IGN's Skyward Sword Vs. Ocarina of Time Results Video

[JuicieJ]

The results of IGN's Versus of SS and OoT are in. And the winner is...

[video=youtube;b-h13RuRoAc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-h13RuRoAc&feature=watch_response_rev[/video]

Guess which one I voted for.

 

[A Link In Time]

I too voted for SS in all four categories. But after seeing the light and the fact that Skyward Sword was so hyped and not to mention, the video was biased towards Skyward Sword, I vote Ocarina of Time. Everything in that classic is so memorable. The races, the locales, Zelda and Ganondorf. Roaming across a 3D Hyrule field for the first time was such a pleasure. And the boss battles were so well crafted. Ocarina of Time also had fairly large dungeons especially as you moved along to the second half of the game and each was memorable. Music was also integrated perfectly into the game with the Ocarina. It's not nostalgia. Ocarina of Time stands head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[JuicieJ]

I too voted for SS in all four categories. But after seeing the light and the fact that Skyward Sword was so hyped and not to mention, the video was biased towards Skyward Sword, I vote Ocarina of Time. Everything in that classic is so memorable. the races, the locales, Zelda and Ganondorf. Roaming across a 3D Hyrule field for the first time was such a pleasure. And the boss battles were so well crafted. Ocarina of Time also had fairly large dungeons especially as you moved along to the second half of the game and each was memorable. Music was also integrated perfectly into the game with the Ocarina. It's not nostalgia. Ocarina of Time stands head and shoulders above the rest.

I need elaboration on how Skyward Sword is all hype and that what you said about Ocarina of Time doesn't have nostalgia to it, because "roaming across a 3D Hyrule for the first time" screams nostalgia from the rooftops. When judging games, you can't use memories of doing something for the first time as logical reasoning. It has to be within the context of which was executed better in the end. This is coming from someone who's first Zelda game was OoT back in 1999 as an 8 year-old boy.

Also, the events in SS are very memorable and the music fits the areas far better than OoT's did. The music is felt and amplifies the tone of each area rather than just being a few catchy tunes.

 

[A Link In Time]

I need elaboration on how Skyward Sword is all hype and that what you said about Ocarina of Time doesn't have nostalgia to it, because "roaming across a 3D Hyrule for the first time" screams nostalgia from the rooftops. When judging games, you can't use memories of doing something for the first time as logical reasoning. It has to be within the context of which was executed better in the end. This is coming from someone who's first Zelda game was OoT back in 1999 as an 8 year-old boy.

Also, the events in SS are very memorable and the music fits the areas far better than OoT's did. The music is felt and amplifies the tone of each area rather than just being a few catchy tunes.

And yet one of these catchy tunes-the house music-continues to be played in most Zelda games after Ocarina of Time even Skyward Sword itself. After a complete playthrough of Ocarina of Time again this year, it holds up exceptionally. Item selection on the N64 and its Gamecube and Wii ports may be somewhat archaic but if you pick up the 3DS version that's solved. However, even the original has that special craftsmanship that pervades through few games nowadays.

 

[JuicieJ]

And yet one of these catchy tunes-the house music-continues to be played in most Zelda games after Ocarina of Time even Skyward Sword itself. After a complete playthrough of Ocarina of Time again this year, it holds up exceptionally. Item selection on the N64 and its Gamecube and Wii ports may be somewhat archaic but if you pick up the 3DS version that's solved. However, even the original has that special craftsmanship that pervades through few games nowadays.

Yes, I know all that, but that's just one tune that's a variation of one that's been around since the beginning. Many of the others are memorable because they're very simple, which isn't a bad thing, but memorable doesn't always mean better. The grand tracks of SS easily outdo them, though. The way they amplify the feeling of the areas and are felt more than heard is the evidence for this. Eh, I guess it makes more sense from a musician's standpoint.

Anyway, you didn't give me any explanation as to why SS was all hype. I think that's the biggest issue at the moment.

 

[StarBound]

I voted for SS. Even though OoT was my first Zelda game, it doesn't mean its my favorite in the whole series. Yes, OoT is a masterpiece but SS is more than a masterpiece, its a mastermasterpiece.

 

[Ventus]

I voted OoT. If Skyward Sword won, I really don't care because the game felt like hype and no substance. I won't scream "nostalgia is in OoT!!11one1!!", even though it's true. I won't scream "I dun liek SS cus OoT bettar", even though it's true IMO. None of that.

