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

[Teran]

The only reason you'll ever need to dislike OoT is that it is the reason (and a reminder) that Zelda games are not allowed to be unique anymore.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I mean, I like Skyward Sword as my favorite game thus far but still, I find myself going to Twilight Princess over OoT, dunno why those games just got to me more.

I never grew up with OoT so I don't get the nostalgia others do.

Gamewise I liked it, and I disagree with new age standards forcing it to be not good, truly good games can last over time even when they slowly become dated. But I still agree OoT has legit reasons to not like it if someone chose not to like it.

 

[kupo15]

For me I don't really care too much about plot of a game or story telling through so many cutscenes as you will find in today's generation. SS "may" have a better story than OOT and focused a lot more on telling a story than OOT but this isn't a huge selling point for me like it is for so many others thus I enjoy OOT and MM much much more than SS. In fact, I couldn't force myself to finishing the rest of SS I guess similarly to how some of you couldn't stand to finish OOT. This is because for me I enjoy much more the gaming experience from playing the game as opposed to watching it. SS's story(telling) may be superior to OoT but SS's handholding type gameplay simply doesn't hold a candle to OOT imo.

I think OOT is a much better game than SS because I enjoy the sandbox feel of OOT compared to the linearity of SS. I can replay OOT over and over again and play it in a different order every time which is where I get my replay value. For me I don't feel like SS has a replay value anywhere close to OOT or MM because of its handholdy, linear forced gameplay and abundance of cutscenes. The main difference I see between the OOT/MM and TP/SS is that OOT/MM is programmed in a way that it doesn't treat the player like a noob first timer the way TP/SS does.

Also I have to address this small point mentioned earlier

but the only thing it contributed to OoT is a system of 3D modeling

This is simply not true. OOT's physics engine is no more than a modded version of SM64. SM64 did most of the heavy lifting for OOT's programming foundation.

 

[finalark]

For me I don't really care too much about plot of a game or story telling through so many cutscenes as you will find in today's generation. SS "may" have a better story than OOT and focused a lot more on telling a story than OOT but this isn't a huge selling point for me like it is for so many others thus I enjoy OOT and MM much much more than SS. In fact, I couldn't force myself to finishing the rest of SS I guess similarly to how some of you couldn't stand to finish OOT. This is because for me I enjoy much more the gaming experience from playing the game as opposed to watching it. SS's story(telling) may be superior to OoT but SS's handholding type gameplay simply doesn't hold a candle to OOT imo.

Okay, I just want to point out that OoT was one of the first games to ever hold the player's hand with Navi pretty much telling you how to do everything in the game.

Also, if you don't like games with story focused cut scenes you could always, you know, skip them. Most current games have a ton of game play that you could easily sink countless hours into.

I think OOT is a much better game than SS because I enjoy the sandbox feel of OOT compared to the linearity of SS. I can replay OOT over and over again and play it in a different order every time which is where I get my replay value. For me I don't feel like SS has a replay value anywhere close to OOT or MM because of its handholdy, linear forced gameplay and abundance of cutscenes. The main difference I see between the OOT/MM and TP/SS is that OOT/MM is programmed in a way that it doesn't treat the player like a noob first timer the way TP/SS does.

I can't really speak for SS, as I haven't played it, but I would like to pint out that when it comes down to it OoT isn't exactly a wide open sandbox. Sure, you can technically choose what order to do the first three dungeons and through some sequence breaking you can do the latter dungeons out of order but lets be honest outside of that there's not much in the way of "freedom." Most of the game's "freedom" is just an illusion generated by having a big over world that gives the appearance of having lots to do.

I'd also like to point out that OoT does have quite a bit of text dumps thrown at your throughout the game. And yes, it can be pretty "handholdy" if you choose to use Navi. Which, lets be honest, most first time players do.

 

[kupo15]

Okay, I just want to point out that OoT was one of the first games to ever hold the player's hand with Navi pretty much telling you how to do everything in the game.

this person below disagrees and I'm pretty sure he is not alone.

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.

I won't deny that Navi did have her fair share of hints and stuff, but that was only a little bit in the beginning of the game and in the Forest temple. Other than that she pretty much left you alone. In fact, it wasn't really hints just acclimating players into this new world of 3D zelda.

I can't really speak for SS, as I haven't played it,

well then it will be hard to debate with you trying to compare and contrast OOT and SS and for you to understand where I'm coming from if you haven't played SS

but I would like to pint out that when it comes down to it OoT isn't exactly a wide open sandbox. Sure, you can technically choose what order to do the first three dungeons and through some sequence breaking you can do the latter dungeons out of order but lets be honest outside of that there's not much in the way of "freedom." Most of the game's "freedom" is just an illusion generated by having a big over world that gives the appearance of having lots to do.

But that is exactly the point. That freedom you acknowledge is non existent in SS. The freedom in OOT also extends to how many different paths you can travel to get to the same place and when you can do things in the game. For example you can choose to get epona at any point in your adult life and not right before you need her for the gerudo fortress (even though you could use the long shot which I never knew when I first played the game). You can choose to open up that chapter in OOTs overall story whenever you wanted.

The number of options you have at your disposal and the order in which you decide to go about the game is what made the franchise stand out in the first place. This aspect of the franchise has been forgotten in the last couple of installments which is why I enjoy OOT more.

I'd also like to point out that OoT does have quite a bit of text dumps thrown at your throughout the game. And yes, it can be pretty "handholdy" if you choose to use Navi. Which, lets be honest, most first time players do.

Much less than SS I can assure you. If OOT was so "handholdy" then you wouldn't have players like MajinSweet complaining about wondering around aimlessly not knowing what to do. There is no dowsing mechanic in OOT to point you exactly in the right direction and there is no showing you the answer to a puzzle if you failed it the first time like SS did. Also, choosing to use navi or saria in OOT really is just as helpful as stating the obvious..aka not really helpful at all. Its no super guide like you make navi out to be.

I'm sorry but while Fi is technically the new Navi sidekick character, she crossed the line by treating you like an incompetent gamer throughout the game.

 

[Bigglestheman]

Okay, I just want to point out that OoT was one of the first games to ever hold the player's hand with Navi pretty much telling you how to do everything in the game.

