• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Why Ocarina of Time is Not That Great of a Game

Master Kokiri 9

The Dungeon Master
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Location
My ship that sailed in the morning
Yes. Oh, yeah. I went there. I'm doubting the undeniably "best game of all time."

I actually don't think it's the best game of all time. Great game, yes. Greatest game ever, no. I enjoyed Spirit Tracks far more, and I've played a few non Zelda titles that match up to, if not surpass OoT.


But on a less snarky note, I've heard so many people say that Ocarina of Time was the "best game of all time in the history of everything ever." It has such a positive reputation. Almost every "greatest video games" list places it at the top. Frankly, I'm really tired of hearing about how great it is all the time, as if it's reputation is not up for debate. I've played the game (over a decade after it was released, and shortly after playing Majora's Mask), and I honestly don't see what's so great about it.

I semi agree. I agree that it's held too high, but I don't agree that it isn't great. But everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

I will grant that Ocarina of Time was a great game in a lot of ways. The biggest reason, though, is that it was revolutionary. It was the first 3D Zelda. It had pivotal characters (i.e., ones with actual names) other than Link. We got new races. We got new controls, like Z-targeting) We got backstory. We got great music. And we got twists. Previous games (well, A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening) had had elements of that, but Ocarina of Time was where those features got to shine.

You know, I agree with this quite a bit. It's a great game and I quite enjoy it, but the reason it's held so high is because of how revolutionary it was. Revolutionary doesn't necessarily mean good. People need to take OoT off the darn Golden Goddess Pedestal and actually give the other titles a chance to compliment, or out shine the greatness that is OoT.

On the other hand, it had some major flaws. It was the first 3D game. It was crude in a lot of ways. I've never tried it, but I've heard that the game only checks for the last two medallions, meaning it's possible to completely skip parts of dungeons. The characters looked blocky and fell into the Uncanny Valley at times. And, of course, there was the infuriating equipment interface that led to much frustration in the Water and Shadow temples where you had to constantly go back and forth in the menu to take your boots on and off. The shift to 3D also lost the room-to-room structure the previous games had. The puzzles are still challenging, but the puzzles are altogether different and require a different sort of thinking and strategy. It comes down to preference, I suppose, and if you like the 2D puzzles, the 3D ones might not be as fun.

Actually, I never thought it to be that crude. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the last two medallion glitch, since I've never tried it, but your graphical arguement doesn't make much sense if you ask me.

It was an N64 game and for the time the graphics were amazing. Heck, I even like them a lot.

I agree that the equipment thing was a bit of a hassle if you ask me, but I found that the benefits (the diversity known as gear) to out weigh the disadvantages.

And does it really matter whether or not puzzles are 3-D or 2-D, so long as you think they're a good challenge?

Of course, there weren't all that many technical flaws, so let's move on to other aspects of the game. We got to play as an older version of Link! Wow! Cool! And there's time travel! Well, kinda. Basically, you play the first part of the game as Young Link before switching to Adult Link. Once you're an adult, the rest of the game requires you to stay and adult. You can get through the rest of the game, reverting to child form only twice: for the well level and for part of the Spirit Temple. Both almost feel shoehorned in. If you want my opinion, Oracle of Ages used the exact same time system, and used it much better. And while Sheik being Zelda--oops, spoilers. But that's my point. It doesn't matter anymore. Sure, it was a great twist back then, but it's no secret anymore. Other games have twists that are just as good, but are still new enough that they're still actually twists. Also, there was almost no use for the Ocarina of Time. Considering that you could do magical things with your Fairy Ocarina, all the titular ocarina did was let you open a door and, um, make blocks disappear. Yes, that's right. The Song of Time gives you the power to open doors and make blocks.

I agree, the timetravel was done much better in OoA. But OoT was being rushed and the fans can blame themselves for that. If Nintendo had a bit more time, they would've been able to make OoT even better than it already is.

And the Shiek=Zelda thing actually is a secret to those who've never gotten to experience it or been with the series. *cough* me *cough* *cough*

And the Ocarina thing, I agree 100% with you on that. But again this ties into the whole thing of Nintendo being rushed by us the fans who were dying for this game and basically, the only thing the Zelda Community achieved by doing this, is making what really could've been the best game of all time a bit worse... not that it's bad. It's still great, but due to Nintendo getting rushed, Ocarina of Time didn't quite turn out as well as it could/should've.

