Legend of Zelda What reason is there to not like OoT?

[MuraRengan]

Of all the games in the series, OoT is always the one that people say is over-rated or fan *****d. I've seen this mentioned a lot, but never had an actual discussion about OoT makes some say that it's not as great a game as fans (like me) rave it to be. So we're going to discuss that in this thread. Lets avoid flaming and all that jazz.

 

[Gastogh]

I'll list some of the recurring points. I don't subscribe to all of these, but I acknowledge their validity at least to some degree - life is too short to bother with some of the dumber "arguments" the internet can cough up.


- The plot is a rehash of ALttP. (Shoutouts to Teran.) Plotwise a lot of the whole Zelda series is like one huge recycling project, culminating in the primordial stem-cell soup that is SS, but for a lot of people OoT was their first Zelda game, and so it gets a lot of attention. However, OoT wasn't the first link in that chain, and some object to others hyping OoT because of that.

- People hold it in great esteem because it was pioneering for its time and not because it has that much continuing relevance, refusing to acknowledge the progress made since then. That is, if both OoT and TP/SS were released now for the first time ever, OoT couldn't stand the comparison except in a select few places; its value is in what it was, not what it is. With that in mind, saying it's "the best game ever" rubs some folks the wrong way.

- The game is rough around the edges; Hyrule Field is largely nice and empty, the character design is less than impressive (e.g. Ganondorf's driving motivation seems to be "I'm evil and I want power and you're weak, so suck it"), the dungeon design of having plot-critical boss-slaying items just sitting around in chests is stupid, etc. There's no shortage of these complaints, and they can't really be addressed as a whole.

 

[MuraRengan]

- The plot is a rehash of ALttP. (Shoutouts to Teran.) Plotwise a lot of the whole Zelda series is like one huge recycling project, culminating in the primordial stem-cell soup that is SS, but for a lot of people OoT was their first Zelda game, and so it gets a lot of attention. However, OoT wasn't the first link in that chain, and some object to others hyping OoT because of that.

I disagree entirely. OoT is guilty of having a similar plot structure as AlttP but the plot itself is vastly different and improved. AlttP's storytelling left much to be desired in the realms of theming and scene setting, and the actual plot itself was not as comprehensive and diverse as OoT's. I'm not here to criticize AlttP for natural flaws, but I just don't agree that OoT's plot is a rehash of AlttP. you're going to have to provide some examples that are more than just structural similarities.

- People hold it in great esteem because it was pioneering for its time and not because it has that much continuing relevance, refusing to acknowledge the progress made since then. That is, if both OoT and TP/SS were released now for the first time ever, OoT couldn't stand the comparison except in a select few places; its value is in what it was, not what it is. With that in mind, saying it's "the best game ever" rubs some folks the wrong way.

1. I disagree with the idea that OoT doesn't still have relevance to gaming now. I won't elaborate on this unless it becomes an important issue.

2. This idea of not valuing the game for what it was is natural effect that aging has on games. NO game can stand the comparison to games that are technologically and experientially advanced. However, pioneering should be relevant because it can be compared to the pioneering of other games it's compared to.

- The game is rough around the edges; Hyrule Field is largely nice and empty, the character design is less than impressive (e.g. Ganondorf's driving motivation seems to be "I'm evil and I want power and you're weak, so suck it"), the dungeon design of having plot-critical boss-slaying items just sitting around in chests is stupid, etc. There's no shortage of these complaints, and they can't really be addressed as a whole.

1. Hyrule field isn't important to the game at all.

2. There's almost no such thing as a good villain anymore. In old times, villains were bad for the sake of being bad. Nowadays, they try to justify villains using common themes that turn people bad (bad childhood, evil spirits, villain thinking that he'd doing good, etc.) It's hard to have a good villain at all anymore and the ways to justify villains actions are few. In a fantasy game, I no longer make a big deal about villain motives as long as the things that the villains do in the game are still intriguing, and Ganondorf certainly does that well.

3. Having boss-slaying items present in the dungeon itself has been present since AlttP. That's a fundamental aspect of nearly every single Zelda game. That said, it's a design choice, it's not supposed to make sense. There are always a ton of things in video games that can be called out for not being realistic.

 

[Gastogh]

I'm not here to criticize AlttP for natural flaws, but I just don't agree that OoT's plot is a rehash of AlttP. you're going to have to provide some examples that are more than just structural similarities.

The problem here is that the structural similarities are felt to be of such scope that the only other thing left is what paint you choose to put on it. Seriously, you can only do so much photocopying of the fundamental structure before you can fill in the rest with a madlibs-style formula. I'll give you the formula for ALttP and OoT:

1. You are a young man named Link living peacefully in _________ (a cabin with your uncle / the Kokiri Forest).
2. Your adventure starts with a dream _________ (from Zelda / about Zelda and Ganondorf).
(3. The threat takes the form of Ganon, who is going to ________ (be released / grab the Triforce).
4. Your guardian, the _______ (uncle / Deku Tree), dies, leaving you needing to step up to your own challenges.
5. The threat can only be defeated with the ______ (Master Sword / Master Sword). To get your paws on it, you will need to gather three _______ (magic pendants / Spiritual Stones).
6. You collect the three things and draw the Master Sword, and _______ (Zelda calls you / Ganondorf laughs at you), and bad stuff happens. You get sent into ______ (the Dark World / the future), which is a bad place.
7. You need to awaken ______ (seven /five) _______ (Sages' descendants / Sages).

Etc. You get the picture. I hope you can see how that would seem like no more than a paint job to a lot of people?

1. I disagree with the idea that OoT doesn't still have relevance to gaming now. I won't elaborate on this unless it becomes an important issue.

Well, I don't know about important issue, but I'm very curious. Pretty please?

NO game can stand the comparison to games that are technologically and experientially advanced. However, pioneering should be relevant because it can be compared to the pioneering of other games it's compared to.

Sure they can. All they need are other, more timeless qualities to recommend them; there are other rings to wrestle in besides graphics, mate. One such is plot. We can compare OoT's plot to those of the other Zelda games (and non-Zelda games as well, if we wanted to). Majora's Mask has trounced OoT in practically every category since the day of its release, and doggone if it isn't the pinnacle of the series to this day. If ALttP, OoT, MM, WW, TP and SS were all released right now and I could only have one, I'd choose MM. Hell, if I could have only one video game in the world, it'd be MM. That's how unique it is. Meanwhile, TP and SS would both beat ALttP and OoT in their own game.

1. Hyrule field isn't important to the game at all.

This is true. However, it need not have been true. They could've chosen to actually do something with all that empty space, and there's no "technology level at the time"-johns on that one. It was a missed opportunity.

I'll note here that I'm not in the crowd saying OoT is overhyped because Hyrule Field wasn't all it could have been. The point I was making with the third section of my first post was that there are these little things that don't stand up to scrutiny. Whether they pile up high enough to be significant is for everyone to decide for themselves.

2. There's almost no such thing as a good villain anymore. In old times, villains were bad for the sake of being bad. Nowadays, they try to justify villains using common themes that turn people bad (bad childhood, evil spirits, villain thinking that he'd doing good, etc.) It's hard to have a good villain at all anymore and the ways to justify villains actions are few. In a fantasy game, I no longer make a big deal about villain motives as long as the things that the villains do in the game are still intriguing, and Ganondorf certainly does that well.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "good villain" here. If you mean "original villain", with never-seen-before motivations and other qualities, then yes, that is indeed hard (but not impossible!) to come by. But even if that isn't what you meant, I still can't see what (if anything) Ganondorf has to recommend him above just about any villain ever seen in video gaming. Like, what does he bring to the table that Bowser doesn't? If he doesn't bring anything at all, then that's a big mark against OoT in the departments of plot, characters and overall richness of the setting itself.

3. Having boss-slaying items present in the dungeon itself has been present since AlttP. That's a fundamental aspect of nearly every single Zelda game. That said, it's a design choice, it's not supposed to make sense. There are always a ton of things in video games that can be called out for not being realistic.

This is true. And note that in the eyes of the "OoT is overrated!"-crowd, this is just more evidence of the fact that OoT isn't that special: it's just one more department where it either can't or doesn't even want to distinguish itself from the gray masses.

