The OoT effect.

[Sephiroths Masamune]

OoT made most of the games we see today playable. The story it self was amazing (to me at least) and one of the first games I have ever played those are my reasons why I love it so much.

 

[superyoshi888]

Some people are completely misunderstanding what I was saying.

 

[Sucumbio]

Woah, Frown, what's that top game?? It looks like a Sierra Game, or maybe early Lucasarts game... I love Hero's Quest and Fate of Atlantis ...

 

[Jimnymebob]

Woah, Frown, what's that top game?? It looks like a Sierra Game, or maybe early Lucasarts game... I love Hero's Quest and Fate of Atlantis ...

That's Monkey Island 2: Le'Chuck's Revenge, and I'm pretty sure that's the spitting contest of Booty Island.

 

[Firus]

Some people are completely misunderstanding what I was saying.

I get the impression that this paragraph is what you were trying to get across:

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.

And if so, I think the reason people are misunderstanding you is that you didn't express what you meant very well in the OP.

To me, the OP says that you think that as games progress, they get better, but people get stuck in the past and aren't objective enough when making decisions about the best games of all time.

By the way, regarding lists like that, you can pretty much solve the entire problem by saying that "Top # Games of All Time" lists are all BS. Partially because, like in GameInformer's recent one, they get caught halfway between "This game is good" and "This game was revolutionary", where they give the first version of Nintendo games top slots on the list because they started the franchise and then put the original Call of Duty way below the five of them they decided to put on there because the other ones fleshed it out more. Either the list is to show the most innovative/creative/revolutionary titles or to show the most fun games, measuring both ends up in massive failure. (Super Metroid should never be below the original Metroid on any "best game" list, really. I love Metroid and the first game started it, but in today's climate it suffers from many problems.)

...Anyway, the OP came across to me as something completely different from what your message was apparently intended to be, if I understand you correctly. I agree with the message that I think you intended to get across -- that people shouldn't act as if they are factually correct -- but I disagree with what I got from the OP.

 

[MarioMariox2]

You guys remember the Wind Waker mindgame?

E3: "Oh wow! Nintendo brought out this amazing Zelda game! Such realism!"
Next E3: Who's this cartoo-- OH GOD IT'S LINK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NEW GAME I WAS PROMISED?
The E3 After That: Wind waker is tight, man.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

*Holds up flame shield*
Majora's Mask > Ocarina of Time
Mainly because I like epic stories, and OoT seemed a bit... I don't know, cliched?
Also Majora has awesome dungeons and music.

 

[theunabletable]

TP is NOT better than OoT. Worse story, unoriginal, waaaay too easy (OoT was easy, too, but not to the extent of TP), THOSE VINES TAKE TOO **** LONG TO CLIMB (you might think that TP vines are minor, but they really are a stupid design choice with how long it takes to climb them), tears of light quests, etc

It really is a weaker game in almost all senses (except graphics).

Although MM > OoT

MM took OoT, and just... made it better all-around (except, I guess, it being shorter). More original story, more difficult (but not frustrating like AoL), good character development, Tatl was less annoying than Navi.

 

[finalark]

You guys remember the Wind Waker mindgame?

E3: "Oh wow! Nintendo brought out this amazing Zelda game! Such realism!"
Next E3: Who's this cartoo-- OH GOD IT'S LINK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NEW GAME I WAS PROMISED?
The E3 After That: Wind waker is tight, man.

Here's my predictions for when they finally show the trailer for Zelda Wii

Everyone: "OMG ZELDA IS RUINED FOREVAR1!!!1 This is going be worse than TP!"
After it's released: "This game is bad because it isn't Ocarina of Time! By the way, TP is tight, man."
(Next big release): "OMG ZELDA IS RUINED FOREVAR1!!!1"

*Holds up flame shield*
Majora's Mask > Ocarina of Time
Mainly because I like epic stories, and OoT seemed a bit... I don't know, cliched?
Also Majora has awesome dungeons and music.

Majora was a much beter game, I agree.

TP is NOT better than OoT. Worse story, unoriginal.

Elaborate. Because in my book, TP had the second best story. The first being Majora's Mask.

waaaay too easy (OoT was easy, too, but not to the extent of TP), THOSE VINES TAKE TOO **** LONG TO CLIMB (you might think that TP vines are minor, but they really are a stupid design choice with how long it takes to climb them), tears of light quests, etc

Have you climbed any OoT vines lately? Anyway, the tears of light were annoying, but it really didn't bug me. Although TP was seriously lacking in side quests. However, this didn't bother me seeing how I'm not one of these people who need to get everything in the game before they're happy.