Things I felt OoT had that SS lacked:

• Fitting and memorable music. The entire OST of OoT (and orchestrated track of 3DS) is memorable and fits where it is placed. SS in comparison, I only liked Song of the Hero, Romance Theme, Credits [which was so freaking awesome] and the Sky theme out of the whole OST.
• Difficulty. It's not that difficulty makes the game, but I cannot play through a very simple game and really enjoy it. Granted, OoT's enemies are pretty loopable, but you can't run in and just stall to get a win in unlike in SS where any and every enemy pretty much waits for you to strike.
• Items that meant something. The entire cast of items in OoT felt like they had an integrated place and fit well. Hookshot, Bow, Boomerang, three spells...hell, even the Slingshot had a place in the game. SS in comparison didn't have many items that felt necessary. The sword itself was too hyped and too focused upon, so every fight felt the same for the most part.
• A good overworld. No, I'm not saying "Hyrule Field isn't barren in OoT", because it pretty much is. I'm saying that I didn't like SS'.

There's a couple more points that, in other peoples' minds, can be shot down with little to no effort. My opinion is that OoT is the best of the series (excluding MM), and SS can never get to that spot because SS tried too hard to be OoT. If it were the other way around, OoT trying to be SS, surely I wouldn't like OoT as much. But it's not that way. If I had to point out a couple disappointments I found in SS, they would be:

• Difficulty – The entire game for the most part was "slash". There was no burning. What I mean is, you typically had to do one thing and one thing only to win: slash in X direction. Nintendo didn't try with any of their bosses or even the field enemies.
• Items + Puzzles – Where are the combat items? I mean, the majority of the items were used to solve puzzles. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but when you see the same switch for the fifteen billionth time, you'd start to wonder where the "puzzling" puzzles are at.
• The Final Boss – Bleh, a huge joke.
• Story + Characters – The story didn't feel focused. We have some crazy plot with a girl being kidnapped by a tornado...turns out a fabulous psychopath wants her...to revive his master? At the end of the day, his master was a joke. The characters...as I've said before, there were only some odd three characters who even mattered to the story outside of the pawn and the big man. There were relatively few NPCs to begin with, but put some beef in the ones that DO exist, huh?
• Dungeons – Too small. Too linear. Too easy. Too much of a joke. Past games (excluding TP) have actually lent a couple puzzles to me. SS? No, it reclines to the days of TP where everything MUST be pointed out to you in an obvious fashion. Disappointment all around.

The list could go on. I just didn't like SS as I did OoT. In a hypocritical kinda way, I suppose that IS me saying "I dun liek SS cuz OoT is bettar". Skyward was a bad taste in my mouth. People get too hyped about the 1.5:1 swordplay that they can't even see the enemies or the story.

 

[MW7]

I was aware of the contest (didn't vote), and it doesn't bother me at all that Skyward Sword won because the contest itself was beyond flawed. The four categories of controls, bosses, gear, and story don't add up to a full game at all. I have no idea what IGN was thinking when they placed a fourth of the selection criteria each on bosses or gear. They clearly went with series specific criteria with the inclusion of those two categories, but then they leave out no brainer categories like dungeons, sidequests, characters, overworld, and music. I know some of those categories are no doubt in favor of Skyward Sword, but what was IGN thinking. They put together a big contest collecting 113,000 votes but don't bother making the contest itself even somewhat logical.

On top of that gigantic problem, there was also some bias as A_Link_In_Time hinted at. In addition to the video/contest itself, there's also the fact that the contest started only 31 days after Skyward was released. If IGN actually wanted a contest (instead of a celebration of Skyward Sword) they would have waited much longer before comparing the two games. I didn't expect them to wait though because they couldn't even wait past the first sentence of their review of Skyward Sword. When you are reviewing a game, is it so important to declare it superior to past installments rather than actually talk about the game itself? I wouldn't have a problem with IGN if they started their review with "Skyward Sword is a masterpiece" or "Skyward Sword is beyond perfection," but they had to put a subtitle of "Ocarina of Time has met its match" followed by the first sentence of "Skyward Sword is the greatest Zelda game ever created." Considering that I hadn't played the game before, I believed them and that resulted in slight disappointment upon my playing the game. So I guess I'm just really mad at IGN.