 

[finalark]

- People hold it in great esteem because it was pioneering for its time and not because it has that much continuing relevance, refusing to acknowledge the progress made since then. That is, if both OoT and TP/SS were released now for the first time ever, OoT couldn't stand the comparison except in a select few places; its value is in what it was, not what it is. With that in mind, saying it's "the best game ever" rubs some folks the wrong way.

This. Entirely this. OoT was known for what it did at the time (invented targeting and smoothly transitioned LoZ from 2D to 3D). While that's great and all, its like Gastogh said, if any other LoZ came out in its place that title would be praised to no end while OoT would be seen as just good. For people who enjoyed game play improvements in later LoZ titles OoT just feels a tad outdated.

 

[The Good Doctor]

Honestly, I had never played a Zelda game all the way through until I recently played OoT, and I didn't really like it. I think people just look through "Nostalgia Glasses" at it. Also people forget how much OoT owes to SM64.

 

[MuraRengan]

The problem here is that the structural similarities are felt to be of such scope that the only other thing left is what paint you choose to put on it. Seriously, you can only do so much photocopying of the fundamental structure before you can fill in the rest with a madlibs-style formula.

To keep up with your metaphor, it's perfectly possible to make a good work of art that is structured like another work of art, especially if the painting you do is vastly more intricate and well designed. OoT may follow the plot structure of AlttP, bit the story is undeniably more deep and more comprehensive. I'll elaborate below.

I'll give you the formula for ALttP and OoT:

1. You are a young man named Link living peacefully in _________ (a cabin with your uncle / the Kokiri Forest).
2. Your adventure starts with a dream _________ (from Zelda / about Zelda and Ganondorf).
(3. The threat takes the form of Ganon, who is going to ________ (be released / grab the Triforce).
4. Your guardian, the _______ (uncle / Deku Tree), dies, leaving you needing to step up to your own challenges.
5. The threat can only be defeated with the ______ (Master Sword / Master Sword). To get your paws on it, you will need to gather three _______ (magic pendants / Spiritual Stones).
6. You collect the three things and draw the Master Sword, and _______ (Zelda calls you / Ganondorf laughs at you), and bad stuff happens. You get sent into ______ (the Dark World / the future), which is a bad place.
7. You need to awaken ______ (seven /five) _______ (Sages' descendants / Sages).

Etc. You get the picture. I hope you can see how that would seem like no more than a paint job to a lot of people?

Most of everything you cite here is pure structure, and the most important parts of the plot have NOTHING to do with these parts. For instance, the dream that Link has in AlttP to start his journey pales in comparison to the one in OoT. The Deku Tree provides the first ever history of the Triforce and details of Link's past, he has much more plot influence than Link's uncle who just dies and alludes to Zelda being Link's sister. Trying to condense the plot of OoT into "you have to awaken the seven sages" is a huge disservice to everything that happens in the game. If you simplify it that much you miss out on the invasion of Kokiri Forest, the abduction of the Gorons, the freezing of Zora's domain, the hidden horrors of Kakariko village, and the exploration of Ganondorf's home and people. These are all crucial plot element elements that do everything to make sure that OoT's plot is everything but a rehash of AlttP. And yet, these are but a few examples, I didn't even begin on character relations and events that are also crucial to the plot.

If you're going to call it a paint job, you should at least admit that it's a paint job that's better than the original in every way.

Well, I don't know about important issue, but I'm very curious. Pretty please?

This was actually a two-sided response, I'll address it in the response below.

Sure they can. All they need are other, more timeless qualities to recommend them; there are other rings to wrestle in besides graphics, mate. One such is plot. We can compare OoT's plot to those of the other Zelda games (and non-Zelda games as well, if we wanted to). Majora's Mask has trounced OoT in practically every category since the day of its release, and doggone if it isn't the pinnacle of the series to this day. If ALttP, OoT, MM, WW, TP and SS were all released right now and I could only have one, I'd choose MM. Hell, if I could have only one video game in the world, it'd be MM. That's how unique it is. Meanwhile, TP and SS would both beat ALttP and OoT in their own game.

I agree that games can have timeless qualities that can make them still relevant to an advancing game culture. I just didn't know what standards you would use to judge whether or not a game is still relevant. Most people will judge a game by its graphics and interface and use that as a way to say that a game is dated, but you're addressing the plot, which I think is one of the perfect examples of what exactly is timeless in OoT.

Spoiler

MM's plot certainly did not trounce OoT's plot. The only time when MM's plot is clearly better is when you start trying to derive hidden meanings to things, but those things are invalid because they are not clearly stated. When judging plot objectively, we have to look at what is clearly stated, and while MM's plot is amazing, too much of MM's greater plot is optional to call it objectively better. You can beat MM without doing any sidequests, and the only plot you'll get is that from the four areas, whose plots are good, to say the least, but when compared to OoT's scale and progression, OoT simply has more of it. I agree that when sidequests are thrown into the mix, MM stands a chance against OoT, but you cannot include optional plot elements in an objective comparison because the fact that they are optional means that one cannot take them into account when considering the experience of all players.

But that entire segment was beside the point. Regardless of whether or not you think MM's story is better than OoT's, that doesn't mean that both can't have a "timeless" plot, and we all know that the plot is one of OoT's main features. An adventure plot of that magnitude had never been done before, and even if you don't value pioneering as a valuable gaming aspect, I'd argue that OoT's plot is much better than TP and SS (not WW though.) My point is, a lot of Zelda games have amazing stories, and its perfectly possible for two of them to have stories that are so good that they're still relevant to current gaming culture, and I feel OoT's story is one of the main reasons why it is hailed as one of the best games. This, I can elaborate on if necessary.

However, it need not have been true. They could've chosen to actually do something with all that empty space, and there's no "technology level at the time"-johns on that one. It was a missed opportunity.

This is a moot point. Game developers don't have to try to add more stuff to every part of the game just because they can. There comes a point when adding more things becomes irrelevant. The game developers could've made Hyrule market bigger and added more things, but they didn't because it was unnecessary. The game developers could've added 3 more dungeons and areas, but they didn't because it was unnecessary. The game developers could've given Ganon another form, but they didn't because it was unnecessary. There are as many "missed opportunities" as there are concepts in your head. There is nothing lost in the experience of the game with Hyrule Field left as it is.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "good villain" here. If you mean "original villain", with never-seen-before motivations and other qualities, then yes, that is indeed hard (but not impossible!) to come by. But even if that isn't what you meant, I still can't see what (if anything) Ganondorf has to recommend him above just about any villain ever seen in video gaming. Like, what does he bring to the table that Bowser doesn't? If he doesn't bring anything at all, then that's a big mark against OoT in the departments of plot, characters and overall richness of the setting itself.

Ganondorf does a lot to influence the plot, much more than Bowser ever does. The plot events of the first three temples (killing the deku tree, blocking off the Goron's cave, getting Ruto swallowed by Jabu Jabu) were all orchestrated by Ganondorf in order to allow Link to get the stones and open the Sacred Realm for him. Ganondorf used Link to enable him to get the Triforce and it worked exactly as he wanted. That sounds like a original villain to me, especially considering the time period when this game came out.

Ganondorf uses Link again in the future portion of the game by watching Link's every move because he knows that Zelda isn't going to come out of hiding for anyone except him, and that plan succeeds as well. He's a genius schemer, and he has a lot of plot relevance.

This is true. And note that in the eyes of the "OoT is overrated!"-crowd, this is just more evidence of the fact that OoT isn't that special: it's just one more department where it either can't or doesn't even want to distinguish itself from the gray masses.

In the general picture, this point is so weak that it's really not worth debating. If someone is going to say, "OoT isn't that great because they still put the boss slaying items in the dungeons. That doesn't make sense!" then I really don't have much to say to them. Again, every game has mechanics that naturally don't make sense. If those mechanics are a part of the overall structure of the game, there is literally no point in expecting them to be changed. That's like saying that turned-based fights in Final Fantasy should be changed because they don't make sense. That style of play is essential to the design of the game, just like how this particular style of dungeon design is essential to Zelda. Moot point.