Nobody in their right mind would hit upC when she said "Hey listen!".

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

That game just re-enforces why Superman isn't great hahahahaha.

 

[finalark]

this person below disagrees and I'm pretty sure he is not alone.

Really? Its not that hard, just hit up on the c-stick and you automatically know what to do.

I won't deny that Navi did have her fair share of hints and stuff, but that was only a little bit in the beginning of the game and in the Forest temple. Other than that she pretty much left you alone. In fact, it wasn't really hints just acclimating players into this new world of 3D zelda.

In that case you could say that Wind Waker is the least hand holdy Zelda game. Ever. And by that I mean that Tetra only contacts you to give you hints ONCE and that the King of the Red Lions doesn't really do much besides tell you where to head next.

I'd also like to take this time to say that IMO Wind Waker is MILES above OoT in terms of game play. And story. And hell, everything else for that matter. Actually, IMO only part of WW that's weaker than OoT is the terrible triforce quest near the end of the game.

But that is exactly the point. That freedom you acknowledge is non existent in SS. The freedom in OOT also extends to how many different paths you can travel to get to the same place and when you can do things in the game. For example you can choose to get epona at any point in your adult life and not right before you need her for the gerudo fortress (even though you could use the long shot which I never knew when I first played the game). You can choose to open up that chapter in OOTs overall story whenever you wanted.

You're basically saying that being able to do a completely optional side quest whenever you want = freedom.

The number of options you have at your disposal and the order in which you decide to go about the game is what made the franchise stand out in the first place. This aspect of the franchise has been forgotten in the last couple of installments which is why I enjoy OOT more.

Wind Waker, again. You could technically go and explore a vast majority of the islands once you get the King of Red Lions without even starting the main quest.

Much less than SS I can assure you. If OOT was so "handholdy" then you wouldn't have players like MajinSweet complaining about wondering around aimlessly not knowing what to do. There is no dowsing mechanic in OOT to point you exactly in the right direction and there is no showing you the answer to a puzzle if you failed it the first time like SS did. Also, choosing to use navi or saria in OOT really is just as helpful as stating the obvious..aka not really helpful at all. Its no super guide like you make navi out to be.

Again, I can't really say anything for SS but I am saying that Navi did hold the player's hands throughout the game. For example, if you run around aimlessly long enough she'll trigger and then tell you where to go if you bother to listen to her.

I'm sorry but while Fi is technically the new Navi sidekick character, she crossed the line by treating you like an incompetent gamer throughout the game.

Again, haven't play SS so I can't speak for that.

 

[MuraRengan]

I won't be posting here anymore. Certain people have misinterpreted the point of this topic and derailed the entire discussion. This thread was not meant to defend OoT as the best game ever, or to say that OoT is the best Zelda, it was for me to see if there were any good reasons to say that OoT is overrated. I learned a couple things, namely that a lot of people were unimpressed by the story, which I can understand. But discussing this any further is pointless because too many people have gotten the wrong impression of the thread and of me.

 

[GwJ]

AKA, you realize this is a topic you can't win, because it's extremely hard to defend.

 

[finalark]

Hold on, I thought the entire point of this thread what for people to debate OoT's good points and bad points. I think we've been doing that for the past several pages.

 

[kupo15]

I'm not going to debate too much more with you because we've been here before and we both know from previous threads that we won't ever agree. If I remember correctly you haven't played much of the older zelda titles so your well roundedness of the Zelda franchise as a whole is sorta lacking. If I remember incorrectly I'm sorry

Really? Its not that hard, just hit up on the c-stick and you automatically know what to do.

"Hey! I think you should talk to Saria!"
-Saria
"Hey Link, I think you need to collect the medallions"

Naww you think? I don't know why you think Navi is a super guide to the game because she isn't. I don't believe should would say anything like "You need to capture a fish and feed it Jabu to get in" whereas Fi definitely would...then again its SS which you wouldn't know. I am telling you right now, there is a puzzle in SS where you need to hit switches in a correct order and the FIRST time you mess up Fi tells you the answer to the puzzle and SHOWS you the solution. The game doesn't even allow you to figure it out on your own. The puzzles in OOT are much less straightforward and obvious than in later Zelda Titles not including MM especially the first time you play it.

I don't think there is anything I can say that will make you believe it.

In that case you could say that Wind Waker is the least hand holdy Zelda game. Ever. And by that I mean that Tetra only contacts you to give you hints ONCE and that the King of the Red Lions doesn't really do much besides tell you where to head next.

Possibly. Though you still are more restricted in that game than OOT. If you go to get the fire/ice arrows when you first get the wind song, you won't be able to get it because "your not ready" aka you haven't progressed far enough in the game to where the game wants you to get it which is bull.

I'd also like to take this time to say that IMO Wind Waker is MILES above OoT in terms of game play. And story. And hell, everything else for that matter. Actually, IMO only part of WW that's weaker than OoT is the terrible triforce quest near the end of the game.

WW is a pretty good game. To bad it was rushed/ ran out of time. Its my favorite graphical style of a zelda game. I didn't like the physics as much as the 64 titles. I think there was overall too much sailing though. WW was pretty good but I wouldn't say its miles above OOT

You're basically saying that being able to do a completely optional side quest whenever you want = freedom.

Once again we differ. IIRC You don't like doing sidesquests whereas I am a completionist. I judge Zelda games more on their sidequests than the main story. The main dungeon quest/story is generally the same experience in all zelda games however what sets each title apart from each other are the sidequests and the pacing and flow to get to the next dungeon. OOT vs MM is a prime example of this.

As as I said before, I didn't know epona was completely optional and I know I'm not alone. My friend on the other hand knew you can get into gerudo fortress with the long shot but didn't know you could with epona. Its the fact that the game gave you options to do this that makes it so great and this is just one example. In recent Zelda titles this type of game design is not really found anymore.

Wind Waker, again. You could technically go and explore a vast majority of the islands once you get the King of Red Lions without even starting the main quest.