 

[A Link In Time]

I was aware of the contest (didn't vote), and it doesn't bother me at all that Skyward Sword won because the contest itself was beyond flawed. The four categories of controls, bosses, gear, and story don't add up to a full game at all. I have no idea what IGN was thinking when they placed a burden of a fourth of the criteria on bosses or gear. They clearly went with series specific criteria with the inclusion of those two categories, but then they leave out no brainer categories like dungeons, sidequests, characters, overworld, and music. I know some of those categories are no doubt in favor of Skyward Sword, but what was IGN thinking. They put together a big contest collecting 117,000 votes but don't bother making the contest itself even somewhat logical.

On top of that gigantic problem, there was also some bias as A_Link_In_Time hinted at. In addition to the video/contest itself, there's also the fact that the contest started only 31 days after Skyward was released. If IGN actually wanted a contest (instead of a celebration of Skyward Sword) they would have waited much longer before comparing the two games. I didn't expect them to wait though because they couldn't even wait past the first sentence of their review of Skyward Sword. When you are reviewing a game, is it so important to declare it superior to past installments rather than actually talk about the game itself. I wouldn't have a problem with IGN if they started their review with "Skyward Sword is a masterpiece" or "Skyward Sword is beyond perfection," but they had to put a subtitle of "Ocarina of Time has met its match" followed by the first sentence of "Skyward Sword is the greatest Zelda game ever created." Considering that I hadn't played the game before I believed them and that resulted in slight disappointment upon my playing the game. So I guess I'm just really mad at IGN.

I completely agree. Some of the most important elements comprising a Zelda game were left out. Let IGN do this again but more thoroughly in 10 years and we'll see how things wil fare then. IGN is one of many sites who are praising Skyward Sword beyond limits. And that same sub title you referred to was in the site's review for Skyward Sword. This is an immense bias and sounds like IGN Nintendo is just dying to get Ocarina of Time off its pedestal. The majority of critics, however, have a differing opinion. They say Skyward Sword is a great game and one of the best Zelda games yet created but not the best. Compare Skyward Sword's 93/100 on Metacirtic to Ocarina of Time's 99. But then again there are even more biases to take into account such as the hate for the Wii among mainstream gamers. But that's not completely unwarranted as Nintendo used to be a company with cutting edge hardware for its day.

 

[JuicieJ]

...the game felt like hype and no substance.

No substance? Did you play the game? The motion controls, the story, the side-content, the items (which only one of was tossed to the side and not used to its fullest potential)... Pretty much everything had substance to it. I can't see why anyone would say otherwise.

...SS tried too hard to be OoT.

Whoa, whoa, what? Are you sure you meant to say that about SS? Because that was TP. SS didn't try to be like any other game. It took all the good things from all the games and combined them together, as well as introduced countless new positive aspects that are sure-fire staples for the series from now on. SS is the most original Zelda game in quite some time. I can't imagine how you got the impression that SS be like OoT.

 

[A Link In Time]

Whoa, whoa, what? Are you sure you meant to say that about SS? Because that was TP. SS didn't try to be like any other game. It took all the good things from all the games and combined them together, as well as introduced countless new positive aspects that are sure-fire staples for the series from now on. SS is the most original Zelda game in quite some time. I can't imagine how you got the impression that SS be like OoT.

Skyward Sword has the same three dungeon-plot twist-more dungeons-final boss story pattern that has been seen in the series since A Link to the Past. If anything, both Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword are guilty of this transgression. Unfortunately, Skyward Sword must be punished harsher for this because it came later and promised to ditch the stale elements of tradition.

 

[Ventus]

No substance? Did you play the game? The motion controls, the story, the side-content, the items (which only one of was tossed to the side and not used to its fullest potential)... Pretty much everything had substance to it. I can't see why anyone would say otherwise.

Whoa, whoa, what? Are you sure you meant to say that about SS? Because that was TP. SS didn't try to be like any other game. It took all the good things from all the games and combined them together, as well as introduced countless new positive aspects that are sure-fire staples for the series from now on. SS is the most original Zelda game in quite some time. I can't imagine how you got the impression that SS be like OoT.