This. Entirely this. OoT was known for what it did at the time (invented targeting and smoothly transitioned LoZ from 2D to 3D). While that's great and all, its like Gastogh said, if any other LoZ came out in its place that title would be praised to no end while OoT would be seen as just good. For people who enjoyed game play improvements in later LoZ titles OoT just feels a tad outdated.

This is exactly why pioneering should be considered an important part of judging a game. Of course IF Twilight Princess had come out when OoT did, it would be praised as the best game ever, but this is completely irrelevant because ultimately it is IMPOSSIBLE for TP to have come out when OoT was made. The technology was not there, so there's no point in making an argument out of an impossible scenario. Rather, we should look at what is possible, and what was done, and the fact is that OoT made the best out of what was available at the time and revolutionized Zelda as a series and gaming as a whole. TP could have done that, but it DIDN'T. That's worth taking account of, whether you experienced what OoT did or not.

 

[MajinSweet]

I never liked the game. Played it when it came out, played it again about 2 years ago, could never even force myself to like it. I always find myself not knowing where to go, getting bored of traveling around aimlessly. Always found the controls confusing. Furthest I got as a kid, Shadow temple. When I played it again as an adult I got to the Goron area. I like some of the concepts and ideas, I just don't think they are executed very well. Like a new dungeoun introducing a new gadget, so you use said gadget to beat level and boss. But the game just does it in like, the most brain dead ways. The bosses never felt like actual fights, just dressed up puzzles. Which might be fine for others, but the whole area before him is a bunch of puzzles as well. It kills all the immersion for me, and I always felt like that was a large appeal to the series. The feeling of going on some grand adventure. The game constantly knocks me out of the experience to remind me "This is just a video game, now throw the bomb onto the marker." I guess that's why I'm more of a Demon's Souls/Dark Souls guy. A lot of the same general concepts at the core, but I feel designed and executed at a much higher level.

 

[The Good Doctor]

Some people don't like generic adventure games. I personally think the plot is far too rushed. I realize most of the game is after Ganondorf takes over, but there is like no build up to anything.

1.Rushed story
2.No surprises in the plot
3.Generic bosses
4.No challenge
5.Navi is really annoying

Even though I never played a Zelda game, the ONLY thing I had to look up was how to get into Zora's mouth. I also beat the game in like, a week and a half, That's not exactly an "adventure". I mentioned this before, but I hate how OoT gets all this praise when Super Mario 64 paved the way for it.

 

[MuraRengan]

I never liked the game. Played it when it came out, played it again about 2 years ago, could never even force myself to like it. I always find myself not knowing where to go, getting bored of traveling around aimlessly. Always found the controls confusing. Furthest I got as a kid, Shadow temple. When I played it again as an adult I got to the Goron area. I like some of the concepts and ideas, I just don't think they are executed very well. Like a new dungeoun introducing a new gadget, so you use said gadget to beat level and boss. But the game just does it in like, the most brain dead ways. The bosses never felt like actual fights, just dressed up puzzles. Which might be fine for others, but the whole area before him is a bunch of puzzles as well. It kills all the immersion for me, and I always felt like that was a large appeal to the series. The feeling of going on some grand adventure. The game constantly knocks me out of the experience to remind me "This is just a video game, now throw the bomb onto the marker." I guess that's why I'm more of a Demon's Souls/Dark Souls guy. A lot of the same general concepts at the core, but I feel designed and executed at a much higher level.

This sounds like more of an issue with Zelda games in general, not just OoT. I can't blame you if Zelda games just aren't your thing, but I'm more interested in people who like Zelda games but don't find OoT to be among the best.

Some people don't like generic adventure games. I personally think the plot is far too rushed. I realize most of the game is after Ganondorf takes over, but there is like no build up to anything.

1.Rushed story
2.No surprises in the plot
3.Generic bosses
4.No challenge
5.Navi is really annoying

Even though I never played a Zelda game, the ONLY thing I had to look up was how to get into Zora's mouth. I also beat the game in like, a week and a half, That's not exactly an "adventure". I mentioned this before, but I hate how OoT gets all this praise when Super Mario 64 paved the way for it.

I'll give you that the plot is rushed, but how big a deal is that? Does that kill the entire experience for you?

As for surprises, I'll have to disagree with you on that. I found a lot of plot events to be surprising. You're telling me that you saw the freezing of Zora's domain coming? Or the hidden secrets of Kakariko village?

I also wouldn't exactly call the bosses generic, seeing as most of them made their debut in this game. I'd like some elaboration on this, please.

The game certainly isn't hard, but that's not a selling point to every gamer. I go to Zelda looking for an adventure, not a challenge. If there is a challenge within it, fine, but the adventure is what I'm most interested in. I think a lot of Zelda fans are in my boat.

Is Navi really that big of a deal? Does she kill the experience?

As for SM64 paving the way, this is a really irrelevant point. SM64 already gets a lot of praise, but the only thing it contributed to OoT is a system of 3D modeling. OoT has a lot more going for it than that, and thus has a lot more to be praised for.

 

[Gastogh]

Most of everything you cite here is pure structure, and the most important parts of the plot have NOTHING to do with these parts. For instance, the dream that Link has in AlttP to start his journey pales in comparison to the one in OoT. The Deku Tree provides the first ever history of the Triforce and details of Link's past, he has much more plot influence than Link's uncle who just dies and alludes to Zelda being Link's sister. Trying to condense the plot of OoT into "you have to awaken the seven sages" is a huge disservice to everything that happens in the game. If you simplify it that much you miss out on the invasion of Kokiri Forest, the abduction of the Gorons, the freezing of Zora's domain, the hidden horrors of Kakariko village, and the exploration of Ganondorf's home and people. These are all crucial plot element elements that do everything to make sure that OoT's plot is everything but a rehash of AlttP. And yet, these are but a few examples, I didn't even begin on character relations and events that are also crucial to the plot.

If you're going to call it a paint job, you should at least admit that it's a paint job that's better than the original in every way.

Yes, those things are part of the shared structure. That was the point. But if your final line here is a valid argument, then I'll note that TP's paint is even prettier and conclude that TP>OoT, because there, again, the underlying story is pretty much identical.

The bit about the "important parts of the plot" having nothing to do with structure surprised me. Are you saying that if we were to extract, say, the invasion of the Kokiri Forest from the larger framework of the story, the event itself would still be just as meaningful? If not, can you clarify what you are saying?

In any case, if the bad things that happened to the Kokiri, Gorons, and Zora are so impressive, what is it that makes them unique in your eyes? Like, I could've easily written the "bad stuff happens in various locations" bit into my little formula up there, so why does OoT get all the credit for it? The Bad-World version of Kakariko is just as screwed in ALttP as it is in OoT, and we could make a similar comparison between any pair of locations in the two games.

Regardless of whether or not you think MM's story is better than OoT's, that doesn't mean that both can't have a "timeless" plot, and we all know that the plot is one of OoT's main features. An adventure plot of that magnitude had never been done before, and even if you don't value pioneering as a valuable gaming aspect, I'd argue that OoT's plot is much better than TP and SS (not WW though.) My point is, a lot of Zelda games have amazing stories, and its perfectly possible for two of them to have stories that are so good that they're still relevant to current gaming culture, and I feel OoT's story is one of the main reasons why it is hailed as one of the best games. This, I can elaborate on if necessary.

I have no shortage of appreciation for pioneering. Since you don't seem to, either, you can probably understand why people would dislike the credit for that pioneering being given to the wrong title. (Or what they feel to be the wrong title - I guess this comes down to our arm-wrestling about ALttP vs OoT, as above. :p)

But yeah, as I said, I'm really curious about OoT's continuing relevance to gaming, so please do elaborate.

Ganondorf does a lot to influence the plot, much more than Bowser ever does. The plot events of the first three temples (killing the deku tree, blocking off the Goron's cave, getting Ruto swallowed by Jabu Jabu) were all orchestrated by Ganondorf in order to allow Link to get the stones and open the Sacred Realm for him. Ganondorf used Link to enable him to get the Triforce and it worked exactly as he wanted. That sounds like a original villain to me, especially considering the time period when this game came out.