It really is a weaker game in almost all senses (except graphics).

I disagree, I found the story and presentation to be much better than Ocarina's was. And overall, I found it to be a much more satisifing game than OoT.

Although MM > OoT

MM took OoT, and just... made it better all-around (except, I guess, it being shorter). More original story, more difficult (but not frustrating like AoL), good character development, Tatl was less annoying than Navi.

I agree. And man, I hate it when AoL instant messaging pops up. Very fustrating indeed.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

MM was better because it was harder, it did have smoother graphics due to the expansion pack, but that's not why we loved it, unlike TP which was WAY too easy.

 

[Espy Rose]

Oregon Trail >>>>>> OoT.

The truth hurts.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I have to say this though in TP's defence, it had some REALLY great bosses, they were easy, but just the design of them.

Things they did wrong with it:
Copied OoT.
Revealed Ganondorf to be the final boss.
Too easy.
Annoying sidequests.

If it was more like that, it would have been one of the best ever.

My fav Zelda games are:
Majora's Mask
A Link to the Past
Ocarina of Time
Link's Awakening

In no particular order.

 

[finalark]

Copied OoT.

How? Seriously, people say this all the time but never have a legititment reason for it.

 

[Sucumbio]

Not so much copied as went back to OoT styled graphics rather than the cell shading of WW, which in turn makes people with a 5 minute attention span and pure sugar for blood say "oh, it's the same as Ocarina of Time!"

 

[urdailywater]

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.

So much ****ing subjective bull**** put into one post.

There's so much I could go onto say about this, but really you didn't read the thread so a trade off on effort?

Anyways, I've had more fun with WW than on OOT. I've replayed the game about 5 - 6 times now, while really only playing through OOT about 1-2 times. Being better is all about not the game as a whole, in this case, because they're all sequels, so you basically have to pick apart each quality and see which you liked better over the other. This can pretty much be true for any game but it's harder to compare qualities as you go onto different genres so w/e...

saying one sequel is just straight up better than the other is bull****, still. Wind Waker brought many improvements over OOT, while TP did the same for WW. They're building from the ground up -- it's just that some people may not like the innovative or changed things as much as others. Like how you said you hated the overworld -- well with the weather effects, and constant shark attacks I prefer WW's overworld over OOT's. Hell I even found OOT's very boring at times because of how barren it seemed at times (due to hardware limitations though..)

so yah, its opinonated stuff. i could have really just said that instead but i guess i got bored or something

 

[finalark]

Not so much copied as went back to OoT styled graphics rather than the cell shading of WW, which in turn makes people with a 5 minute attention span and pure sugar for blood say "oh, it's the same as Ocarina of Time!"

This is my problem with the general Zelda fanbase, for the most part, they're unpleasible. How do I sum it with without writing up a wall of text...?

Nintendo: "Okay, so OoT and MM were pretty cool, but let's try this new "celshading" thing with the next Zelda. A fun and cartoony style will probably be a nice break after the super-dark Majora's Mask."

(WW comes out)

LoZ Fans: ZELDA IS RUINED FOREVA!!!!1!

Nintendo: "Holy crap they did not like that! Alright, so we took a risk and the fans are unhappy. Hmm... okay, let's go back to the realistic style we had in OoT and MM. That'll make them happy."

(TP comes out)

LoZ Fans: "OMGZ THIS LOOKS LIKE OoT IT SUCKS NOW! Oh yeah, and WW is aweome!"

Seriously, they went back to a realistic style with TP because the fans were upset at WW. Then you bash TP for being too much like OoT, mostley due to the graphics.

 

[Sucumbio]

Seriously, they went back to a realistic style with TP because the fans were upset at WW. Then you bash TP for being too much like OoT, mostley due to the graphics.

Yeah, I can see how the fan base may seem flip-floppy on this... I think it's more accurate to point a finger at core Nintendo fans, who are just hard as hell to please, lol. A game comes out, and the first thing you hear is what's WRONG with it, not what's right, with -very- few exceptions. This would be why IF I do go in for a game review, I'm going to Nintendo World Report, or Nintendo Power, cause though biased, they can be trusted to at least mention the down-sides, while not focusing solely on them, like IGN, etc.

