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

[guapo2003]

Ocarina of Time will ALWAYS be my favorite Zelda game period.

 

[Onilink89]

I'm pretty sure you'd be complaining about some of the items in OoT if they were to be introduced today. It's hard to look back on an old item that wasn't cool but wasn't uncool and harp on it. You're also not giving enough credit to SS's items. The way they were used was tremendous and non-stop. Only the Whip was scarcely used, but even it found its way back into the game enough to not be considered a throw-away item. The way the items were used in SS is far superior than they were in OoT. I mean, really, some Iron Boots were used to sink. Ok, that's cool, but is it something worth being called innovative? Not really. An innovative use of the Iron Boots was in the Goron Mines in TP when they went all magnetic on those blue surfaces. That's the kind of thing SS did with its items. It took them and used them in textbook "outside the box" ways. That's what makes them better.

Yet if i balance out the usefull and useless items of both games. Both in quality and quantity, i think its still obviously Oot.

And its not that the items were innovate in SS, but rather the surroundings. The only innovative item would be the beetle. And of course Bow and Bombs to give it a Motion Plus twist to it. Gust bellows, Double Clawshot ans Slingshot...i don't see nothing too innovative with these items. Heck even the Bug Net was more used then these.

SS was more about the swordplay rather then the items. Even TP did a better job with item innovation IMO (for instance the double clawshots compared to SS)

 

[Ventus]

And its not that the items were innovate in SS, but rather the surroundings. The only innovative item would be the beetle.

I could hardly say the Beetle is innovative. It's essentially a Gale Boomerang with a controllable path. The surroundings themselves were just switches and targets, nothing more. That's likely the primary reason as to why the surface feels like a dungeon, because it has switches and targets pretty much everywhere you go. : /

 

[JuicieJ]

As much as I love Skyward Sword, I don't think I can replace Ocarina of Time with it.

OoT was my first Zelda game mainly because I was born a year before it came out and I watched my older brother play it for years. I mainly play the 3d Titles, but I have played most of the original LoZ.

I think SS was great, I really enjoyed it. The controls were great, I loved the bosses, dungeons, and puzzles, but you can't beat the original. Even though Oot wasn't the first Zelda game, it was a revolutionary game, and I consider it to be the best. I've beaten it about 8 times, and it is the one Zelda game that I can play over and over again.

But I did cast my video vote for SS because of the story and... one of the other choices, I can't remember. I do know that I voted 2 for SS and 2 for Oot.

I think that OoT still has it's place. As great as other Zelda games have been, they just can't beat OoT, in my opinion. I consider the game be perfect, even though it does have it's flaws. I loved the items, the temples, the dungeons, and the overall adventure.

Skyward Sword was great game itself, but Ocarina of Time can't be beat.

Ocarina of Time is just beautiful.

So, in other words, you're choosing OoT because it was your first Zelda? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Trio the Punch]

I think every console zelda game since Ocarina has surpassed it (except for Twilight Princess, which just barely surpasses my feces), so this was really no contest to me. I would give the items category to Ocarina though, as the only items in Skyward Sword that I liked were the double clawshots and the beatle. Ocarina had a lot that I liked.

 

[Link and Cuccos]

OoT's story was really simple and on the surface without much depth (same with the characters), the overworld was rather bland (people complained about TP's being empty?? OoT's was emptier!), and the dungeons were cut and dry at times. I couldn't feel much attachment to the game, and the game didn't blow me away. And by the way, Water Temple is NOT that hard! That temple was so hyped up for me, and I was so worried about it, only to find it to not be so bad. The difficulty level on that temple was really exaggerated!

Oot's amazing, but I felt TP surpassed it, and I do compare OoT with ALttP too because OoT was practically a rip off of ALttP. I don't know why people seem to choose to "forget" that OoT was built upon ALttP, and make it seem like OoT did the first of everything.

SS had a deeper and better story AND storytelling, great characters, better dungeons, better gameplay, etc. while introducing new elements. The only thing I would say OoT did a better job on was the implementation of the musical instrument - the ocarina was definitely better used than the harp. But I prefer the music in SS.