Ganondorf uses Link again in the future portion of the game by watching Link's every move because he knows that Zelda isn't going to come out of hiding for anyone except him, and that plan succeeds as well. He's a genius schemer, and he has a lot of plot relevance.

Alright, I'll grant you the point about Bowser; that was setting the bar too low. However, I'm not giving you the one about originality - or at the very least, I don't agree that what the writers did with Ganondorf was in any way impressive, even for that time. The writers of OoT didn't invent manipulation, and Ganondorf's brand of it was extremely lazy storytelling. He just kind of... shows up at the Temple of Time and declares that he orchestrated everything, and there's not one word anywhere about how in the hell he could have managed to predict everyone's actions to that degree of precision. It's a total asspull of a story twist, only impressive by the extremely low standards video games have tended to set themselves, if even that.

And then Mr Manipulator turns off Omniscience Mode and gets up and owned by the little boy in the future. Whoopee.

In the general picture, this point is so weak that it's really not worth debating. If someone is going to say, "OoT isn't that great because they still put the boss slaying items in the dungeons. That doesn't make sense!" then I really don't have much to say to them. Again, every game has mechanics that naturally don't make sense. If those mechanics are a part of the overall structure of the game, there is literally no point in expecting them to be changed. That's like saying that turned-based fights in Final Fantasy should be changed because they don't make sense. That style of play is essential to the design of the game, just like how this particular style of dungeon design is essential to Zelda. Moot point.

There's "including some less than fully realistic features due to the limitations of the medium", and then there's "refusing to pick low-hanging fruit". Having powerful items lying around is *NOT* an inherently necessary part of the adventure genre of video games, or any other genre of anything for that matter. It's not as though OoT is the only offender here, but again: not bothering to try to do better.

Like I said: these little things pile up, but whether they make a big enough pile to sway anyone is for them to decide for themselves. I also don't think dismissing easily fixed flaws as "moot" is approprite, because that would prevent us from giving credit to those who do have their **** straight. I'll note here that OoT also did something right regarding the example I used above. One example is the Hookshot: a powerful item in its own right and it was not kept stashed in a place where Ganondorf had absolute control. Now if they'd only done something similar with, say, the Longshot...

I think people just look through "Nostalgia Glasses" at it.

This is almost certainly a part of it. There's only so many games we can play and be amazed by before the effect grows old, and then we're left with the memory of That One Game from when we were ten was that best ever because it was the only one that ever made an impact as big. I wish there were some way of knowing how much simple nostalgia and childhood impressionability determine people's favorite games/books/TV shows/etc.

 

[GwJ]

I'm sorry, but as a lurker, this is what I get out of this. Someone told Mura that they don't think OoT is a very good game or the best zelda game. Mura, believing it to be the best Zelda game, got angry that anybody could be so audacious to deny it and asked here. When provided with arguments that were valid, he got more angry and refused to acknowledge them.

 

[MuraRengan]

Please Jumpman. I got through with the phase in my life where i got angry at people not liking the games that I play about 5 years ago. Don't immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm trying to say that OoT is the best Zelda, because if you ever paid attention to my posts in this subform you'd know that MM is my favorite. A discussion is what I asked for and a discussion is what we're having. It just so happens that I think that a lot of the points that people bring up aren't completely legit, and I have points to back up every disagreement I have. There is nothing else to this thread than that.

I'll reply to Gastogh's post when I'm at a computer.

 

[GwJ]

If that's what you think, that's fine.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm sorry, but as a lurker, this is what I get out of this. Someone told Mura that they don't think OoT is a very good game or the best zelda game. Mura, believing it to be the best Zelda game, got angry that anybody could be so audacious to deny it and asked here. When provided with arguments that were valid, he got more angry and refused to acknowledge them.

I still think this sums it up pretty well, whether OoT is your favorite or not. Valid points have been made that you reject, particularly that OoT is almost 15 years old now and game design has improved by leaps and bounds, yet some gamers continue to insist that OoT is a great game by today's standards, which is an absurd claim.

Leave the game in 1998; appreciate it as a gem at the turn of the century. But let's move on.

 

[The Good Doctor]

What I meant by generic
-They are all random creatures, and they are also irrelevant to the plot-

Difficulty
-How is it an adventure when you can just steam roll the whole game-

Plot
-The freezing of Zora's Domain didn't really matter, I was just like "Okay, I can't go back." It was unexpected I guess, but it doesn't really affect the story-

Navi
-HEY LISTEN!!! every few ****ing seconds, yeah it gets annoying-

SM64
-Compared to OoT, this game gets very little praise. I thought it was the better game when I was little, and I still think this way today-

 

[MuraRengan]

Yes, those things are part of the shared structure. That was the point. But if your final line here is a valid argument, then I'll note that TP's paint is even prettier and conclude that TP>OoT, because there, again, the underlying story is pretty much identical.

TP has a lot of glaring plot flaws that make me unable to agree that TP's plot is better than OoT. We'd have to do a very extensive comparison of plots ofr me to come to a definite conclusion, but certain things in TP's story are absolutely unforgivable (I.E. Ganondorf coming out of left field at the end of the game). TP had a lot of potential with the side stories of Ilia, Collin, and Midna, but in the end Midna's was the only one that came into full swing. Ilia and Collin's stories were left very underdeveloped. I just can't agree that TP's story is better, though I'm not saying that it's worse.

The bit about the "important parts of the plot" having nothing to do with structure surprised me. Are you saying that if we were to extract, say, the invasion of the Kokiri Forest from the larger framework of the story, the event itself would still be just as meaningful? If not, can you clarify what you are saying?

That's exactly what I'm saying. OoT has tons of subplots that are great stories in their own right. That's part of what makes the plot so timeless.

In any case, if the bad things that happened to the Kokiri, Gorons, and Zora are so impressive, what is it that makes them unique in your eyes? Like, I could've easily written the "bad stuff happens in various locations" bit into my little formula up there, so why does OoT get all the credit for it? The Bad-World version of Kakariko is just as screwed in ALttP as it is in OoT, and we could make a similar comparison between any pair of locations in the two games.

The thing is, AlttP didn't have Kokiri, Gorons, or Zoras. There's nothing necessarily wrong with AlttP's story, but OoT aimed higher in the storytelling department by including several different subplots. OoT created a larger, more universal story structure that linked all areas and characters together. For instance, the invasion of Kokiri Forest was tied into the story of Link's identity as a Hylian as opposed to a Kokiri and the story of Link and Saria's friendship, while still having direct relevance to the main plot. There are similar examples of these interconnected subplots in every area that Link has to explore. OoT does this kind of dynamic weaving so well that ultimately the structural aspect of "Link goes to X place and does Y" becomes a lot deeper in its presentation.

I have no shortage of appreciation for pioneering. Since you don't seem to, either, you can probably understand why people would dislike the credit for that pioneering being given to the wrong title. (Or what they feel to be the wrong title - I guess this comes down to our arm-wrestling about ALttP vs OoT, as above. :p)

I'd argue that OoT pioneered much more than AlttP. The only things that OoT borrows from AlttP are items and plot structure, but the 3D interface and combat, characters and races, plots and subplots, and themes are things OoT originated and did incredibly well. AlttP certainly did its pioneering, I just think OoT did a ton more.

But yeah, as I said, I'm really curious about OoT's continuing relevance to gaming, so please do elaborate.

I'll answer this along when I address Jam Stunna's post.

Alright, I'll grant you the point about Bowser; that was setting the bar too low. However, I'm not giving you the one about originality - or at the very least, I don't agree that what the writers did with Ganondorf was in any way impressive, even for that time. The writers of OoT didn't invent manipulation, and Ganondorf's brand of it was extremely lazy storytelling. He just kind of... shows up at the Temple of Time and declares that he orchestrated everything, and there's not one word anywhere about how in the hell he could have managed to predict everyone's actions to that degree of precision. It's a total asspull of a story twist, only impressive by the extremely low standards video games have tended to set themselves, if even that.

And then Mr Manipulator turns off Omniscience Mode and gets up and owned by the little boy in the future. Whoopee.