The motion controls were grand. I loved the swordplay, best the series has ever seen. Everything else? Not so much, at least not in my opinion. The story felt godawful in my opinion though I won't elaborate because I've done so a billion times by now. The items felt too puzzle oriented, no other application (we could do petty things like carry a bomb with the beetle, but honestly why do that when we can hack and slash our way through with the eponymous Skyward Sword just as easily if not easier? Side content...the sidequests all felt the same to me. Too much fetch, too little quest. I like Hero Mode for being there, but all they did was edit the game code to slap double damage and remove all heart spawns unless you have the Heart Medal.

I really cannot explain it beyond making some claims that some will not agree with. The story structure, the characters, everything just felt too "alike" OoT. It's not necessarily bad that SS' framework resembles that of OoT, but with the way I took it...it was. Not as bad an offender as TP, but still pretty bad. Heck, I could say that SS grabbed its story structure from TP, and that's almost a de facto truth!

Skyward Sword has the same three dungeon-plot twist-more dungeons-final boss story pattern that has been seen in the series since A Link to the Past. If anything, both Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword are guilty of this transgression. Unfortunately, Skyward Sword must be punished harsher for this because it came later and promised to ditch the stale elements of tradition.

The promise was what killed me. They PROMISED us the best Zelda ever. I didn't get that.

This is an immense bias and sounds like IGN Nintendo is just dying to get Ocarina of Time off its pedestal.

Miyamoto's publicated comment, which went something along the lines of "If SS isn't better than OoT then no moar raer seldas", is likely what had driven SS to be too similar and dissimilar at the same time; not that similarity and dissimilarity is bad on its own (look at MM and tell me it's a bad game), but with the way games like SS and TP pulled it off...

 

[MW7]

I completely agree. Some of the most important elements comprising a Zelda game were left out. Let IGN do this again but more thoroughly in 10 years and we'll see how things wil fare then. IGN is one of many sites who are praising Skyward Sword beyond limits. And that same sub title you referred to was in the site's review for Skyward Sword. This is an immense bias and sounds like IGN Nintendo is just dying to get Ocarina of Time off its pedestal. The majority of critics, however, have a differing opinion. They say Skyward Sword is a great game and one of the best Zelda games yet created but not the best. Compare Skyward Sword's 93/100 on Metacirtic to Ocarina of Time's 99. But then again there are even more biases to take into account such as the hate for the Wii among mainstream gamers. But that's not completely unwarranted as Nintendo used to be a company with cutting edge hardware for its day.

I agree with every word. You motivated me to dig up more dirt on IGN, and what I found literally made me laugh. Here are the first two sentences of their review of Twilight Princess: "Ocarina, your time is up. It took Nintendo almost a decade to do it, but the publisher has finally created a new Zelda game that is so well-designed and so epic that it deserves to be crowned the best in its class." So taken together with the Skyward Sword review, that's twice that Ocarina of Time has been surpassed according to IGN... hmmm. I guess that means that in the time between the two reviews that Ocarina of Time, by doing absolutely nothing, regained its title of the greatest Zelda game by the fact that Twilight Princess got old and people finally realized that it never in fact surpassed Ocarina of Time. I suspect the cycle will repeat itself for Skyward Sword. Every SS fanboy says OOT fanboys are blinded by nostalgia but being blinded by newness can be worse and it goes away.

To illustrate IGN's views:
from 1998 to 2006- OOT is #1
2006- TP is #1, OOT is now #2
2011- SS is #1, OOT is now #2

Now how's that possible?

Let me look into my crystal ball at Zelda Wii U's release: according to IGN- Wii U Zelda is #1, OOT is #2

 

[iMadMax]

aftter 3 playthroughs of SS i still cant decide which is better. Theyre both 2 of the best games ive ever played in my entire life and its so hard to pick a winner. I really think that they should be equal because we are comparing The classic masterpiece to another masterpiece that brought so much new things to the genre. Nintendo did a perfect job on both of those games!

 

[Ventus]

from 1998 to 2006- OOT is #1
2006- TP is #1, OOT is now #2
2011- SS is #1, OOT is now #2

Now how's that possible?

Let me look into my crystal ball at Zelda Wii U's release: according to IGN- Wii U Zelda is #1, OOT is #2

It's a huge typo, though I wouldn't comment on Zelda Wii U (HD OoT ftw). Obviously, at every turn OoT is really #1 but IGN having such a complicated GUI and coding structure, they cannot edit their continuous typos. After all, 8 years after the best game released is enough time to make a typo, and 5 years after the first typo is enough to make yet another typo.