Over/Under: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Honestly, I think it's overrated.
I'm not saying the game is crap, I like the game. I've beaten it a few times.
But it's not "The Best Zelda game ever", nor is it [in my opinion] one of 'the best games ever'.

I think it's great for the exact same reason FFVII was considered a great game.
Little kids who grew up playing 2D versions of both series' suddenly play a game from that series that's in 3D, so it's the first time you feel really immersed in the world you're playing.

Eh I think it's more then that. Yes Zelda raised the bar for it's time in a big way, but I also think the game itself was simply a good game. FF7 in my opinion is more of a glossed over 2D game that just had graphics there for show... Zelda's 3Dness was actually used to make the gameplay itself different from older Zelda games. That's why Zelda OoT hasn't aged as bad as FF7 has.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by TheGame

but I also think the game itself was simply a good game.

Yes, but why.
Other than the fact you can fish, ride a horse, and use a handflute, it's relatively the same as every other Zelda game. Same temples, same outline, same basic premise, with a new villain, with basically the same name.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I think it's great for the exact same reason FFVII was considered a great game.

No, that's not it. OoT is still a great game.

And why is it the best Zelda game? Everything is done in (almost) perfection. Perhaps the reason why Twilight Princess didn't add much to the experience is because OoT already almost got it perfectly right.

For me, Majora's Mask was overrated. I replayed it a while ago and I liked it. But it wasn't as good as I remembered...

Oh and about bad direction of The Wind Waker: On one Island you have to fly to a smaller island, using the Deku Leaf. It takes a few tries to fly right (with the wind and all)... And every time you miss your target, YOU HAVE TO SWIM ALL THE WAY BACK AND CLIMB THE ISLAND AGAIN!

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Yes, but why.
Other than the fact you can fish, ride a horse, and use a handflute, it's relatively the same as every other Zelda game. Same temples, same outline, same basic premise, with a new villain, with basically the same name.

Wow, have you played any Zelda games before OoT? OoT is MUCH different. Yes the 3D environment is a big part of it, but the fact is that the 3D environment was used to perfection was a bigger part. And no it's not just swimming, riding a horse, and using a handfllute that's different... The whole dungeon layout and gameplay design was completly different.

To me it's almost disrespectful to compare it to FF7. FF7 could have had 2D-overhead graphics, and it wouldn't have impacted how the game was played at all. In Zelda you had to go in first person a lot to closely examine your surroundings to have an idea of what to do next...

And while OoT's story is simplistic, it was the "real deal". I haven't played the Wiizelda yet, but I know MM and WW looked like gimmick stories next to OoT.

[Ginkasa]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Yes, but why.
Other than the fact you can fish, ride a horse, and use a handflute, it's relatively the same as every other Zelda game. Same temples, same outline, same basic premise, with a new villain, with basically the same name.

Unlike TheGame I agree that Zelda games tend to be the same and OoT followed the same basic formula as ALttP and LA. But you have to keep in mind a couple of different things:

1) The "Zelda formula" is awesome and OoT did it the best for the time and also showed developers how make a good game in 3D. Its accomplishments are amazing.

2) The "Zelda formula" wasn't really the same back then. Now, 12 years later, the series is getting tired by following that same formula and keeps misstepping by adding wierd transportation that nobody wants. Its a legitimate concern. Back then, however, you only had one console game (ALttP) and one handheld game (LA) that followed the "modern" formula. It wasn't tired or overdone by that point. It was made even fresher by being in 3D and effectively altering the gameplay to accomodate 3D.


As for your comparison to FFVII: I also don't think its valid. Partially for the same reason as TheGame, but I also think you're misremembering. Both games' fanbases grew exponentially with their 3D games. FF wasn't nearly the behemoth it is now until FFVII and I know many gamers played OoT first as well. Now, both series' older games are easily accessible in re-releases, but it wasn't necessarily the case back then.

Anyway, my point is that both games stood on their own with their success. They didn't really capitalize on nostalgia or anything.

[Typhoid]

I'm not stating it's a bad game. I like it. I quite enjoyed it.

I'm just saying the only reason it's so good [to us] is because we grew up not playing 3D Zelda games, and this was our first experience with Link in 3D.

Both games' fanbases grew exponentially with their 3D games.

That was my point. What made those (the first games to have 3D) better than the previous, was the fact they were in 3D, which gave them an undoubted advantage when being compared, or even reviewed - because they were the first 3D games.

They didn't really capitalize on nostalgia or anything.

Again, you misunderstood. I never said anyone was capitalizing on nostalgia. I was saying the reason people around our age think so highly of games like FFVII and OoT was because they were the first 3D games of their respective series. They weren't able to be compared to the previous games because the previous games were nothing alike aside from story, rough setting and all the typical Zelda (or FFVII) formula-type things.

It would be like if Zelda came out in VR [that looked good for the time it was released], you wouldn't be able to easily compare it to the previous games, because they'd be nothing alike aside from story, setting etc.

[Ginkasa]

I understand your point. I think your understating everything invovled. OoT was more than "just" the series in 3D; it was everything in 3D. Just look at the 3D games before OoT and look at them after. The only thing that came close to the technical quality before was Mario64 and even that feels clunky in comparison.

ANd everything after was affected by it somehow. Sure, some of the things would have happened regardless and some other game would be getting the attention (lock on targeting, etc.), but OoT did it first. You can still see its effects today albeit less drastically than before.

So, while I guess I agree with you that it is the 3D that causes fond memories I don't think its simply something you can brush aside. It was more than that. Maybe I'll expand tomorrow when its not 2 am and I can explain better.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

It would be like if Zelda came out in VR [that looked good for the time it was released], you wouldn't be able to easily compare it to the previous games, because they'd be nothing alike aside from story, setting etc.

Wait. A few posts ago you said OoT was the same as every other Zelda game that far. Now you're saying it was good because it was totally different... So which one is it?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Angrist

Wait. A few posts ago you said OoT was the same as every other Zelda game that far. Now you're saying it was good because it was totally different... So which one is it?

I never said either of those.


I said the basis of the game is the same Zelda formula that they use every time (up until Majora's Mask, really - because that's when they really brought in changing form [Not counting turning into a child] on a large basis).


I also never said it was good because it was different.
I said people perceived it to be better than it was because it was their first immersion into 3D Hyrule.