When looking at 3D Zelda games, OoT, WW, and TP are very similar to each other. Skyward Sword and MM are different. And when I played SS, I can really sense how different it is from the other 3D Zelda games while still MAINTAINING the Zelda essence.

I like that SS took all the best parts of the Zelda series and put it into one game, while still introducing new elements.

 

[LinkxZelda]

I agree with Link and Cuccos. I heard the water temple was hard but it wasn't, even in master quest it wasn't hard.

And I think TP had more enemies in it's overworld than OoT did. OoT was a good game but it wasn't that great nothing really stood out. I had heard alot of good things about OoT and that it was the best Zelda game ever but when I played it and beat it I did not think that it was, it was good but not that great.

I think SS is better than OoT but I do wish the harp was more useful in SS.

 

[MW7]

OoT's story was really simple and on the surface without much depth (same with the characters), the overworld was rather bland (people complained about TP's being empty?? OoT's was emptier!), and the dungeons were cut and dry at times. I couldn't feel much attachment to the game, and the game didn't blow me away. And by the way, Water Temple is NOT that hard! That temple was so hyped up for me, and I was so worried about it, only to find it to not be so bad. The difficulty level on that temple was really exaggerated!

I agree that the story and overworld in OOT are more simplistic, but that's what makes it much more enjoyable to me. I think overemphasis on story is killing the freedom of gameplay in the more modern games. I liked that the overworld of OOT let's you go anywhere you want (it wasn't perfect because sometimes it stopped you for no reason) and its size made everything faster to get to. TP's overworld is the perfect example in my mind of how a Zelda overworld should never be set up. It has large segments connected by stone hallways in a circle. Through the first three dungeons you are basically following the most linear path possible through the overworld. In OOT once you reach Hyrule Field you can actually explore- right away you can play around in the secrets of the field (there are some), go to lake hylia and do some fishing or other things, go to gerudo valley to explore, go to hyrule castle, or go to kakariko village. In Twilight Princess you can either play around in the field on the way to Kakariko Village or go to the village itself (which once you're there you are forced to continue in the main quest with the tears of light which is another instance of tying the plot into the gameplay more than I appreciate). Basically it comes down to the fact that my outlooks on what choice and exploration consist of are captured by OOT but are very seldomly captured by TP.

People do overreact concerning the Water Temple though. I don't really understand why so many people struggle with it.

Oot's amazing, but I felt TP surpassed it, and I do compare OoT with ALttP too because OoT was practically a rip off of ALttP. I don't know why people seem to choose to "forget" that OoT was built upon ALttP, and make it seem like OoT did the first of everything.

100% agree except for the part about TP surpassing OOT. No one makes a big deal out of what ALTTP did anymore, and IMO it should be remembered as THE Zelda game.

SS had a deeper and better story AND storytelling, great characters, better dungeons, better gameplay, etc. while introducing new elements. The only thing I would say OoT did a better job on was the implementation of the musical instrument - the ocarina was definitely better used than the harp. But I prefer the music in SS.

Once again I just feel that more emphasis on story ruins the games. The characters, dungeons, and gameplay were great but the only one I'd say was better was the characters. OOT allows for much more player choice than TP due to the number of areas you can explore earlier on in the game, and also it allows for nonlinear dungeon progression. The same is true for SS but to a lesser extent since you have a whole sky to explore (too bad there's only a couple of islands with something other than treasure chests that you can't unlock until later).

When looking at 3D Zelda games, OoT, WW, and TP are very similar to each other. Skyward Sword and MM are different. And when I played SS, I can really sense how different it is from the other 3D Zelda games while still MAINTAINING the Zelda essence.

I disagree because I think I have a different definition for the Zelda essence- having freedom to explore a world while tackling dungeons. From my perspective Twilight Princess completely threw exploration, freedom, and choice out the window, and Skyward Sword only slightly brought it back. Also if you look at the Zelda formula from ALTTP, all but MM have the collect three things before a plot development then do some more stuff. Among WW, TP, and SS only WW had the guts to even barely shake up the beginning of the game by not having the first two dungeons be in a forest area followed by a fire area (although the areas are the same WW just switched them) like in OOT and then it goes further by not having a third dungeon for the third quest item. So I guess I'm saying that OOT very slightly added to ALTTP's formula but then two of the last three console releases arbitrarily chose to start off very similarly to OOT. Why can't we have another game like MM?

I like that SS took all the best parts of the Zelda series and put it into one game, while still introducing new elements.

Another difference of opinion because I feel that SS carried on several awful, relatively new traditions. For the most part it carried on the linear feel of TP, but not as badly but still only allowed for one order to complete the dungeons. It continued the tradition from the two ds games of having to unlock areas before being able to travel to them as opposed to the norm in games like ALTTP or MM in which almost every time all you need is an item to reach the next area (diminishing nonlinearity in the process so IMO it's the worst "tradition" ever in Zelda games- Zelda games were built around nonlinearity in the beginning but now we're going the other way and I want to know why). It carried on from the ds games the tradition of having cool ideas for a control scheme but then forcing players to use it more than makes sense or as much as most people would like to. The ds games had awesome ideas for using items with the touch screen as well as drawing on the map, but went too far by forcing the player to swing the sword and walk around with touch controls as all the while there is the control pad just sitting there unused mocking me as I can't successfully pull off a roll in PH. Skyward Sword had brilliant uses for sword controls as well as other items, but forced players to use motion controls for steering the loftwing and swimming. Would it kill them to put options in the games? It also carried on the annoying ever-repeating notifications from TP, but made things much worse because now it happens for every different kind of treasure and bug.

I think most of the new things of SS I actually do think are great though- the stamina bar, shield meter, and upgrading items. I didn't mind the adventure pouch either because it added an element of strategy.

 

[JuicieJ]

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.

SS had more fitting music for the areas. If you couldn't feel the emotion in the music that described the area perfectly, I'd suggest going back and listening again, only this time don't just hear the music, feel it. SS's musical tracks fit the areas far better than OoT's did.

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.

All we had to do in OoT was spam the B-button. That's far simpler than SS's Wii MotionPlus. I think the real problem here, though, is you're not accustomed to having to be patient with enemies. Before, all we had to do is go in and slash away. This time, we had to wait and read & react, which made it more like real combat (opponents don't go into a fight and randomly hack at each other). It's a big change, and I had a bit of trouble making the mental adjustment. But that's what has to be done. You're not giving SS's combat the recognition it deserves.

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.

First off, many of OoT's items were just cool. Nothing more. And much more items weren't used as much as they should have been. The Iron Boots, the Bombchus, the Megaton Hammer, the Ice Arrow (which should have been an actual part of the game instead of something to get for no legitimate reason) and the spells given by the Great Fairies (namely Din's Fire). Skyward Sword? Only the Whip. The items were used much more fluently and constantly with their surroundings, even the Gust Bellows. That's what makes them superior.

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'.

That's a personal problem, not a fact. Therefore it really shouldn't be brought up (especially by saying "a good overworld").

I could hardly say the Beetle is innovative. It's essentially a Gale Boomerang with a controllable path.

Not really. The Gale Boomerang was an item that didn't do much other than bring things to us. And it didn't hurt enemies by itself, so it wasn't even a weapon anymore. The Beetle, on the other hand, picks up things and drops them on foes and what not, and it's used very intuitively each time it was called upon. It was a very active aspect of the game and only got cooler with the speed and stamina upgrades. It's hands down one of the most innovative items in Zelda.

 

[cucco002]

the whole "collect three things" from my point of view its not only part of the game, its part of the zelda story, and I am not talking about legacy or tradition

The Hero's triumph on Cataclysm's Eve wins three symbols of virtue. The Master Sword he retrieves, keeping the Knight's line true.

It is supposed to happen as it seems, and I don't have problems with that

 

[fused_shadows]

I voted for SS in two and OoT in two. I personally think that SS is the better game, but the only way I think you can rate a game is by what it felt like when the game first came out and what new ideas it brought with it. Unfortunately, I did not play OoT until earlier this year, so I don't know what the first 3-D zelda felt like.