Once again, WW is not a bad game, probably the last good Zelda game before complete linearity took over...just too much sailing. I enjoyed exploring the islands and treasure charts very much...I was disappointed that a lot of the islands were bland. I wish more were like Windfall. WW had the potential to be on par with OOT/MM if it wasn't rushed out and felt like an incomplete game.

Again, I can't really say anything for SS but I am saying that Navi did hold the player's hands throughout the game. For example, if you run around aimlessly long enough she'll trigger and then tell you where to go if you bother to listen to her.

Once again, Navi isn't a super guide. Her hinting at some vague direction to go in isn't some ultimate handholding feature of the game. If she says "Hey, I think we need to go see Saria now!" and you just go there, you will be quite puzzled as to why you can't progress into the forest temple.

Newer Zelda titles are designed in a foolproof way to eliminate any "treading water" moments which for Zelda games are no fun and a waste of time. Take SS where you always go back to the same shrine after completing a temple and a ray of light shows you where to go next making the main quest feeling like one big fetch quest. Take OOT where you have no further directional instruction after completing temples unless you are at one of the 2 key junctures in the game. Take a newer title like SS for example, that game had numerous key junctures to force players to stay on the path the game wanted them to take. Wish I could explain more but once again, you haven't played it

The only reason you'll ever need to dislike OoT is that it is the reason (and a reminder) that Zelda games are not allowed to be unique anymore.

QFT. When is the next Zelda II coming out?

 

[finalark]

I'm not going to debate too much more with you because we've been here before and we both know from previous threads that we won't ever agree. If I remember correctly you haven't played much of the older zelda titles so your well roundedness of the Zelda franchise as a whole is sorta lacking. If I remember incorrectly I'm sorry

The only LoZ I haven't played is SS.

"Hey! I think you should talk to Saria!"
-Saria
"Hey Link, I think you need to collect the medallions"

Naww you think? I don't know why you think Navi is a super guide to the game because she isn't. I don't believe should would say anything like "You need to capture a fish and feed it Jabu to get in" whereas Fi definitely would...then again its SS which you wouldn't know. I am telling you right now, there is a puzzle in SS where you need to hit switches in a correct order and the FIRST time you mess up Fi tells you the answer to the puzzle and SHOWS you the solution. The game doesn't even allow you to figure it out on your own. The puzzles in OOT are much less straightforward and obvious than in later Zelda Titles not including MM especially the first time you play it.

So wait, if you mess up SS doesn't even give you the option to refuse Fi's help? Lame.

And I'm not saying that Navi is a super guide. I'm saying that she was the first time in any LoZ game that there was some sort of help you could automatically access whenever you wanted. And IMO Navi did technically "hold your hand" compared to LoZ, LoZ II and AlttP. I think we're both trying to argue two things completely different. All I'm trying to say is that OoT was the first time there was any sort of hand holding in a LoZ game.

Possibly. Though you still are more restricted in that game than OOT. If you go to get the fire/ice arrows when you first get the wind song, you won't be able to get it because "your not ready" aka you haven't progressed far enough in the game to where the game wants you to get it which is bull.

Actually the idea of limited a player from progressing into new dungeons until s/he has completed other dungeons first has been around since the NES days. Don't act like OoT was super open ended and that you could go to the temples in any order or get any side items whenever you want.

WW is a pretty good game. To bad it was rushed/ ran out of time. Its my favorite graphical style of a zelda game. I didn't like the physics as much as the 64 titles. I think there was overall too much sailing though. WW was pretty good but I wouldn't say its miles above OOT

Physics? lolwat? I'll admit that I guess OoT feels... heavier that WW but that just might be the game's age making it sluggish.

Oh, and if there was no sailing it would be replaced with horseback riding and instead of water everywhere it would be grass. Just sayin'.

Care to explain why its not better than OoT? And don't give me this "OoT was the first 3D Zelda so that makes it the best" because from a design standpoint that is the most bull**** argument anyone can present.

Once again we differ. IIRC You don't like doing sidesquests whereas I am a completionist. I judge Zelda games more on their sidequests than the main story. The main dungeon quest/story is generally the same experience in all zelda games however what sets each title apart from each other are the sidequests and the pacing and flow to get to the next dungeon. OOT vs MM is a prime example of this.

Well way to assume that I don't like side quests. But to me, a game shouldn't be judged by its optional content. Rather, it should be judged by the main journey that the designers expected the player's to follow. Saying that optional content makes a game good is like saying that Vanilla World of Warcraft's god awful leveling and vague quests are made up for by at-level PVP.

As as I said before, I didn't know epona was completely optional and I know I'm not alone. My friend on the other hand knew you can get into gerudo fortress with the long shot but didn't know you could with epona. Its the fact that the game gave you options to do this that makes it so great and this is just one example. In recent Zelda titles this type of game design is not really found anymore.

That doesn't automatically make something bad, like you seem to assume. On the offhand, I didn't even know you could get Ephona my first time through OoT. TBH it didn't really make much of a difference for me.

Once again, WW is not a bad game, probably the last good Zelda game before complete linearity took over...just too much sailing. I enjoyed exploring the islands and treasure charts very much...I was disappointed that a lot of the islands were bland. I wish more were like Windfall. WW had the potential to be on par with OOT/MM if it wasn't rushed out and felt like an incomplete game.

You do realize that OoT's over world is mostly grass with a few land marks here and there, right? Maybe its because I played WW long before I even touched a Nintendo 64 but in terms of game play WW is so much more evolved and refined that OoT and MM ever were. Honestly, the only part of the game that sucks is the triforce quest at the end which exists only to pad out of the game.

Newer Zelda titles are designed in a foolproof way to eliminate any "treading water" moments which for Zelda games are no fun and a waste of time. Take SS where you always go back to the same shrine after completing a temple and a ray of light shows you where to go next making the main quest feeling like one big fetch quest. Take OOT where you have no further directional instruction after completing temples unless you are at one of the 2 key junctures in the game. Take a newer title like SS for example, that game had numerous key junctures to force players to stay on the path the game wanted them to take. Wish I could explain more but once again, you haven't played it

So you're saying that wandering about aimlessly is better than knowing where to go?

Also, I'd like to point out that OoT was one big fetch quest.

Kupo, do you like anything that came out after the GCN/Xbox/PS2 era?