Now that I've talked about the game's twists and unique feature, let's move on to characters. Yes, you actually get attached to characters. Of course, Zelda, the princess we're supposed to care about most, is one of the least developed characters, appearing in two or three scenes as a child, then disappearing until the very end of the game. It's much easier to like the other characters, who are much more developed. Still, all the characters can be completely described in a single sentence. Need proof? Saria: nature-loving Kokiri who was Link's only friend back home. Impa: Zelda's devoted nursemaid. Ruto: alternates between hating Link and crushing on him. Zelda: the princess you have to save because Ganondorf is after her. Ganondorf: evil and greedy. I could go on, but I won't. Oh, and another thing. Why is it that almost every single woman in this game has a thing for Link?

Well, most non main characters aren't developed. I agree with you there. Although actually, I think they developed Zelda surprisingly well what with her only making a handfull of appearances in the game. After all, she goes from being a naive young princess in the past to a capable and competent ruler in the future.

And not every woman has a thing for Link... only Nabooru, Saria, Zelda, Ruto, Malon, and... okay fine I was wrong there. But think about it. Link is a gallant young man/boy who can wield a sword and is a hero to alot of them.

In Malon's case, he helped her father to get the ranch back from Ingo's reign of terror. He saved Nabooru and she knows that he is the Hero of Time who is destined to save the world. In Saria's case, they've been friends forever. How does a romantic relationship not form out of that? I could go on, but I won't.

On to the story. Did anyone else notice that it all felt a bit familiar? Let's see...three MacGuffins, the ability to travel between a healthy world and one in ruins, traversing temples in order to unlock the powers of seven people in order to beat a man who turns out to be Ganon...wait a minute, I'm playing A Link to the Past in 3D, aren't I? Sure, the sages have names, while the maidens don't really, but the parallels are uncanny. The plot is as shallow as the characters who drive it, and is even a blatant ripoff of a previous game. There is nothing particularly deep about it, nothing that makes you think. Especially compared to the titles before and after it (Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask), the story is sub-par.

Well, actually I find the story kinda interesting and on my first playthrough, I always wondered why Shiek steped away from Link after teaching him a song. You would not believe how shocked I was when I found out Shiek was actually Zelda.

And actually, while the stories may be similar, they are actually two different stories. OoT was once thought to be ALttP's BS, but now it is not so. And also, did you start off as a Kokiri in ALtttP? No. Did you get Spiritual Stones from Kokiri, Gorons, and Zora in ALttP? No. Did Ganon get sealed away in the Evil Realm at the end of ALttP? No. Did Ganondorf have the complete Triforce in OoT? No.

My point is, that just because they're similar stories doesn't mean one is a blatant rip off of the other.

One more quick point: while the music was amazing, much of it first appeared in A Link to the Past. It's just more famous because the N64 sound capabilities made it sound better. And yes, Ocarina still has many strengths, but that brings me to my next point.

Ocarina of Time was revolutionary. I won't deny that. However, that does not mean it will always remain that way. Let's say that a filmmaker comes up with a great movie. The movie is a groundbreaking success. People love it, and it sets the standard for movies from then on. Still, it's this filmmaker's first film. Does everyone get everything right the first try? No. The movie will naturally have flaws. Of course, as the filmmaker grows, he'll be able improve his abilities. He'll gain more experience and maturity. Just because his first film is groundbreaking and revolutionary, it doesn't mean that he'll never make anything better. Sure, some of his later work might not measure up (M. Night Shyamalin is often said to have declined with every film), but chances are he'll be able to pull off another masterpiece. Hey, guess what. I was actually talking about Zelda there in that overly long metaphor. Sure, it's not a movie or anything, but the same thing applies. Just because Ocarina of Time was revolutionary, it doesn't mean that it'll always stay the best in the series.

I actually agree with this 100%. People need to take OoT off that darn Golden Goddess pedestal of theirs and actually give a chance for other titles to shine in their fullest, not caring whether or not it surpasses OoT. And really, if they think their favorite game of all time were to get surpassed wouldn't they like it? Because it's even better?

Some examples of how Ocarina has been improved on. Majora's Mask took the game engine, centered it more around time (like Ocarina should have been in the first place), allowed Link to change into many forms to traverse the world, added new songs, and improved the graphics and gameplay a bit. On top of that, it put it in a new, mysterious world, based the game around the characters (and gave them humongous depth), and put in hugely deep themes and messages.
Oracle of Ages took the time system Ocarina botched so badly and made it work how it was supposed to. (Ages and Seasons also took the game engine of Link's Awakening and made it work better, but that's neither here nor there.)
The Wind Waker again added depth, created new, amazing songs based off of old classics, gave the few sages you met more depth, and gave Ganondorf a motive. Personally, I find Wind Waker one of the strongest games in the series, though it definitely had flaws of its own.
Twilight Princess was a bit weaker, but it had better graphics. Other strong points are stronger characters and the best, most realistic temples in the series (I can imagine the temples being actual buildings, as opposed to just elaborate labyrinths there for no reason).