I'd like to mention that Ganondorf didn't simply predict everyone's actions. There are specific things that he did to influence the outcomes of several events (killing the Deku Tree, blocking off the Goron Cave, having Ruto go missing). However, I will grant that Ganondorf's plans are far from realistic. However, Ganondorf is still a better, mor eplot relevant, character in OoT than in AlttP, where he is the equivalent of Bowser, in TP where he shows up out of NOWHERE, and WW where you barely even interact with him until the very end.

There's "including some less than fully realistic features due to the limitations of the medium", and then there's "refusing to pick low-hanging fruit". Having powerful items lying around is *NOT* an inherently necessary part of the adventure genre of video games, or any other genre of anything for that matter. It's not as though OoT is the only offender here, but again: not bothering to try to do better.

I'm really not seeing what the big deal here is. Having powerful items lying around is not necessary to adventure games, but its a design choice when it comes to Zelda. It doesn't take anything away from the game. Thinking about it, if the items were not in the dungeon, that would probably mean that a LOT of backtracking and/or unnecessary fetch quests would have to be implemented to get the necessary items in Link's hands. I see nothing wrong with the current system. It's the most convenient considering that every dungeon has an item that is necessary for solving puzzles. Considering the way dungeons work, being that generally you don't need the special item until midway through the dungeon, having the item within the dungeon itself is likely the only way that item obtaining could be done, unless Nintendo changed the entire way dungeons are explored to where you start the dungeon with the special item and solve puzzles that way. That could be done, but ut's not absolutely necessary, and not necessarily better or worse for the game.

Like I said: these little things pile up, but whether they make a big enough pile to sway anyone is for them to decide for themselves. I also don't think dismissing easily fixed flaws as "moot" is approprite, because that would prevent us from giving credit to those who do have their **** straight. I'll note here that OoT also did something right regarding the example I used above. One example is the Hookshot: a powerful item in its own right and it was not kept stashed in a place where Ganondorf had absolute control. Now if they'd only done something similar with, say, the Longshot...

Ok, I'll give you this point, granted that you acknowledge the functional efficiency of having special items in the dungeons themselves and the ramifications in the design of the game if this system were changed. I don't necessarily see this as a flaw, though I can see how others would. But it's still only one issue, and a minor issue at that.

This is almost certainly a part of it. There's only so many games we can play and be amazed by before the effect grows old, and then we're left with the memory of That One Game from when we were ten was that best ever because it was the only one that ever made an impact as big. I wish there were some way of knowing how much simple nostalgia and childhood impressionability determine people's favorite games/books/TV shows/etc.

I disagree, because even outside of childhood I have played games that absolutely blew my mind. Two of such games are Chrono Trigger and Portal 2, which I played when I was 16 and 17 respectively. In my mind, those two games are on an OoT level of greatness, even though I played OoT when I was 7. I don't think nostalgia has everything to do with it.

What I meant by generic
-They are all random creatures, and they are also irrelevant to the plot-

This isn't completely true. A lot of the bosses were part of Ganondorf's plan, or had relevance to subplots. Ganondorf is responsible for Ghoma and Barinade making the Deku Tree and Jabu-Jabu ill. Ganondorf is responsible for infesting Dodongo's Cave with Dodongos. Ganondorf was going to make Volvagia eat all of the Gorons. Bongo Bongo was relevant to the Shiekah and Kakariko village subplot. Defeating Phantom Ganon and Morpha released the curses on Kokiri Forest and Zora's Domain. Twinrova was Ganondorf's mother. Almost every boss relates back to things that Ganondorf does as a part of his plan and some other subplot specific to the area.

Difficulty
-How is it an adventure when you can just steam roll the whole game-

Irrelevant point for two reasons:

1. Not everyone looks for difficulty.
2. Difficulty is subjective.

Plot
-The freezing of Zora's Domain didn't really matter, I was just like "Okay, I can't go back." It was unexpected I guess, but it doesn't really affect the story-

The subplots in the respective areas of Hyrule are as important to the plot and the main story. The game makes this very clear with the roles of the characters that become the sages. You can't talk about OoT's plot without including the parts of it that deal with the different regions of hyrule and the respective characters in those areas. So yes, freezing Zora's Domain is relevant to the plot because it is the home of Ruto, the Water Sage who is one of the many people who helps Link ultimately defeat Ganondorf.

Navi
-HEY LISTEN!!! every few ****ing seconds, yeah it gets annoying-

Again, how big of a deal is it?

SM64
-Compared to OoT, this game gets very little praise. I thought it was the better game when I was little, and I still think this way today-

You're not doign much to sell this point if you don't explain yourself. How much of OoT's success do you think is owed to SM64?

I still think this sums it up pretty well, whether OoT is your favorite or not. Valid points have been made that you reject, particularly that OoT is almost 15 years old now and game design has improved by leaps and bounds, yet some gamers continue to insist that OoT is a great game by today's standards, which is an absurd claim.

Leave the game in 1998; appreciate it as a gem at the turn of the century. But let's move on.

Sorry Jam, but the current gaming standards disagree with you.

http://www.gamerankings.com/3ds/997842-the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time-3d/index.html

OoT3D, which is literally OoT with improved graphics, has been hailed as a great game even by today's gaming standards. The stats don't lie, unless you're going to accuse game reviewers of being nostalgia *****s.

In all honestly, I don't think game design has improved that much at all, especially not Zelda game design. And I'd challenge you to show me where OoT's design fails in comparison to other games this generation.

I have not rejected any valid points. I concede when it is time to concede, and I reject when it's time to reject. Instead of being so dismissive about this entire thing, how about you share what you are claiming to know so well.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I think there are a few aspects that helped inflate OoT past what it probably should get.

1) If you constantly keeping hearing people claim something to be better, you unconsciously start believing it. I moved to a more melee oriented area after playing brawl for so long, and eventually after a couple years I started thinking I liked melee more. Yet, whenever a tourney rolls around and both melee and brawl are present, I find myself going back to what I played a long time ago more often, brawl.

2) People are bias towards stuff they started out with or were first introduced to. Back to my old narration, I started out with brawl, I learned to completely enjoy melee and all the bashing agaisnt brawl, but I still really enjoy playing brawl.

First game bias, and a band-wagon effect are the biggest reasons why I think OoT even still keeps being heralded as the best game ever. Now, after having played nearly every single Zelda game, I cannot find myself thinking as any one zelda game as being better than the other. The only reason I can still continue to think of it as the best game is because its so broken now thanks to Kazooie and gang.

 

[MuraRengan]

I think there are a few aspects that helped inflate OoT past what it probably should get.

1) If you constantly keeping hearing people claim something to be better, you unconsciously start believing it. I moved to a more melee oriented area after playing brawl for so long, and eventually after a couple years I started thinking I liked melee more. Yet, whenever a tourney rolls around and both melee and brawl are present, I find myself going back to what I played a long time ago more often, brawl.

2) People are bias towards stuff they started out with or were first introduced to. Back to my old narration, I started out with brawl, I learned to completely enjoy melee and all the bashing agaisnt brawl, but I still really enjoy playing brawl.

First game bias, and a band-wagon effect are the biggest reasons why I think OoT even still keeps being heralded as the best game ever. Now, after having played nearly every single Zelda game, I cannot find myself thinking as any one zelda game as being better than the other. The only reason I can still continue to think of it as the best game is because its so broken now thanks to Kazooie and gang.

There's a lot of speculation and assumption in this post. Some of it agreeable, some not.

I don't agree that this phenomena of "hearing people say X is good makes you think X is good." In fact, in my experience, when someone tells me that something is good, my first response is to think otherwise until it is proven. Hell, if this phenomena were absolutely true, then there would be no such thing as a hipster. I, personally, don't assume that this phenomena is true 100% of the time.

Have you ever considered why Smash64 has such a negligible community? You'd think that if this "original game bias" were true, then there would be a ton of people claiming that SSB64 is the best smash game. This doesn't happen, but according to your speculation, people who played Smash64 first, like me, should like Smash 64 more. But almost nobody claims that Smash64 is better than Melee or Brawl. Why do you think that is?