 

[Falconv1.0]

Fi is a thousand times more annoying than Navi in OoT and that game is a thousand times easier than any Zelda game should be.

SS was dumb, haven't even finished it yet due to arm problem but seriously, that game made me mad at just how ****ing poorly designed it was.

 

[finalark]

Fi is a thousand times more annoying than Navi in OoT and that game is a thousand times easier than any Zelda game should be.

Well its not like any Zelda game was ever hard to begin with. Except for maybe the first two but Zelda 1 was only hard because **** you if you want a hint on where to go. Same goes for Zelda 2, really.

Again, I haven't played SS so I can't really say anything about it. I'm just here to argue that OoT isn't the best.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Majora's Mask's first few hours are like 3-4 times harder than anything in Skyward Sword that I've seen and according to Teran I'm pretty much reading end game in SS. Yet SS took way the **** longer to start and never stopped holding my hand.

 

[kupo15]

So wait, if you mess up SS doesn't even give you the option to refuse Fi's help? Lame.

Exactly. Fi does this throughout the entire game to varying degrees. The number of times the game abuses the [camera looks over here to emphasize something important] feature is astounding and is one of the major culprits for making puzzles in SS less like puzzles and more like following directions. Prime example: at 36:40-39:00ish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU2ZhM9sMB0
It also overuses the "chime" thing as well. At least in OOT/MM these games relied heavily on you to figure out what is special about the dungeon setup and what to do about it.

And I'm not saying that Navi is a super guide. I'm saying that she was the first time in any LoZ game that there was some sort of help you could automatically access whenever you wanted. And IMO Navi did technically "hold your hand" compared to LoZ, LoZ II and AlttP. I think we're both trying to argue two things completely different. All I'm trying to say is that OoT was the first time there was any sort of hand holding in a LoZ game.

Yes I agree to some extend that Navi was the first help sidekick character but you made her seem to be something that is/can be abused to a point where it can be a crutch thus making oot an easy game which is definitely not the case. IIRC also you didn't play OOT until fairly recently and not when it first came out so you don't really have a correct perception of Navi back in 1998(?) like I do. Looking back now if Navi wasn't there to acclimate players to the world of 3D zelda I highly doubt the experience would be as positive. I use the word acclimate because her main function was to introduce these controls and 3D elements that were at the time revolutionary. Her "hints" were far from helpful and she doesn't pop up on up C until 30 mins pass by.

Actually the idea of limited a player from progressing into new dungeons until s/he has completed other dungeons first has been around since the NES days. Don't act like OoT was super open ended and that you could go to the temples in any order or get any side items whenever you want.

Yes. I know but you aren't grasping the point I am making with this. It is how this feature of limiting progress is implemented is what I am getting at. There is a significant difference in limiting a player via requiring you to be a specific point in the story to progress as opposed to limiting a player via difficulty or character ability/items. For the earlier games like OOT it used the latter method of restricting progress via items so if you don't have the hookshot, you can't get in the forest temple for example. In MM if you don't have the arrows you can't get in the mountain village. However, once you get the arrows in MM the whole game opens up to you. You can choose to skip beating the Swamp temple and go right to Snowhead and do those quests. The game doesn't force you to beat Woodfall before allowing you to access Snowhead.

Even earlier games like LoZ limit the players progress via how difficult the enemies are in addition to items. You can choose to go to Dungeon 8 from the start when you buy the lantern but you will have your *** handed to you. The entire map in LoZ is completely accessible from the start of the game! This is the freedom that is lacking today!

The WW example is an example of the former where you have the item required to get the arrow upgrade yet the game blatantly doesn't allow you to obtain it because you aren't at a certain point in the story. Its bull. Why can't I get the upgrade and use the arrows in my normal battles?

In SS the sidequests are unlocked according to your position in the story instead of like MM where all the sidequests are unlocked from the very beginning of the game. A prime SS example. There is a sidequest where you need to find a rattle and return it to someone. This is only unlocked after you obtain the clawshot. I realized this right away and because of this, I knew exactly where to go because I knew the clawshot unlocked this sidequest and it ruined the experience.

This extends to all sidequests because as I said, I like exploring and talking to all the people as soon as I can. If the game had the side quests unlocked in the beginning I would know who are sidequest NPCs but because it doesn't, every time I progress in the story I need to make my rounds visiting EVERYONE in all of their houses both in their night/day locations to see if their sidequest is unlocked. Its extremely poor design and very frustrating.

Physics? lolwat? I'll admit that I guess OoT feels... heavier that WW but that just might be the game's age making it sluggish.

Its very particular and something I pick up on but post MM you can no longer control yourself in the air making platforming a bit more annoying. If you angle your jump ever so slightly off by accident you can't correct in mid air which is stupid. Also there is no more jumps based on momentum. These are a few examples of small things that effect how the game feels in a substantial way.

Oh, and if there was no sailing it would be replaced with horseback riding and instead of water everywhere it would be grass. Just sayin'.

I didn't mind the sailing, my point being that the amount of travel time to get from place to place is too long. It wouldn't be bad if there was more to do instead of setting your sail and placing your controller on the floor for 5 minutes before arriving at your next destination. TP reallly suffered from this being via land and not sea. The world was so large yet hardly stuffed with things to do making traveling a chore. This is why I prefer OOT/MM's layout better. The world is smaller but stuffed with enough content appropriate to that space that it makes the game feel bigger instead of having a big world filled with empty space.

Care to explain why its not better than OoT? And don't give me this "OoT was the first 3D Zelda so that makes it the best" because from a design standpoint that is the most bull**** argument anyone can present.

This post is getting long. I can explain more later after these other points are addressed

Well way to assume that I don't like side quests. But to me, a game shouldn't be judged by its optional content. Rather, it should be judged by the main journey that the designers expected the player's to follow. Saying that optional content makes a game good is like saying that Vanilla World of Warcraft's god awful leveling and vague quests are made up for by at-level PVP.

This isn't our first Zelda debate and I remember you saying something to the effect that sidequests don't hold that much value to you and that when I was making points about sidequests in MM you couldn't relate because you skipped them or something like that. And why shouldn't a game be judged by its optional content either? Everything in a game has a hand in shaping the experience of the game. Collecting all the unnecessary items in Lttp is amazing. Trying to find all the heart pieces and combing through every inch of the game for secrets and items and upgrades makes Zelda games especially rewarding.

