to use a walkthrough until you know the game off by heart.

I tend to ignore the fact games are classed as the best games ever seeing as out of the one's I've played, such as Mario 64, OoT, FFVII, Half Life, the only one I've truly enjoyed is Super Mario Bros. 3. Most of my favourite games are for the Amiga, or the Mega Drive, although that's because I like the old platformers and Lucasarts adventure games. Maybe if I play a game classed as the best game ever around the time it is actually released, not years later, may help me appreciate them better though?

 

[Frown]

Jimnymebob's avatar made me think of something. While most games are more well polished today, there are still gems out there that never get better and never get worse.

Personally, I would much rather play this:

than this: