“It's better than Ocarina of Time!”

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

I've noticed that when a new Zelda game is released remarks like that in the title get thrown out. It happened with Twilight Princess, and I clearly remember it with Skyward Sword. Those games are no longer considered better than Ocarina of Time, and I'm inclined to believe that the remarks in the past were fueled by hype for a new game. Obviously they were hasty assumptions that people have now withdrawn from.

If patterns in the past are any indication of the future we'll likely see the remarks that a new zelda game is better than Ocarina of Time again. As always the mindset will fade once the new game has been out for atleast 2 years. Interestingly Zelda Wii U could have the potential to surpass Ocarina of Time if it's executed right. Unfortunately it's main feature, a open world, is no longer groundbreaking. If it had released in 2010 it would have, now open worlds have become very common in videogames.

Zelda Wii U will maybe be considered really good by us, the fans, but it technically cannot surpass Ocarina of Time. The thing about OoT is that it set a standard for games back when it released in 1998. It was innovative and groundbreaking at that time, and there was nothing else like it. It gained widespread recognition. In my opinion, until another Zelda Game can accomplish that again there will never be a zelda game better than Ocarina of Time.

What do you think a zelda game would need to do be better than OoT? Can there ever be a zelda game better than it? Share your thoughts.

 

[Dio]

Nothing is ever going to be seen as better than OOT except for when it initially releases. As the time passes people will realise nothing is going to change the face of gaming again the way OOT did. Nothing will ever have the same impact.

Gaming progresses in little advancements at a time now. We're not going to see big innovation again. OoT was a huge leap forward and set the standard for modern gaming, games now only follow what it did or what their predecessors did and improve in graphics and make slight gameplay changes.

 

[ZeldaGaming101]

I find it ironic that the only 3D zelda that (in my opinion) is better than OOT is MM, even though MM was the only 3D zelda that didn't try to top OOT. You can see that the other 3Ds, WW, SS, and DEFINITELY TP, tried to top OOT and didn't. You could argue all day on which is better OOT or MM, but I think that's missing the point. It's good to look at how good of a sequel MM was to OOT. The developers knew they weren't going to top OOT anytime soon so they made a game that didn't even try. To put it simply, MM knows what it wants to be, and doesn't give a F*ck. OOT is an amazing game but that doesn't mean it can't be topped. Will Zelda Wii U do it? Maybe, Maybe not. Look at a game like TP that tried to top OOT by doing virtually the same thing. It did not top OOT. Not even close. I have the least respect for TP out of all the 3Ds, and maybe the entire series, because of this.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

To address the whole "it's better than OoT" thing, it's definitely just a product of "gaming journalism" and how much of a joke it is when it comes to not only the Zelda series as a whole, but especially 3D Zelda.

There are two sacred cows in gaming right now; that is to say, there are two things that a majority of "gaming journalism" sites will never, ever show an even marginal amount of negativity towards. Those two would be Call of Duty, and 3D Zelda games. "Gaming journalism" only survives if it appeals to its demographic, as it's unique in the way that the majority demographic in video games is most definitely teenage/young adult males. With a demographic that's so relatively small, "gaming journalism" sites don't have the ability to not pander to them, or they'll just go under. Call of Duty speaks for itself - it can be the worst game ever made, but it will sell tens of millions. "Gaming journalism" can't bite the hand that feeds it every year.

3D Zelda is the other sacred cow in the way that it has historically been industry-defining. OoT speaks for itself, with MM acting as the lesser-known follow-up, but you also had WW and TP, which were actually true juggernauts when it came to pushing the envelope of what we considered to be exploration and world-based 3D gameplay. All four of these games got unreal praise because they kind of deserved it. And when you have a series that's 4-for-4 when it comes to generation-defining software, you have legions of people believing it to be among the best of all time.

So when SS comes around, it doesn't matter that it's a good two years behind the industry and most definitely nowhere near the caliber of its predecessors. "Gaming journalism" won't bite that hand. We did start to see some cracks in that armor though, specifically with Gamespot. I still think Zelda U will have an insane amount of bias in favor of it, but if it's just like SS and still years behind the industry, the whole act will slowly start to break down as more people wake up. This is just from my observations though.

But yeah, it's the "Citizen Kane" effect otherwise. The first to do it will always be remembered, despite if it's done better years later. OoT is the same in that regard.

 

[CrimsonCavalier]

I think we can see a Zelda game that is better than the revered Ocarina of Time. I think Ocarina was not just good because of what it did for gaming as a whole, but even when taken out of that context, it's still a good game. You can see this fact as you go back and play it today. Yes, the controls are a bit dated (no dual analog stick feels weird these days), but the story telling, the gameplay, the presentation ... they're all still top drawer. There's no question about that.

A new Zelda game, in order to surpass Ocarina, doesn't have to define a generation or a genre or a console. It just has to be perfectly executed. Yes, Ocarina defined the N64. As much as Nintendo screwed up with the N64, and as much as Sony benefited from the PlayStation, the N64 had Ocarina and the PS1 did not. But even without that historical perspective, Ocarina still stands on its own as the best game ever made.