MM wouldn't be half as rewarding and as immersive an experience if it wasn't for the mask sidequests. It gives you insight to the world you are exploring. MM was based around collecting masks and is as much a part of the story as the 4 dungeon aspect is. I cannot disagree more with your opinion of this.

You do realize that OoT's over world is mostly grass with a few land marks here and there, right? Maybe its because I played WW long before I even touched a Nintendo 64 but in terms of game play WW is so much more evolved and refined that OoT and MM ever were. Honestly, the only part of the game that sucks is the triforce quest at the end which exists only to pad out of the game.

The difference being that OOTs overworld hardly was the spotlight of the game unlike WW. Does it pale compared to Lttp overworld? Hell yes it does. The overworld of OOT wasn't the primary focus of the game, it was just a way to connect the important regions of the game together in an amazing way. Everything felt so interconnected and the number of paths to get places were way more interesting than WW.

So you're saying that wandering about aimlessly is better than knowing where to go?

Where is the fun in having a game where you simply follow its commands like a dog? If its not challenging, I'm not getting stimulated therefore it becomes a pointless activity for me. Its much more adventurous and engaging to be on the same page as the hero trying to figure out your way on an amazing adventure you are setting out on.

Also, I'd like to point out that OoT was one big fetch quest.

Really? How so? You have to talk to someone before being able to initiate a quest? You have to talk to the guy in the forest before being able to get Cojiro? News to me! If you want to talk about being a big fetch quest, look at Spirit Tracks.

Kupo, do you like anything that came out after the GCN/Xbox/PS2 era?

Excitetruck was surprisingly good. The Mario's were ok I guess. But the wii was one big family friendly system that made games to cater to your mom soooo?
I recently played this Indie game called Treasure Adventure game. It was quite good. Had a nice retro exploration feel. You should try it.

 

[finalark]

Exactly. Fi does this throughout the entire game to varying degrees. The number of times the game abuses the [camera looks over here to emphasize something important] feature is astounding and is one of the major culprits for making puzzles in SS less like puzzles and more like following directions. Prime example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU2ZhM9sMB0
It also overuses the "chime" thing as well. At least in OOT/MM these games relied heavily on you to figure out what is special about the dungeon setup and what to do about it.

Sounds horrible.

Yes I agree to some extend that Navi was the first help sidekick character but you made her seem to be something that is/can be abused to a point where it can be a crutch thus making oot an easy game which is definitely not the case. IIRC also you didn't play OOT until fairly recently and not when it first came out so you don't really have a correct perception of Navi back in 1998(?) like I do. Looking back now if Navi wasn't there to acclimate players to the world of 3D zelda I highly doubt the experience would be as positive. I use the word acclimate because her main function was to introduce these controls and 3D elements that were at the time revolutionary. Her "hints" were far from helpful and she doesn't pop up on up C until 30 mins pass by.

I played OoT not long after playing WW via the collector's edition disk back in... 2004? Anyway, I don't really see how navi was "required" to help players into 3D Zelda. She targeted monsters and... uh, that it for as far as game play assistance goes. Maybe its because I didn't play it in '98 but she seems kinda pointless when put into that perspective.

Yes. I know but you aren't grasping the point I am making with this. It is how this feature of limiting progress is implemented is what I am getting at. There is a significant difference in limiting a player via requiring you to be a specific point in the story to progress as opposed to limiting a player via difficulty or character ability/items. For the earlier games like OOT it used the latter method of restricting progress via items so if you don't have the hookshot, you can't get in the forest temple for example. In MM if you don't have the arrows you can't get in the mountain village. However, once you get the arrows in MM the whole game opens up to you. You can choose to skip beating the Swamp temple and go right to Snowhead and do those quests. The game doesn't force you to beat Woodfall before allowing you to access Snowhead.

I'll get back to you on this next time I play WW. I remember you had to have a certain item to get the arrows.

Even earlier games like LoZ limit the players progress via how difficult the enemies are in addition to items. You can choose to go to Dungeon 8 from the start but you will have your *** handed to you. This is the freedom that is lacking today!

Are you talking about games in general or in LoZ? And to be honest setting up stupidly powerful enemies to with the intention of making sure the players do **** in the intend order isn't choice or freedom. Its just the illusion of those things before game designers decided to forgo bull****ing freedom and just making games have more obvious progression paths thus eliminating a common padding technique.

The WW example is an example of the former where you have the item required to get the arrow upgrade yet the game blatantly doesn't allow you to obtain it because you aren't at a certain point in the story. Its bull. Why can't I get the upgrade and use the arrows in my normal battles?

For the same reason you can't just go to the Forest Temple in OoT to get the arrows as a child and use them in combat when you have the slingshot.

In SS the sidequests are unlocked according to your position in the story instead of like MM where all the sidequests are unlocked from the very beginning of the game. A prime SS example. There is a sidequest where you need to find a rattle and return it to someone. This is only unlocked after you obtain the clawshot. I realized this right away and because of this, I knew exactly where to go because I knew the clawshot unlocked this sidequest and it ruined the experience.

I'm sorry but I'd take having a pretty straightforward answer to a small side quest over running around for hours without a clue because designers wanted you to sink more hours into their games. Regardless, both options don't sound very fun to me.

This extends to all sidequests because as I said, I like exploring and talking to all the people as soon as I can. If the game had the side quests unlocked in the beginning I would know who are sidequest NPCs but because it doesn't, every time I progress in the story I need to make my rounds visiting EVERYONE in all of their houses both in their night/day locations to see if their sidequest is unlocked. Its extremely poor design and very frustrating.

Why not just finish the game then come back and do that after you've done everything in the main story?

Its very particular and something I pick up on but post MM you can no longer control yourself in the air making platforming a bit more annoying. If you angle your jump ever so slightly off by accident you can't correct in mid air which is stupid. Also there is no more jumps based on momentum. These are a few examples of small things that effect how the game feels in a substantial way.

I'm sorry but since when have you be able to control the direction of your jump mid air in Zelda games? I think its more of a case in that the "platforming" in N64 Zelda was much more linear than that of WW. But yes, I will agree the jumping in WW was bad and should feel bad.

I didn't mind the sailing, my point being that the amount of travel time to get from place to place is too long. It wouldn't be bad if there was more to do instead of setting your sail and placing your controller on the floor for 5 minutes before arriving at your next destination. TP reallly suffered from this being via land and not sea. The world was so large yet hardly stuffed with things to do making traveling a chore. This is why I prefer OOT/MM's layout better. The world is smaller but stuffed with enough content appropriate to that space that it makes the game feel bigger instead of having a big world filled with empty space.

I actually found plenty of things to do while sailing. Come across a watch tower? Hop off your boat and go raid it. Being attacked by sharks? How about fighting back instead of ignoring them? See that island? How about checking it out instead of just sailing past it?

TP's world size and emptiness never really bugged me because I just used the teleport you get early game to get everywhere.

This post is getting long. I can explain more later after these other points are addressed

This isn't our first Zelda debate and I remember you saying something to the effect that sidequests don't hold that much value to you and that when I was making points about sidequests in MM you couldn't relate because you skipped them or something like that. And why shouldn't a game be judged by its optional content either? Everything in a game has a hand in shaping the experience of the game. Collecting all the unnecessary items in Lttp is amazing. Trying to find all the heart pieces and combing through every inch of the game for secrets and items and upgrades makes Zelda games especially rewarding.

Apples and oranges. For me, I feel like if I'm not content with just finishing the game then something is wrong. However, I will go and do side content if I liked the game enough to want to keep playing.

MM wouldn't be half as rewarding and as immersive an experience if it wasn't for the mask sidequests. It gives you insight to the world you are exploring. MM was based around collecting masks and is as much a part of the story as the 4 dungeon aspect is. I cannot disagree more with your opinion of this.

I disagree. I think its the game's time limit mechanic that builds the atmosphere. While yes I will agree doing the side quests elaborates on the world I don't find them necessary to enjoy the game.

The difference being that OOTs overworld hardly was the spotlight of the game unlike WW. Does it pale compared to Lttp overworld? Hell yes it does. The overworld of OOT wasn't the primary focus of the game, it was just a way to connect the important regions of the game together in an amazing way. Everything felt so interconnected and the number of paths to get places were way more interesting than WW.

I see the WW over world as being the same thing, just a way to get from place to place. Oh top of that, I actually thought that the sailing was atmospheric and gave the impression of "HOLY **** THE OCEAN IS ****ING HUGE."

Where is the fun in having a game where you simply follow its commands like a dog? If its not challenging, I'm not getting stimulated therefore it becomes a pointless activity for me. Its much more adventurous and engaging to be on the same page as the hero trying to figure out your way on an amazing adventure you are setting out on.

Or wandering around for six hours because developers want you to sink more time into their game. I'd much rather have a balance of "figure it out yourself" and "here's some hints."

Go play Legend of Grimrock, that game does the above perfectly.

Really? How so? You have to talk to someone before being able to initiate a quest? If you want to talk about being a big fetch quest, look at Spirit Tracks.

Let me lay this out for you.

Child Link: Go to temple of time, find three things, go back to temple of time, become adult link.

Adult Link: Go to temple of time, find one thing, go back to temple of time, repeat.

Excitetruck was surprisingly good. The Mario's were ok I guess. But the wii was one big family friendly system that made games to cater to your mom soooo?

Two things.

1: Why do you only play Wii?
2: For the love of god hop on Steam and get some good games assuming your PC isn't ****. Alternatively, please go buy a PlaySation or and Xbox so you can play the games that don't suck this gen.

 

[kupo15]

I played OoT not long after playing WW via the collector's edition disk back in... 2004? Anyway, I don't really see how navi was "required" to help players into 3D Zelda. She targeted monsters and... uh, that it for as far as game play assistance goes. Maybe its because I didn't play it in '98 but she seems kinda pointless when put into that perspective.

You are thinking about this from the perspective of someone who is fully comfortable with 3D or rather an audience that is so used to 3D by now (2004 as you stated in your post). At this time in 3D gaming, things are still being figured out and unstable and OOT came out with revolutionary designs and gaming ideas. Navi, as annoying as she is now, was helpful enough to acclimate players the same way a Lttp text box told you that in order to pull a lever, stand next to it, hold A and press down. I didn't mean to say that she was essential or else the game would be unplayable but she doesn't ruin the game with her "hints" or make the game easy mode the way Fi does.

I

'll get back to you on this next time I play WW. I remember you had to have a certain item to get the arrows.

I believe you needed to get the master sword. The arrows were used to get items to be allowed entry to the Earth and Wind temple.

Are you talking about games in general or in LoZ? And to be honest setting up stupidly powerful enemies to with the intention of making sure the players do **** in the intend order isn't choice or freedom. Its just the illusion of those things before game designers decided to forgo bull****ing freedom and just making games have more obvious progression paths thus eliminating a common padding technique.

This is a Loz thread so I am talking Loz.
How is this not choice or freedom? You can beat Temple 8 first if you want to but you will have a hard time doing it in 3 hearts. Your choice. We are not stopping you. I don't understand your last sentence. What padding techniques? And how can you get anymore obvious in Loz by clearly stating each Temple as Level 1 or 8? How can you get any more obvious in Lttp than by marking on the map the order you should do the temples in?? You have freedom and you have an obvious progression in the earlier games.

For the same reason you can't just go to the Forest Temple in OoT to get the arrows as a child and use them in combat when you have the slingshot.

This is a terrible counter argument because you can't use arrows as a kid.

I'm sorry but I'd take having a pretty straightforward answer to a small side quest over running around for hours without a clue because designers wanted you to sink more hours into their games. Regardless, both options don't sound very fun to me.

The island is small. It won't take you 6 hrs to find and they give you a clue to a location but getting to that location is where the puzzle is. This is immediately solved by when they choose to unlock the quest. Its not rewarding this way.

Why not just finish the game then come back and do that after you've done everything in the main story?

Because that is not how I like to play. Its stupid to backtrack through the entire game when you can explore as you progress through the game.