As for the reception of WW, initially I even thought "wow, this is totally gay looking, WTF?" but then I played it and within prolly 10 minutes or so was definitely hooked, and committed to beating it. Its fluid design is > OoT, and the ambiance is far superior. The immersion. You know that quivery feeling you get as you're sailing at night, and a whirlwind sneaks up on ya, ... god I still get nervous when that happens, lol. Fans took to it, eventually, though... but as for TP, it suffered a little in taking so long to come out... this long wait, then it finally comes and it's actually not that impressive to many folks, who see it as a simple return to OoT style, but lacking any -true- innovation. Now me, I'll forgive it as being better looking than OoT, smoother, more on-screen action, better sound quality sound, and the addition of the Wolf dynamics. heh, but at the same time, fans can look at those and say "booooo, boo, grandad!" cause the wolf thing is ********, the graphics aren't as photo-realistic as they could have been (especially if it'd been an xbox360 or PS3 game) etc etc. Can't win for losing.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I agree with you in general, finalark, but I think that the similarities between OoT and TP go way beyond the graphics, to TP's detriment.

 

[finalark]

I agree with you in general, finalark, but I think that the similarities between OoT and TP go way beyond the graphics, to TP's detriment.

Please elaborate, it's been a really long time since I last played OoT. All I know is that I was enjoying TP way to much to notice any major similarities.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I wrote a post about this before, give me a few to find it.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm not sure exactly what it was, but when I played TP it just felt like OoT all over again, it's not so much the similarities, more of the lack of differences. TP didn't do anything overly interesting, the gameplay remained relativley unchanged and the side quests and dungeons had many similarities.

So to reiterate (sort of a ts:dr XD) the problem was that TP had nothing to make it stand out amongst the other games, I think that is also one of the reasons why MM never hit off as much as OoT.

 

[Firus]

MM arguably stands out the most out of all the 3D Zelda games, though...

 

[urdailywater]

And why wouldn't Wind Waker be the one that standed out the most?

If it weren't for the fact that Majora's Mask used the same engine, graphics (for the most part, even though MM was a bit improved) and characters as OOT, it would have stood out more. But, WW gets the title for that instead for I guess pretty much bringing even more new stuff to the series.

I don't include TP because of the similarities to OOT (like the revisiting of Gorons and Zoras, bringing back the Skull Kid, and a lot of other stuff from OOT. I won't say it's all like OOT though, it's a game all on its own. As with Majora's Mask. But all three of them have a lot more similarities than WW)

edit: I didn't realize that was just a small response to another post thingy. I think I got a bit too aggressive here in my typing.. but really I don't mean to be. I'm just typing stuff and it happens to come out like that..

 

[Firus]

I love Wind Waker, but it really wasn't all that different gameplay-wise as a whole, it just had different overworld traveling.

MM has the three day cycle, masks, and an overall radically different feel. It may have recycled the engine and graphics of OoT, but those are inconsequential as to how much it stands out unless you take a game on face value. I will admit I haven't gotten far in MM (while I've beaten WW three times), but from the start it felt very different.

Different doesn't necessarily mean better or worse, I'm just pointing out that MM stands out from the series quite a bit.

(I also said "arguably" stands out the most, not definitively.)

 

[Pink Reaper]

lol at OoT being innovative. Go to dungeon, collect new item, use item to defeat boss, repeat at next dungeon. You know, the formula from LTTP?

Firus(wtf did you do to your name?) is correct in saying that MM was far and away the more innovative of the Zelda games. It brought legitimate characters into the world, everyone(almost) had SOME sort of purpose in the game and there were actual, noticeable affect from your actions in game. In OoT there was a total of one thing in the entire game that actually made any noticeable change to the world, the time travel, and even then it's either Static child world or Static Adult world, they were just two worlds that never changed. Granted, MM brought us Tingle so **** that game.

So at least from an "Innovation" standpoint, everyone who says OoT was innovative is just plain wrong. Sure it brought the series into 3-D but you can't claim that to be a gameplay innovation, that's a forced standard.