I actually agree with a lot of this. The only thing I don't agree with, however, is the graphics. The N64 Expansion Pak or whatever it was wasn't available at the time/the game was too far into development for it to be adequetely designed for.

Anyway, as you can see, Zelda has been developing past Ocarina of Time. Yes, Ocarina of Time was revolutionary and changed gaming. That doesn't meant that gaming can't change anymore. Seriously, Ocarina was a fairly weak game in a lot of ways, and just doesn't hold up to modern standards. At its time it was the pinnacle of gaming, yes, but other games have, quite frankly, aged much better.

Agreed. Other games have aged better, but I find it to be an incredible game still. I also agree that for it's time OoT was the pinnacle of gaming but it can get better.

I'm not saying Ocarina of Time is bad. It is a very good game. I'm honestly just really, really tired of it always being heralded as the best game of all time. I think that other games have taken its concept and improved on it. This is a bit of a personal gripe I'm going into now, but I'd just like to ask you to think a bit about it, not letting the bias of the hype affect your opinion of the game. I'm not telling you to be jaded and critical like I am, but it's really easy just to assume something is good because someone says so. Please, try not to just accept the opinions of others at face values.

Amen dude, amen. Let this be a lesson to us all: just because a game is considered the best yet doesn't mean that no game will ever be better. We must be open to improvement, and accept it. After all, wouldn't you like an installment to a famously terrific series that's better than the one that is considered the best of it's era? I know I would.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Location
New York, USA
Before even coming to this forum or anything like that, I was speaking with my friend in school and brought up Ocarina of Time as my favorite game ever. I doubt he even played it because he was just laughing and saying "nah", etc. Why do I love it so much? I don't know.

Every time I open the Door of Time and pull that Master Sword from the pedestal..I always get chills. Best moment in video game history?

You may point out countless flaws, but the fact is, I know why I think it's the best game, and so do many others as you pointed out.
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
I thin that for me personally as well as some other people, if you played OOT in 98/99 when it was around it was sort of burned into, at least me. I think the game is absolutly brilliant but to be fair I was much younger with a more active imagination. I think what sort of happens is when I play this game it gives me that sense of adventure and imagination as I used to have. (nostalgia) This may mean however, that for OOT fanboys nothing else will ever come close to that feeling of Nostalgia. And to be fair it is a very good game but when looking back on it, I think I may agree. I would like them to make another zelda like MM and have it be character-based. The feeling of adventure is really what draws me to OOT and I think that something much better can be created now. I don not think however that TP was a better game due to the lack of interaction with people things. MM I think has to be the best zelda ever and I only played that maybe 2 years ago. When you're really drawn into a story graphics do not matter. At all.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Location
Brazil/USA
Zelink, I think you put into words exactly what I was thinking. It's hard to envision someone born into today's modern gaming world, appreciating an older game as much as the people who played it at release.
 

Flute Boy

ganon slayer
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Location
Good ol' Space Aus
it is really only awesome to the people who have grown up playing it, but everyone had something that ticked them off. for me, it was the small overworld.
 
T

TMMay

Guest
Some things I agree with and others I don't. Sure, the graphics are "blocky", but they didn't have anything better at the time. Seriously! Secondly, the puzzles could be hard at times, but that is part of the game. In my opinion, they are what makes games fun! Without puzzles, the whole game would be boring!

But yes, some games (in my opinion) could be better than OoT. However, this game was a turning point for the series, and that is why a lot of people like it.
 

TVTMaster

Guy What's Angry Now
Joined
May 15, 2009
Location
It's a secret to everybody.
1) Graphics
--- Blocky, yeah. It was called N64, and it was 1998. The graphics were fine for the time. If you want better graphics, download the texture mods.
Yes, obviously graphical capabilities were lower back then. Which is, in and of itself, a problem with the game. There's no saying that OoT's graphics are "better" than later Zelda games when, objectively, they are not. Games from 1998 have, rather definitively, worse graphics than games from 2003+. You can't really argue that it's not a problem- graphics aren't a big deal anyway, but they're not as good in OoT as they are in later titles.