I swear you and I just won't ever agree on sidequesting and why they are so amazing.

I'm sorry but since when have you be able to control the direction of your jump mid air in Zelda games? I think its more of a case in that the "platforming" in N64 Zelda was much more linear than that of WW. But yes, I will agree the jumping in WW was bad and should feel bad.

How is platforming in N64 more linear than WW exactly? Excluding 2d games, you can control your jump a little since OOT. You should check it out. And why should jumping feel horrible? That sounds idiotic.

I actually found plenty of things to do while sailing. Come across a watch tower? Hop off your boat and go raid it. Being attacked by sharks? How about fighting back instead of ignoring them? See that island? How about checking it out instead of just sailing past it?

What's the point of killing sharks? If its not going to help me progress further in the game or build my character up, there is no incentive. The thing with the islands are that most of them are a waste of time to go to until later in the game when you've collected more treasure charts.

TP's world size and emptiness never really bugged me because I just used the teleport you get early game to get everywhere.

You can't get everywhere with the teleport system. You need to first unlock the portals.

Apples and oranges. For me, I feel like if I'm not content with just finishing the game then something is wrong. However, I will go and do side content if I liked the game enough to want to keep playing.

That is not how I view games. Our views are too different

I disagree. I think its the game's time limit mechanic that builds the atmosphere. While yes I will agree doing the side quests elaborates on the world I don't find them necessary to enjoy the game.

There was once a time when I used to be like you where I didn't care about sidequests and thought the main quest was the end all be all. I did playthrough MM with this idea and I did enjoy MM's main quest. But my best friend at some point convinced me that these games are more than the main quest and I've enjoyed MM and other zelda titles much more since then. Yes, you can enjoy games simply doing the main quest but I can't anymore in Zelda games where the main quest isn't anything I haven't seen before.

I see the WW over world as being the same thing, just a way to get from place to place. Oh top of that, I actually thought that the sailing was atmospheric and gave the impression of "HOLY **** THE OCEAN IS ****ING HUGE."

Yes it is a way to get from place to place but you missed the detail of how it lacks inter connectivity and contains multiple paths. Just look at OOT (not counting warps).
-You can get to the Forest 3 ways
-You can get to the Mountains 2 ways
-The lake 3 ways
-Zoras domain 2 ways

Every location in WW is accessed one way, via boat. OOTs overworld is way more interesting.

Or wandering around for six hours because developers want you to sink more time into their game. I'd much rather have a balance of "figure it out yourself" and "here's some hints."

You are making OOT out to be this impossible sandbox that you get lost in for hours because it is directionless. This is clearly not the case and you know it.

Let me lay this out for you.

Child Link: Go to temple of time, find three things, go back to temple of time, become adult link.

Adult Link: Go to temple of time, find one thing, go back to temple of time, repeat.

Your adult link statement is not true at all. You need to collect 5 medallions before going to Ganons tower. There may be a cutscene in the Sacred Realm after beating every temple but that is not equivalent to the DS Zelda's and SS's style or a centralized place after every temple. After you beat each temple in OOT you start from that temple area and can continue on your quest to the next location without checking in with babysitter to see if its ok to progress.

Two things.
1: Why do you only play Wii?
2: For the love of god hop on Steam and get some good games assuming your PC isn't ****. Alternatively, please go buy a PlaySation or and Xbox so you can play the games that don't suck this gen.

1. Because I grew up on Nintendo. I can't afford to drop tons of money on every new game that comes out and every system because I will be graduating with a Masters soon and have more important priorities right now. I am starting to play some more games on my friends systems though.

 

[MuraRengan]

AKA, you realize this is a topic you can't win, because it's extremely hard to defend.

You've got a really bad habit for assuming things that are incorrect. This topic is easily defendable, it just takes people willing to understand what the topic is about. The moment you started comparing OoT to other zeldas and modern games, you had already missed the point.

 

[GwJ]

Yet you're trying to argue that OoT is a good game, comparable to modern games, correct?

 

[The Good Doctor]

You've got a really bad habit for assuming things that are incorrect. This topic is easily defendable, it just takes people willing to understand what the topic is about. The moment you started comparing OoT to other zeldas and modern games, you had already missed the point.

Lol, wait...LOL.

To see if games are "good" you need to see how well they have held up to games today, against other Adventure games of both past and present, and other Zelda titles.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The thing is, you're trying to defend OoT's reputation against charges of being overrated. The reputation that OoT has is "The Greatest Game of All Time." That's the claim you're defending, at least implicitly, and that claim naturally (and rightly) invites comparisons to other games.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Maybe we should change the title to, "What reason is there to like OoT?"

 

[The Good Doctor]

If I am reading it right, he's tryin gto say that there is no good reason to not like OoT. The problem is that people have different tastes. Some people don't like adventure games, some people don't like outdated graphics or "nintendo graphics". Hell, some people don't like video games.

There is no such thing as perfect in this world, so this thread is just pointless. You will always get people that don't enjoy certain aspects of games like.

-Story
-Graphics
-Music
-Genre
-Developer

This goes on and on of course.

/thread please

 

[Luigitoilet]

Why do people who aren't me like things that I don't like? This calls for an essay and three page debate.

 

[finalark]

Why do people who aren't me like things that I don't like? This calls for an essay and three page debate.

You must be new here. Welcome to the internet.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Heh, no (obviously) but I'm finally starting to "grow out" of that phase of my life where it is really important to defend a piece of art or media that I'm very attached to

 

[Kink-Link5]

Primitive combat mechanics that didn't see polish until MM

Dungeons relying on theming rather than incentive giving tools used in previous games in the series, future games would mix both decently well

Bland immersion with many flat characters who served as nothing more than "Town filler," which is a common problem in many old (and new) video games

Dungeons and puzzles themselves are ridiculously straightforward outside of the Water Temple and I believe Spirit Temple? Whichever one is revisited as an adult

Many aspects that cause the game to seem unfinished, or at least unpolished to me. I recall Miyamoto wanting two additional dungeons and a greatly expanded Ice Cavern, off the top of my head

I'm not sure what else was said in this thread, but these are the complaints I have outside of the bad rehashed story and small things (Which there are admittedly a lot of small problems that add up to my distaste for this game)

My ranking for Zelda games as it stands is WW, MM, aLttP, MC, LA, AoL, TP (GCN), FSA, LoZ, OoT, TP (Wii), PH, and finally Oracles. I haven't played SS or ST mostly because I don't like motion controls and didn't like the control system of PH either.