As for TP, I'd say it is in fact a better game than OoT but not really an innovation by any sense of the word. It's better however for having Midna. Now, I don't care if you do or don't like Midna(im on both sides honestly) but she is a character WITH character, something you just don't see in Zelda games anymore(although as of writing this Im playing Spirit Tracks where Zelda seems to be proving me 100% wrong on that account) She had depth, she had an interesting story, she was a character WORTH having in the game. You could swap out any of the characters in OoT and most of the characters in TP with cardboard cutouts of muffins with faces and it wouldn't really matter. But if Midna was gone you'd lose some of the only real charm that's come from a Zelda game in forever.

WW is a different story. It's somewhere in the middle, and it stands out as probably the BEST 3D zelda game out there. While it's not quite up to snuff with MM in terms of characters, most of the characters in the game are quite interesting and have at least some back story to them. You cant change the world quite as much as you could in MM but WW maintains an amazing balance of both gameplay and character interaction, something that I miss. Alot. And it's something we wont see ever again, because people don't want things that are different, they want a prettier version of OoT.

Also Super Mario World ****s on everything ever in terms of Mario games.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

So I think it's agreed, in a new Zelda game we need:
A non-static world where every character has a purpose.
Something innovative.
A darker story (not too dark, just MM or TP level dark).
Huge world.
Brilliant graphics/music.

Did I miss anything?

 

[finalark]

So at least from an "Innovation" standpoint, everyone who says OoT was innovative is just plain wrong. Sure it brought the series into 3-D but you can't claim that to be a gameplay innovation, that's a forced standard.

THANK YOU.

Finally, someone who get's it. I'm sick of people claiming that something is "innovative" when it goes into 3D. Back in the mid-90s when you either went 3D or you died quitely, if any series that was even slightly popular went 3D it was suddenly "innonative." And the only thing that OoT did as far as innovation goes was invented Z-targeting. And I wouldn't be supprised if someone else did it first.

 

[Jam Stunna]

All of the home Zelda games (with the exception of AoL and MM) are the same game, just upgraded by the technology. The formula, for good or bad, is exactly the same. LttP was just the original on a new system; what made it worth playing was that what they added was simply not possible on the NES. This holds true for OoT and Wind Waker as well.

Where TP failed IMO is that it didn't keep that pattern. It brought nothing new in terms of story, approach or technology; AoL may have been on the same system as the original, but it was TOTALLY different (same with MM). TP was literally more of the same. Zelda Wii has a chance to overcome this with Wii Motion Plus, but I'm extremely skeptical as to Nintendo's ability to integrate it well.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Anyways, I've had more fun with WW than on OOT. I've replayed the game about 5 - 6 times now, while really only playing through OOT about 1-2 times. Being better is all about not the game as a whole, in this case, because they're all sequels, so you basically have to pick apart each quality and see which you liked better over the other. This can pretty much be true for any game but it's harder to compare qualities as you go onto different genres so w/e...

I was subjective? I pointed out specific examples how OoT is better designed than WW and TP. You're just saying that you played WW more than OoT and you yourself liked it better. Man, I definitely liked WW more than OoT, but OoT is just the better designed game.

saying one sequel is just straight up better than the other is bull****, still. Wind Waker brought many improvements over OOT, while TP did the same for WW.

Bill Clinton got shot. I'm not going to tell you where, how, or when, though. Cite the improvements please.

They're building from the ground up -- it's just that some people may not like the innovative or changed things as much as others. Like how you said you hated the overworld -- well with the weather effects, and constant shark attacks I prefer WW's overworld over OOT's. Hell I even found OOT's very boring at times because of how barren it seemed at times (due to hardware limitations though..)

Alright, you actually pointed something out! Yes, weather effects and the shark attacks were cool. However, WW's overworld is still inherently flawed in the sense that it could take me twenty minutes to get to where I wanted. OoT has a lot of secret areas compacted into it's relatively small overworld, while WW has this huge overworld and not as many secrets. WW's overworld is almost too big. That's the problem.

 

[jivegamer]

Objective criteria for determining which games are better? This sounds a bit sketchy to me. Could you further elaborate on the criteria you're using to rate games?

 

[jivegamer]

...I know game magazines have ratings criteria and we obviously can say a game is good or bad, but you didn't really elaborate too much on why WW and TP are better games. OOT is my favorite (not just Zelda; video game period), but the quality difference between Zelda titles is very minimal in my opinion.

 

[finalark]

Tip: The edit button is useful for adding additonal content to your post after you've posted it. Use this to prevent double-posting.

 

[jivegamer]

I'm sorry