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Be careful not to insinuate that I believe that the two things I mentioned happen in all cases. I'm only driving at these two things for OoT. I brought in a lesser example of the two effects I was describing to help illustrate and help you better understand the concept I am explaining. If you are trying to describe a concept, then bringing in an example can help someone understand what you are describing.

Also, it is difficult to talk about the general opinions and thoughts going through the millions of people who have played Ocarina of Time. If we could, we would get a very accurate way of knowing what drives people to say OoT is the best game ever. In the end, all we can really do is speculate.

Maybe I am going to far, but perhaps most of the millions who played OoT do not think its the best game ever. Instead, it might be that because gaming sites such as IGN make reviews and awards claiming OoT to be the best game ever, we are giving the perception that most other people will agree with them. Or even polls such as the one you cited for OoT 3DS on gamefaqs is actually not very accurate representation of the millions of people who have played this game. The results of that poll might be inaccurate because its only the people who enjoyed the game feeled inclined to post at all. Everyone else who disliked the game or were okay with it never felt so compelled to give there say at all.

In the end, our discussion and "proof" of our claims will almost always have some trace of speculation or inaccuracy. But I have fun discussing and thinking about it nonetheless.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You've basically invalidated your argument by mentioning OoT 3DS. It's not a straight port of OoT. It has had significant work done on its presentation, interface and game engine because the original version of OoT could not succeed in this era of gaming. The changes made to OoT 3DS are basically an explicit admission of the original's shortcomings when compared to games of today.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Are you talking to me, or are you talking about something mentioned before my more recent post above? With that 2 minute post difference I cannot tell.

 

[MuraRengan]

Be careful not to insinuate that I believe that the two things I mentioned happen in all cases. I'm only driving at these two things for OoT. I brought in a lesser example of the two effects I was describing to help illustrate and help you better understand the concept I am explaining. If you are trying to describe a concept, then bringing in an example can help someone understand what you are describing.

Also, it is difficult to talk about the general opinions and thoughts going through the millions of people who have played Ocarina of Time. If we could, we would get a very accurate way of knowing what drives people to say OoT is the best game ever. In the end, all we can really do is speculate.

Maybe I am going to far, but perhaps most of the millions who played OoT do not think its the best game ever. Instead, it might be that because gaming sites such as IGN make reviews and awards claiming OoT to be the best game ever, we are giving the perception that most other people will agree with them. Or even polls such as the one you cited for OoT 3DS on gamefaqs is actually not very accurate representation of the millions of people who have played this game. The results of that poll might be inaccurate because its only the people who enjoyed the game feeled inclined to post at all. Everyone else who disliked the game or were okay with it never felt so compelled to give there say at all.

In the end, our discussion and "proof" of our claims will almost always have some trace of speculation or inaccuracy. But I have fun discussing and thinking about it nonetheless.

Why would OoT be subject to bandwagoning and bias more than any other game, especially if it's not as good as people claim? It's pretty silly to think that by chance this one game somehow garnered ridiculous fandom even though it wasn't that good. If it truly wasn't as good as people claim, then you'd think that this type of thing could and would happen to a lot of games, but it doesn't. So why OoT and not some other game? What makes OoT the target of this fandom if not its own merits?

Btw, that website is not gamefaqs. It's another website that gives games a statistical rating based on the averages of different reviews from different sources around the internet, including gamespot, kotaku, gamespy, ign, and many other places. As statistical evidence, that website is about as good as it gets.

You've basically invalidated your argument by mentioning OoT 3DS. It's not a straight port of OoT. It has had significant work done on its presentation, interface and game engine because the original version of OoT could not succeed in this era of gaming. The changes made to OoT 3DS are basically an explicit admission of the original's shortcomings when compared to games of today.

I've played OoT 3D twice now and I haven't seen anything other than cosmetic changes. Care to elaborate on what's been changed?

 

[The Good Doctor]

Take off the fan boy glasses please.

Issue #1 OoT vs TP

I've not played TP, or any other Zelda game beside OoT. Let me get that out of the way now. You are basically saying TP plot isn't better, but then you say it's not worse either. That enough right there is enough for me to not take you seriously and request a lock but I'll bite anyway.

Issue #2
Ganondorf vs Bowser

You say Ganondorf does a lot to affect the plot and Bowser doesn't in the Mario games. Too bad Bowser fits the criteria you set for Ganondorf. Lets look at your points again.

A lot of the bosses were part of Ganondorf's plan, or had relevance to subplots. Ganondorf is responsible for Ghoma and Barinade making the Deku Tree and Jabu-Jabu ill. Ganondorf is responsible for infesting Dodongo's Cave with Dodongos. Ganondorf was going to make Volvagia eat all of the Gorons. Bongo Bongo was relevant to the Shiekah and Kakariko village subplot. Defeating Phantom Ganon and Morpha released the curses on Kokiri Forest and Zora's Domain. Twinrova was Ganondorf's mother. Almost every boss relates back to things that Ganondorf does as a part of his plan and some other subplot specific to the area.

So he throws bad guys at places? Bowser builds castles, invades the Mushroom Kingdom, and probably off screens some Toads. Just because you interact with the people of Hyrule doesn't make their situation any more unique or dire to the ones of the Mushroom Kingdom, where Bowser sends a whole ARMY to invade.

Issue #3
Difficulty

You are right, it's subjective. I didn't play the game when I was young so I wasn't challenged by it. In my opinion though, a game does doesn't offer any challenge just doesn't have the replay value of a game I'm constantly trying to conquer. Easy games can be good games, but difficulty is a driving force in 3d platformer/adventure games for me at least.

Issue #4
The remake on the DS

This is simple, OoT has a huge following. Imagine if the remake FF7. It may not be the best RPG, hell a lot of people don't think it's even the best in the series. It still would sell a great deal of copies.

Issue #5
Super Mario 64

That was one obvious problem with Super Mario 64, so when it came to Zelda, which features a lot of swordfights, we introduced 'Z-targeting,' by which the player could lock on to an opponent. The opponent would stay in front of the player, all the player's attacks would converge on the opponent, and the camera would always capture both the opponent and the player onscreen.

Source-http://www.cubed3.com/news/11146/

All I can really say is that Miyamoto found a huge flaw in the camera in SM64, and changed the camera system in OoT so it wouldn't be a problem. Little known fact, the "camera" system in SM64 and OoT were once exactly the same. It does help that the same guy is responsible for these games and he learns from mistakes.

Don't get me wrong, I think OoT was great for it's time. I watched my brother play TP and have heard only great things about Skyward Sword. Do you think OoT outclasses those titles? If so, what is your reasoning.

Also, differences are here http://www.ign.com/wikis/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time-3d/3DS_Version_Differences

 

[Jam Stunna]

Those cosmetic changes are enough. Not to mention touchscreen and gyro controls, which are certainly more than cosmetic changes.

At this point though, it's apparent that your mind is set on convincing the rest of us that we're wrong, no matter what evidence we present. I really don't know how you can claim that game design hasn't changed much, despite the massive changes that Grand Theft Auto 3's sandbox style has brought forth, or the technological changes like online gameplay.

Ignoring these and myriad other developments (like touchscreen and motion controls that even the OoT remake embrace) only makes sense because acknowledging them also acknowledges that OoT does not have them, and offers valid points of criticism for OoT in this era. The game had its time in the sun, and while aspects of it hold up well, as a whole the game is outclassed by top tier releases nowadays. To claim otherwise is to severely overrate the game.

 

[The Good Doctor]

Those cosmetic changes are enough. Not to mention touchscreen and gyro controls, which are certainly more than cosmetic changes.

At this point though, it's apparent that your mind is set on convincing the rest of us that we're wrong, no matter what evidence we present. I really don't know how you can claim that game design hasn't changed much, despite the massive changes that Grand Theft Auto 3's sandbox style has brought forth, or the technological changes like online gameplay.

Ignoring these and myriad other developments (like touchscreen and motion controls that even the OoT remake embrace) only makes sense because acknowledging them also acknowledges that OoT does not have them, and offers valid points of criticism for OoT in this era. The game had its time in the sun, and while aspects of it hold up well, as a whole the game is outclassed by top tier releases nowadays. To claim otherwise is to severely overrate the game.

I think he was just trying to troll, and request this thread to be locked. I wish there was a "like" button on SWF.