 

[Bigglestheman]

Yet you're trying to argue that OoT is a good game, comparable to modern games, correct?

Most of the big releases for modern games today are just awful.

 

[finalark]

Heh, no (obviously) but I'm finally starting to "grow out" of that phase of my life where it is really important to defend a piece of art or media that I'm very attached to

I'm in that dark purgatory where I know its stupidly immature and I should get the **** over it but as I am about to prove below old habits die hard.

EDIT: Although my crusading against the Nintendo 64 made me realize that most of the games I grew up with and love probably suck ***. I came to the decision that if in a few years from now some kid on the internet goes and tries a bunch of PS1 games and tells me they aged like **** the kid is probably right.

Most of the big releases for modern games today are just awful.

LOLNOPE.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Most of those games aren't very good.

 

[The Good Doctor]

The opinion of good is subjective.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I saw Assassin's Creed 2 in that list, Finalark.

Yeah let's just spam counter and disarm all day and call the game amazing even though that's literally 50% of the game. That and holding the run button so you can do that **** to some more pathetic enemies.


**** AC. It's a game series when next to no real thought put into any of the mechanics and it shows.


I just love how most of the games in that list are extra easy mode/have such weak mechanics they make me forget I'm a person sometimes because I'm so numb inside. Oh man, Skyrim, so much to do, I mean you do borderline the same thing for every dumb **** enemy and the game is easy as **** to break, but durrr so much land to cover guys game's really good.


Everything ever sucks.

 

[finalark]

You know, Falcon, maybe for once in my life I don't give two ****s about mechanics and I just enjoy a game because I think its fun.

 

[Falconv1.0]

That may have been the most ridiculous response I've ever heard. I say the games are bad and unfun if you actually try to play them rather than get easily amused by dumb things due to them being poorly designed and your response is "I don't give two ****s about the mechanics". You're free to find them fun, but if someone says most modern games suck, you should probably present games that clearly had thought put into them, even games that aren't incredibly deep need thought put into them if they're going to be genuinely good.

It's rather ****ing ridiculous to imply that the mechanics have nothing to do with the quality of a game, or that somehow they have nothing to do with why someone might find them fun. If you can't judge a game based off its design, we might as well stop having critical opinions of anything cuz HURRR I LIKE IT THUS IT'S GOOD apparently is just as valid.

 

[finalark]

That may have been the most ridiculous response I've ever heard. I say the games are bad and unfun if you actually try to play them rather than get easily amused by dumb things due to them being poorly designed and your response is "I don't give two ****s about the mechanics". You're free to find them fun, but if someone says most modern games suck, you should probably present games that clearly had thought put into them, even games that aren't incredibly deep need thought put into them if they're going to be genuinely good.

Falcon, there was once an age when I wanted to be another Yahtzee so I tore apart every game that I could find. Then I got the **** over it and grew up.

Guess what? I think OoT is a good game! The only argument I'll make against it is that certain aspects haven't aged particularly well and that latter games are better.

It's rather ****ing ridiculous to imply that the mechanics have nothing to do with the quality of a game, or that somehow they have nothing to do with why someone might find them fun. If you can't judge a game based off its design, we might as well stop having critical opinions of anything cuz HURRR I LIKE IT THUS IT'S GOOD apparently is just as valid.

Apparently, I suppose. All I know is that I stopped caring about how terribly easy the game was and how boringly simplistic the combat was after I did crazy parkour nonsense then stabbed someone in the throat.

OH WAIT GAMES CANT BE FUN ANYMORE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO NITPICK THE **** OUT OF ALL OF THEM.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I don't believe I'm strawmanning when I say your argument is that having a critical opinion based off thoughts and standards n **** means "nitpicking the **** out of them".

Pathetic response, ****ing unbelievable. Yes, I am absolutely saying games can't be fun anymore, keep on rolling on with the hyperbole. You ever see any of Egoraptor's videos? He does a good job of explaining how good games have good design behind them, there's nothing elitist or "nitpicky" with it, you're just refuting logical thought with WELL I LIEK IT THUS IT'S GOOD, AND IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST BEING A PRICK.

BTW I am not in any way looking down on anyone for enjoying a bad game, but you're the one claiming they were good, good implies a measure of quality, doesn't it? There are plenty of bad movies that people like but can still say it was bad, you know like where the acting so terrible that it's hilarious. That's kinda Skyrim right there, everything is so poorly put together that it's hilarious.

Or boring as ****.

 

[finalark]

You know what? I'm done with this. Assassin's Creed II is terrible, I'm a bad person for loving Elder Scrolls, you're right, I'm wrong. The end.

 

[Falconv1.0]

You know what? I'm done with this. Assassin's Creed II is terrible, I'm a bad person for loving Elder Scrolls, you're right, I'm wrong. The end.

Even when you say you don't want to argue anymore you have to sound so defensive. I never said you're a bad person, the one thing you're genuinely wrong for though is claiming me using more objective reasoning that I've always had is simply too much nitpicking. That offends me, it basically says "man, **** logic, and who cares how much work was put into this product, I like it and I'm going to get pissy when you disagree". Thinking like that has never moved society forward on any topic, but hey whatever being less smart is fun rite?

 

[kupo15]

You ever see any of Egoraptor's videos? He does a good job of explaining how good games have good design behind them, there's nothing elitist or "nitpicky" with it, you're just refuting logical thought with WELL I LIEK IT THUS IT'S GOOD, AND IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST BEING A PRICK.
.

Woah, I started watching some of Egoraptor's videos and its great! His ideas about why games are good and why they aren't are exactly my views on gaming and what I try to explain. If anyone thinks he is out of his mind and has bad "opinions" or "nitpicking" then they clearly don't respect or genuinely understand gaming as an art form nor do they recognize the tremendous impact small details have on a game.