(As an aside, Skyward Sword does not belong in the same breath as Ocarina. At least Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess were proper Zelda games.)

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

thing is for me is,no zelda game has been as influential as ocarina of time,and for some reason that translates as "better" to people b/c to be honest,freaking most of the zelda games that came out after it i found better than ocarina [3d games anyway] b/c ocarina of time is outdated by todays standards, understandably of course
majora,wind waker,twilight,etc. i found to be better than it

can there be a zelda game that's better than ocarina?
yes,and its already happened
can there be a zelda game that's as influential as ocarina?
not likely,no zelda has topped it in that regard

 

[Lozjam]

I do not know. It really depends on what cards Zelda U tries to play.

For example, Mario 64 is along with which OoT did. Complete innovation. Now, many consider Mario Galaxy to be better. It was just so fresh, so new, it took chances. Mario Galaxy was very close to being a perfect sequel. If Zelda can do what Mario Galaxy did, in completely overhauling its genre(in this case, open world adventure games). Zelda Wii U could very well be better than OoT. It depends on what it wants to do.

I am not saying it is likely though. Since we don't know anything about Zelda U, it's hard to say anything about it really.

 

[DeactivatedUser2]

Ocarina of Time truly changed the gaming industry, showing us what a 3d adventure game could really be, and invented ingenious things like Z Targeting and other little nooks and crannies that other games still use today. No other game with hold the legacy that Ocarina of Time had.


However,
"better" is all in the eye of the beholder. I love Ocarina of Time, but I think aLttP and WW are infinitely better than it in a multitude of ways. These games may not hold the legacy that OoT has held, but it's just an opinion.

 

[Derek Francis]

This is true. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword have been hailed as "better than Ocarina of Time" or "the best since OOT", and the majority would probably agree that neither is the case.

Zelda U does look like it's genuinely heading into the right direction, so it's very well possible it will be better than Ocarina of Time. Note: I'm not saying it will have as big of an impact as OOT did. But pound-for-pound, it might be better.

 

[thane98]

Ocarina of Time's impact on games is too great for any future title to surpass it. It's just not plausible to expect something like that. In addition, Ocarina of Time really has been praised so much that it's reached a sort of unobtainable status - quite simply, no game, regardless of how good it is, can reach the level that Ocarina of Time has been elevated to. So Zelda U has no hope of reaching the standard set by Ocarina of Time. Now, plenty of reviewers will say that it does, but overhyping things has become standard practice in that department for awhile, so it's to be expected.

I have no doubt that Zelda U will be a quality game, and it could very well be a better game than Ocarina of Time in that regard - plenty of entries in series since Ocarina of Time have been to a higher quality, but they lack the influence Ocarina possesses. Zelda U will likely follow the same road.

 

[MetaBeta]

Ocarina of Time didn't revolutionize gaming or set any standards except for Z-targetting. Mario 64 introduced us to fully 3D graphics with explorable areas and context sensitive buttons. Tomb Raider came out a year later and was a 3D action-adventure game. Then Ocarina of Time came out and technologically speaking, basically all we got was Super Mario 64 without jumping and bigger maps.

Hell, look at Daggerfall, even. I don't like that game very much, but it came out in '96 and was a pseudo-3D open world game with a relatively dynamic world.

Either way, we should look at games based on their objective quality and how good they really are, not how much impact they had on the industry or whether or not it was the first of its kind. I personally think OoT was the 2nd worst 3D Zelda because it cannot hold up to the design that later games actually improved on.

Yeah, it's an old game, and it's bound to have a few outdated or undeveloped features. Not my problem.

 

[DeactivatedUser2]

Ocarina of Time didn't revolutionize gaming or set any standards except for Z-targetting.

You act like that's an insignificant detail.

 

[MetaBeta]

It really is. Focusing on a target and then rotating 360 around it really isn't that much. Don't get me wrong, it was a very useful mechanic back then, but nothing absolutely groundbreaking.

"Hey guys, you can focus on objects in video games now!"

It's just not anything that would have made me say, "Wow, this really makes me want to buy the game!"

 

[DeactivatedUser2]

It's nothing to buy the game over-- it's just the fact it's an incredibly innovative technique in gaming that has influenced many other 3D games. Nobody ever specifically stated it was the most revolutionary thing in gaming, but this was an extremely early era of tridimensional gaming. Camera problems were extremely common. Just look at how awkward it was to aim the camera in games like Super Mario 64, and, most notoriously, Banjo Kazooie. Z-Targeting allows you to keep track of a specific enemy or item and not lose track of it. It also resets the camera to be directly behind you, which is just another little handy use.

Tl;dr, Z-Targeting helped thousands of camera problems in future games waiting to happen and revolutionized Zelda, as well as the gaming genre in general.

 

[VitaTempusN92]

In Zelda games only terms, would Zelda U be viewed better than OoT? If done right, then yes.

In Games in general terms though, sadly, nope.