2) Elements
--- It used the ocarina and time travel incredibly well... in fact, the entire game (and its sequel) were centered around them almost entirely.
Sequel aside, you only used time travel in four situations throughout the game: 1) Beginning the Adult section of the game, 2) Going to the Well, 3) Going to the first Spirit Temple part, and 4) if you missed a sidequest from the Child portion. I have a hard time understanding how this constitutes "centering around it almost entirely".

3) Shallow Characters
--- Really? Princess Zelda matured from a naive child who wanted to save the world into a noble, determined heroine that did everything in her power in order to do just that. In fact, all the sages were pretty well detailed for characters of that time. Even characters we barely saw were detailed- instead of just learning a song, the ghosts were brothers (Sharp and Flat) and composers. There were secrets of a lost race (Sheikah). I mean... were you even paying attention?
Zelda's character didn't really mature so much as her means to work towards her goals- before the attack, she was kept in the castle by her father. Sheik did one thing (other than teach you temple songs) and that was save you from Bongo Bongo, which wouldn't really have been necessary if you weren't stuck in cutscene mode. The sages were probably the most interesting characters in the game (by virtue of them being important more than once through the entire game), but again we have "of that time", which is a weak argument. Story and writing did not suddenly become more advanced when we moved forward in technology, so blaming having a bland cast on time is not a solid excuse. Minor NPCs weren't so much detailed as vaguely described- we know Sharp and Flat are brothers and composers because the tombstone says "Here lie Sharp and Flat, the Composer Brothers", and we've only heard one looping three-note motif from them anyway so obviously they're not very good composers. We also don't get so much secrets of a lost race as much as being told that there are secrets, and you can't exactly find those secrets anyway. You can also get some ancillary information by completing a lengthy fetch quest and revisiting all these bland holes in the ground, but it's not as much as you'd think.
Honestly, OoT didn't focus on making a believable world and characters- you can imagine them being interesting, but in-game, they're actually not.

4) Music
--- While much of the music was recycled, you have to realize that most series do this. Everybody praises Nobuo Uematsu for his recycled and remixed same-old songs, so where's the love for Koji Kondo? Plus, OoT gave us Gerudo Valley and Saria's Song. NUFF SED.

Yeah, this is just false- OoT had a huge soundtrack (as opposed to LttP's ten songs, only like two or three of which showed up in Oot), and despite a bunch of these songs only playing in areas you don't spend much time in (except Gerudo Valley, ftw), it's great stuff.

Nobody whines about Final Fantasy being remade and always having a Cid and always having and airship and blah blah blah. It feels like you're picking on OoT just because it's popular.
Octo Rocked isn't criticizing it for being the same as much as he is for what it lacked, but otherwise, yeah. He's picking on it because it's popular, unreasonably so. That's like, the point of the thread.

I agree that OoT isn't OKSJDFOMFGAWESOMEEXTREMESAUCE, but it's still incredible. Unfortunately, it's only this popular because that was its transition to 3D, and before that Zelda wasn't that heralded. I usually don't argue against the OoT-isn't-that-great rants (because I agree), but this sounds more like some kid comparing OoT to games from this current decade. Or just plain hatin'.
To be honest, why shouldn't it be compared to games from this current decade? All the fanboys seem to have no problem with it, but for some reason they decide OoT is better. When you compare based on merit and not on concept, there's real issues there. Nobody would say the Model T was better than, say, an F-150. The Model T revolutionized transportation, but today's cars are simply better.
 

jugglaj91

I am me....
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Location
NY
From what I read and skimmed through I agree with most of you that OoT isn't the greatest game but is a good game overall.

My main problem is why people must tear apart graphic qualities of games. Graphics are only for looks and do not change game play whatsoever. you could revamp the graphics in OoT, would it make it a better game? I don't think so myself. It is the same puzzles, story, characters etc.

As for comparing OoT to current games, I think is totally unfair. Graphics improve as technology improves. So by saying OoT looks blocky compared to even MM is unfair to me. MM used the memory expansion so of course it is to look a tiny bit better. And comparing it to TP or WW is unfair because to me the GCN had better technology to handle it. I don't see anyone tearing the original game to shreds because it doesn't look like ALttP.

I for one am not a fanboy, I choose to play other games with better graphics but I have no problem with the graphics on OoT at all. They are what they are and nobody but Nintendo can change that.

in conclusion I feel for comparison of games, leave graphics out of it as it has little to do with the game other than how it looks. If you can stand to look at it then fine if not don't say anything because it is pointless in my opinion.
 