 

[MuraRengan]

Issue #1 OoT vs TP

I've not played TP, or any other Zelda game beside OoT. Let me get that out of the way now. You are basically saying TP plot isn't better, but then you say it's not worse either. That enough right there is enough for me to not take you seriously and request a lock but I'll bite anyway.

I was trying to be fair. I haven't decided which plot I think is objectively better, because there are too many things to consider, too many ways to separate preference from objective truth. At a quick glance, I'd say that OoT is better, but that wouldn't be fair becaus eI haven't taken the time to really sort and compare both plots in detail.

Issue #2
Ganondorf vs Bowser

You say Ganondorf does a lot to affect the plot and Bowser doesn't in the Mario games. Too bad Bowser fits the criteria you set for Ganondorf. Lets look at your points again.

So he throws bad guys at places? Bowser builds castles, invades the Mushroom Kingdom, and probably off screens some Toads. Just because you interact with the people of Hyrule doesn't make their situation any more unique or dire to the ones of the Mushroom Kingdom, where Bowser sends a whole ARMY to invade.

Mario games focus so little on storytelling that the plot details don't even matter. The difference between Mario and Zelda is that Zelda is both a game and a story. The developers want you to experience the story as well as play the game, but you know damn well that there is no emphasis on story in a Mario game.

Issue #3
Difficulty

You are right, it's subjective. I didn't play the game when I was young so I wasn't challenged by it. In my opinion though, a game does doesn't offer any challenge just doesn't have the replay value of a game I'm constantly trying to conquer. Easy games can be good games, but difficulty is a driving force in 3d platformer/adventure games for me at least.

I see your point. However, difficulty as a factor is much more player oriented than game oriented. When it comes to games where difficulty isn't a selling point, you can't blame the game for not meeting your difficulty standards.

Issue #4
The remake on the DS

This is simple, OoT has a huge following. Imagine if the remake FF7. It may not be the best RPG, hell a lot of people don't think it's even the best in the series. It still would sell a great deal of copies.

Since this response is all assumption, I'll assume that OoT has a huge following because it's a great game, and that the average reviews say that it's a great game because it's a great game.

Issue #5
Super Mario 64

Source-http://www.cubed3.com/news/11146/

All I can really say is that Miyamoto found a huge flaw in the camera in SM64, and changed the camera system in OoT so it wouldn't be a problem. Little known fact, the "camera" system in SM64 and OoT were once exactly the same. It does help that the same guy is responsible for these games and he learns from mistakes.

There's no evidence to show that if it had not been for SM64, OoT wouldn't have had Z-Targeting. It's perfectly possible that the developers could have noticed that flaw while they were developing OoT, regardless of whether or not SM64 had been made.

Don't get me wrong, I think OoT was great for it's time. I watched my brother play TP and have heard only great things about Skyward Sword. Do you think OoT outclasses those titles? If so, what is your reasoning.

Understand that the purpose of this thread is mainly to defend OoT as a game that did and does everything well and goes beyond expectations. I personally believe that the best Zelda game is MM. I feel that neither MM nor OoT had any major flaws, however, MM strived for and succeeded in more in the full experience of the game. To me, when a game has no serious flaws, I don't see how people can call them overrated.

TP and SS, on the other hand, had serious flaws.

TP is the closest to being better than OoT. The only serious flaw in the game was the plot. Throwing Ganondorf into the mix at the end of the game was a terrible idea. There are a couple aspects of the game that are not necessarily bad, but they could have easily been better. The game has very few subplots and most of them are underdeveloped. There were no important characters from the other races. The game introduces several new items, but they are rarely used outside the dungeons they were first seen in. The "Tears of Light" segments could have been made a lot more interesting. Overall, TP does a lot well, but it didn't have an ambitious design. They essentially put together a game of Zelda bread-and-butter tactics, which is good, but not great.

SS has several big flaws, which is truly saddening because it had potential to be a phenomenal game. There are some terrible design choices. The swimming fetch quest in the forest and the stealth quest at the volcano were brutishly tacked on. It was a very unimaginative way of forcing players to replay places they had already been to. The main villain is literally not seen until the end of the game. Fighting The Imprisoned THREE TIMES was the stupidest thing ever done in Zelda. There are even less subplots in SS than in TP and they are even more underdeveloped (except Groose's).

Also, differences are here http://www.ign.com/wikis/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time-3d/3DS_Version_Differences

As I expected, there are no major changes to the game.

Those cosmetic changes are enough. Not to mention touchscreen and gyro controls, which are certainly more than cosmetic changes.

If you're insinuating that good graphics = good game then you have a very poor philosophy of gaming. As I said, very little has been changed about OoT 3D, and you admit that. Cosmetic changes are rather unimportant in the big picture, because Nintendo can always give OoT better graphics and sell it again. Touch-screen and gyro controls were 3DS essentials. Those changes were made solely because of the console it was on, not because it was a necessary gaming standard.

At this point though, it's apparent that your mind is set on convincing the rest of us that we're wrong, no matter what evidence we present. I really don't know how you can claim that game design hasn't changed much, despite the massive changes that Grand Theft Auto 3's sandbox style has brought forth, or the technological changes like online gameplay.

Jam, don't do this, because I'm about to lose a lot of respect for you.

First of all, you have not once gone into detail about why you think OoT is overrated. All of your arguments have been vague and presumptuous. It is not stubborn for me to ask you to elaborate when you are being vague, and it is not stubborn for me to disagree with someone else's points. If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I'm not simply disagreeing with every claim that someone makes about OoT. I have conceded several points already, and others I have not. I've verbally accepted the truth in many of the claims that people have, even though I have disagreements. It's like you haven't even read my posts.

Secondly, online play and sandbox-style design are not universally necessary game traits. Games can be great games without those two things. Those things are great for the games that use them, but not every game needs them. I repeat, not much has changed in game design. Certain games have their own styles and gimmicks, and Zelda is one of them, but there is nothing about gaming's current standards that would rule out OoT as a great game.

Ignoring these and myriad other developments (like touchscreen and motion controls that even the OoT remake embrace) only makes sense because acknowledging them also acknowledges that OoT does not have them, and offers valid points of criticism for OoT in this era. The game had its time in the sun, and while aspects of it hold up well, as a whole the game is outclassed by top tier releases nowadays. To claim otherwise is to severely overrate the game.

You seem to think that once a new technological or idealogical advancement comes forth in the gaming world, that all games henceforth must include them in their development. That's what I'm getting out of you. Sounds to me like you think that the next great Zelda game will have GTA style sandbox, online, touchscreen and motion controls. I hope this isn't what you think, because if so, our ideals about gaming are so far apart that they can never be reconciled. To me what makes a good game is not what specific design mechanic is used in a game, but how well and appropriately the game uses those mechanics. I think that OoT uses what it has as well as if not better than a lot of modern games. It's the same reason that I think Chrono Trigger, an old NES game, and Portal 2, a relatively modern PC game, are better than a lot of modern games. My standards are very specific and really very simple: How much does this game strive for, and how much does it succeed in what it strives for? It just so happens that I consider OoT to be amongst those games as well. But hell, since you think online play is so important, I can already see where this conversation is going.

 

[GwJ]

There's certainly a vB plug-in for it. Tell the admins to get on that.

 

[finalark]

I still think this sums it up pretty well, whether OoT is your favorite or not. Valid points have been made that you reject, particularly that OoT is almost 15 years old now and game design has improved by leaps and bounds, yet some gamers continue to insist that OoT is a great game by today's standards, which is an absurd claim.

Leave the game in 1998; appreciate it as a gem at the turn of the century. But let's move on.

This pretty much summarizes my opinion on any game made before current gen.

Yes, OoT was good, excellent, actually, back in 1998. Advances in technology and game design have made OoT shine significantly less. Especially if its your first time going into the game in 2012. When it comes to the 3DS remake most honest reviews (that is, the ones that didn't give the game an automatic 10/10 just for being OoT) noted that the camera isn't as good as they remember and that the targeting system doesn't seem to always work as they remember.

In other words, nostalgia is fun but for the love of god please admit that games age and not always well.

 

[GwJ]

The first time I played Ocarina of Time was near the beginning of the current generation. I didn't finish it, because it felt too clunky and ugly. The only way for me to finish it was to get OoT3D. This is the reason I'm firm in the idea that OoT isn't the best game of all time or the best Zelda game of all time.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I am the same as Jumpman, I couldn't finish Ocarina at first until the 3DS one came out and I forced it. To say the game had a good story, let alone one that is better than Skyward Sword's or Twilight Princess's, is quite baffling. There were more interesting characters and a more original plot going on. Ocarina just had you do this generic adventure, hell, that is basically the novelty of it (and games of that generation), but you can't thereby say the story is better.

Also, there are two things that you say are subjective that I can't entirely agree with. You said Majora's Mask's story was only better when subjective, and difficulty is subjective. In a sense, you are correct in both, but here is how in context it isn't in the way it matters. The way in which Majora's Mask gets more story derived from it, is because of its character, how it is artistic. It's true, we fill in the gaps, but think about this for a moment... does Ocarina of Time allow ANY room for imagination? It's not imaginative, it isn't original... yes Majora's Mask was. The source of the subjectivity of it is something objective, don't get caught up in the first subjective bit, you're missing the point. Now onto difficulty, yes, each person has a different amount of difficulty doing things, but the same thing applies here. Our subjective difficulties are being derived from something objectively there. There are games that are simply harder and easier than another, and yet, people can perform better or worse than others. That's it.

Another argument that could be brought up, that I immediately thought of when seeing the title, was there aren't a lot of reasons to like the game. Yes, you all are successfully arguing there are plenty of weaknesses there, but the biggest thing to me personally is that there is more character and direction to the others. They roll the dice a bit more in trying to stand out, Ocarina didn't, and it probably shouldn't have, it was the first three-dee game, the first to step out in the realm. They played it safe, which is irrefutably understandable. Notice how ever since Ocarina of Time, none of the games have really been that safe on the systems? (Granted, Twilight is pretty safe, but definitely not as safe, perhaps pulling back on the reigns a bit from Wind Waker).

 

[Gastogh]

That's exactly what I'm saying. OoT has tons of subplots that are great stories in their own right. That's part of what makes the plot so timeless.

All right, thanks for clearing that up.

My take on that issue (in case you care) is that separating events from their context typically also divorces them from their significance in the process, so you can imagine why that came as a surprise to me. You talked about subplots tying together elsewhere in your post(s), and that hits closer to home for me. Isolated events would have to be pretty damn amazing to not simply feel disjointed to me. Truly original ideas are pretty rare, and the peaceful childhood village being invaded by evil fails to qualify by a mile.

Next up: you said you'd address OoT's continuing relevance in your reply to Jam Stunna, but all I really saw in that reply was a link to a site that gave high ratings to OoT 3D. So when you were talking about "continuing relevance to gaming," did you just mean that people today are still enjoying the game? If that's the case, then I'll retract my objections; no one needs to justify liking old things to me of all people. Hell, I'm currently writing a fanfic that'll cover both OoT and MM because I love the damn things so much. Simple popularity just wasn't what I was thinking of when I considered the phrase "continuing relevance". OoT made a good impression on people in the past and good memories last (due to nostalgia and other reasons), and that can indeed carry you for 14 years and far longer besides.



With those two things out of the way, I'll be more brief this time and speak more generally rather than addressing specific points because I think I have a fair lock on where the crux of the issue is (and also because the conversation is getting bloated).

As best I can tell, it's two things. The first is this:

To me, when a game has no serious flaws, I don't see how people can call them overrated.

Where this whole argument got started was you asking why other people are calling OoT overrated. So: whatever your own opinion of the game or any individual part of it is, you'll have to admit that the seriousness of a flaw is a subjective thing. The things that seem minor to you can (legitimately!) be bigger issues in the eyes of others, because they are just as entitled to their opinions as you are.

The second is that I think you are holding OoT to a looser standard than other games. I won't speculate on the reasons, but I think what you were saying to The Good Doctor regarding Bowser/Ganondorf illustrates the point:

This isn't completely true. A lot of the bosses were part of Ganondorf's plan, or had relevance to subplots. Ganondorf is responsible for Ghoma and Barinade making the Deku Tree and Jabu-Jabu ill. Ganondorf is responsible for infesting Dodongo's Cave with Dodongos. Ganondorf was going to make Volvagia eat all of the Gorons. Bongo Bongo was relevant to the Shiekah and Kakariko village subplot. Defeating Phantom Ganon and Morpha released the curses on Kokiri Forest and Zora's Domain. Twinrova was Ganondorf's mother. Almost every boss relates back to things that Ganondorf does as a part of his plan and some other subplot specific to the area.

As TGD says later on, this argument doesn't work. Okay, so Ganondorf puts villains in place, fine; so does Bowser. Installing minions at the end of dungeons doesn't make a character fleshed-out, and it is certainly not something that OoT pioneered. What this looks like from this end of the discussion is that you're just willing to give OoT credit more easily than other games.

 

[finalark]

I know this is an old post but I want to respond to it.

This is exactly why pioneering should be considered an important part of judging a game. Of course IF Twilight Princess had come out when OoT did, it would be praised as the best game ever, but this is completely irrelevant because ultimately it is IMPOSSIBLE for TP to have come out when OoT was made.

No. The point is that if TP was made using Nintendo 64 tech, and still retained Wolf Link, Light Bugs, ect. it would will be praised as the best game ever.

The technology was not there, so there's no point in making an argument out of an impossible scenario. Rather, we should look at what is possible, and what was done, and the fact is that OoT made the best out of what was available at the time and revolutionized Zelda as a series and gaming as a whole.TP could have done that, but it DIDN'T. That's worth taking account of, whether you experienced what OoT did or not.

So you're basically saying that TP isn't comparable to OoT because it didn't revolutionize LoZ? Excuse me, but OoT managed to successfully convert a 2D series into 3D, which was brand new for games at the time. What the hell was TP supposed to do on that level? It was just a GC title. A very pretty for its time GC title but its not like there's anything it could do to match something as big as making a 3D leap.

Saying that later LoZ games aren't as good at OoT for not making the 3D leap is like saying that Super Mario World isn't as good as Super Mario Bros. for not reviving games in the west.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Ocarina of Time was the first game in the Zelda series I ever played and the first game in it's type I ever played.

I only had platformers and turn based RPG's up until that point.

I got hooked on the series since then.

The next game I got was Link's Awakening, than Alttp, than Majora's Mask...

 

[Falconv1.0]

I tried that game as a kid, hated it. Tried that game as a teen, hated it. Tried Majora's Mask recently and I did not hate that.

Also I hate the **** out of Twilight Princess.

This thread smells like salt. Also, anyone remember that dark age of gaming blog Mura did? Remember when he called Guitar Hero "deep" because you press more buttons? Yeah, don't debate this **** with him. Ever.

Edit-Proof

Hitting multiple notes at rapid speeds is anything but simple. The gameplay may start off simple, but that's just for the introductory levels. The meat of the game, the part of it that is the goal that it meant to be accomplished, is incredibly deep.

 

[MajinSweet]

This sounds like more of an issue with Zelda games in general, not just OoT. I can't blame you if Zelda games just aren't your thing, but I'm more interested in people who like Zelda games but don't find OoT to be among the best.

I disagree. I never had any of those problems with Zelda 2 or a aLttP. Not surprisingly, I find those two games waaaaaay better than OoT. Like, leagues better.

 

[The Good Doctor]

After thinking about the graphics argument, you can argue that Superman 64 was did good things because it brought Superman into a 3D realm

 

[finalark]

After thinking about the graphics argument, you can argue that Superman 64 was did good things because it brought Superman into a 3D realm

And this is why using graphics when arguing the quality of an older title is the worst thing ever. Actually, the only thing that you could bring to this argument that's more nonsensical than graphics is nostalgia. Never try to arguing using nostalgia.

 

[GwJ]

On a side note, I think Link's Awakening is a much better game than Ocarina of Time.

 

[Jam Stunna]

On a side note, I think Link's Awakening is a much better game than Ocarina of Time.

It certainly has a way more interesting narrative.