Octo Rocked

Dr. Octorokapus BLAAAAAH!
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Location
The American Midwest
Yeah, this is just false- OoT had a huge soundtrack (as opposed to LttP's ten songs, only like two or three of which showed up in Oot), and despite a bunch of these songs only playing in areas you don't spend much time in (except Gerudo Valley, ftw), it's great stuff.

Actually, while OoT did have a huge soundtrack, it was ALttP (even with its few songs) that set the stage for most of the other songs. Hyrule Castle, Zelda's Theme, Kakariko Village, the Master Sword theme, Ganon's Theme, and many more small recurring themes all come from A Link to the Past. Only two iconic tunes come from the original Legend of Zelda (the Overworld and Dungeon). While Ocarina of Time did have a lot of original tunes that went on to become recurring riffs (the Sun's Song in particular comes to mind), A Link to the Past had just as many.
 
R

rnddim

Guest
I can't help but think that some of your reasonings (i.e. graphics) were based on your playing it years after its release. That's fine, because I did the same thing :) . However:

This may sound insane (it will), but I prefer the graphics in OoT over Twilight Princess. Sure, the graphics are old and blocky, but I prefer that and Wind Waker over TP. Maybe it was the GCN graphics -> Wii, but I don't like the graphics looking too real. (You wouldn't like the Home button in your browser be an actual picture of a house, would you?)

I have to agree somewhat that OoT is not _the best_ all-around, mainly story & character development. (When I played MM I was surprised at how much better the story was).

However, because of it's (still-going) impact on the gaming world, I still hold that, overall, it is the best game ever.

(but Nintendo, please stop this "remixing" and "reusing" of stuff from OoT. It's fun up to a point, but create a new revolution!)
 

Alex_Da_Great

Dark Link is here...
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Location
Australia
I love Ocarina of Time although it doesn't deserve 10/10.

I think that 10/10 is used in too many games and what makes a game 10/10 is being the best it can be. You go through it and there is NOTHING that needs fixing as everything is up to its standards.

I have heard from many fans saying "Although _______ was a bit bad a could be better, I still give it a 10/10". What if they fixed that mistake? It's better but you already awarded it 10/10.

Ocarina has so many flaws that could of been fixed before releasing the game. The biggest one of course is the Iron Boots and how you had to go to the equipment screen, put them on, then play, go to the equipment screen, take them off, then play. This is not a 10/10 standard and could of been fixed if the iron boots were set as a c-button item.

In conclusion, you might like the game but if there are mistakes that COULD of been fixed, it should not be given 10/10. I liked the game but I only give it a 9.5 because the mistakes could have been fixed.
 

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
I have heard from many fans saying "Although _______ was a bit bad a could be better, I still give it a 10/10". What if they fixed that mistake? It's better but you already awarded it 10/10.
I can't think of a single game that has absolutely no flaws. So by this logic, no game should have a score of 10 out of 10. The way I think of it, at least, is that every game starts out at zero, and their achievments add up to determine their score. The way you seem to be thinking of it is that every game starts at 10, but their flaws lower their score. A difference of opinion, I guess :P
 

Alex_Da_Great

Dark Link is here...
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Location
Australia
I can't think of a single game that has absolutely no flaws. So by this logic, no game should have a score of 10 out of 10. The way I think of it, at least, is that every game starts out at zero, and their achievments add up to determine their score. The way you seem to be thinking of it is that every game starts at 10, but their flaws lower their score. A difference of opinion, I guess :P

Well not start out at ten, but as you said, start out at zero, then when you progress through the game, the scores get higher but when there is something you don't like, the scores goes down a bit.

Something like you grade at school. If you make a mistake, you don't get 100% on your test meaning you won't get 100% for your overall grade. You still might be smart, and got 94% overall, there are still better students (games) out there that can get better scores however, only the most intelligent of them can get a perfect score. :P
 

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Well not start out at ten, but as you said, start out at zero, then when you progress through the game, the scores get higher but when there is something you don't like, the scores goes down a bit.

Something like you grade at school. If you make a mistake, you don't get 100% on your test meaning you won't get 100% for your overall grade. You still might be smart, and got 94% overall, there are still better students (games) out there that can get better scores however, only the most intelligent of them can get a perfect score. :P

Yeah, but like, you don't get points for getting answers correct, you just lose points if you get them wrong..... arg. Math makes my head hurt :P
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom