You're still not realizing that it used the best if the N64's abilities. The reason why everyone says it it's the best is because it is the perfect combination of all aspects.
What is your favorite Zelda anyway?
Being held back by the console it was for doesn't make it better than the other games. The
content of WW and TP are better. What OoT did good, they did better. What OoT did not so good, they did well. Thus, they were better games. But they wouldn't be the games they were, if not for OoT.
"Link to the Past" happens to be my favorite.
OoT may not be the best Zelda in your opinion, but to the grand majority it obviously is.
By calling this argument ridiculous, stupid, idiotic, whatever else you want to say, you're just showing that you are afraid. By calling us fanboys, you're showing that you can't argue correctly (although we ARE fanboys, majority of the ones who say OoT is the best). There weren't any real hiccups in the game at all. I mean, a couple of glitches were so good, Nintendo purposefully left them in OoT3D!
I'll use the high end aggregate reviewer - Metacritic(you know, the site that actually 'matters') and also IGN as another people's opinion:
Metacritic OoT: 99/100
Metacritic TWW: 96/100
Metacritic TPWii: 95/100
IGN OoT: 10/10
IGN TWW: 9.6/10
IGN TPWii: 9.5/10
Based on those reviews, is OoT NOT the best scoring out of those 3D titles? I believe not. You just can't argue with things that are set in stone, can you?
They're porting LADX and FS to the Virtual Console/DSiware services xD
I'm calling you "fanboys" because you obviously
are fanboys. Otherwise, you won't bring up game ratings. You put forth that the 3DS remake was just as good as the original, I totally agree. It does a few things a tad bit better, but not enough to say that it more worth it than the original. You're not missing much and your not gaining much. And what is OoT3D's rating? 9.5. Whoops! The fact is, those ratings are based on the limitations of the consoles the games are for. When the reviewers heard that OoT pushed the N64 to it's absolute limits, they were impressed. That skewed the scoring a bit. In fact, I think all the Zelda games have a slightly skewed scoring. All I've been doing is comparing the games to each other, ignoring the limitations of consoles as much as possible. Hey, LttP has better ratings than TP, but I don't argue that my
favorite Zelda game is better than it. I think that shows how objective I strive to be.
I'm sorry but they didn't remake OoT just because it had simple coding, that's ridiculous. OoT is obviously the most popular and that is why they remade it. Look at even TWW and TP, TWW has OoT as it's back story and references to it in game (the stained glass windows in the castle for instance). TP is one giant reference to OoT and it was obviously a spiritual remake of it. Heck SS is a prequel and will probably have a lot more references to it. No other Zelda games get that kind of treatment except for maybe ALttP but that one not as much.
OoT was a breathtaking game, it was pretty damn close to perfection as any game I have ever played. I say that not as a fanboy, I love the other Zelda's too and sometimes I put games like Final Fantasy IX first on my list of favorites depending on my mood as well, but OoT was definitely special. I remember when it came out and it was THE game. Sure it's all based on opinion but few games have held up this long or had two remakes (MQ and 3D). Not even FFVII.
If one doesn't see OoT as great as me or someone else, that's just fine there is no way there will ever be a consensus top video game but OoT has come close.
Popular=/=better. E.T. is more popular than most Atari 2600 games, does that make it the best? OoT is popular because it was groundbreaking. One of the first truly great 3D games. With time, opinions of it have become a little more critical, hence the ratings for the remake being slightly lower.
In my opinion?
It had a much better atmosphere.
A better plot.
Better secondary characters (Malon, Saria, Darunia, Ruto, Zelda/Sheik, even Mido etc etc the list goes on)
A masterpiece of a control scheme, all later 3D titles mimic this control scheme, OoT started it and it still runs so smooth today.
Just a few of the reasons, keep in mind this is an opinion and I love TWW and TP a lot.
1: Isn't atmosphere enhanced with graphics?
2: The plot to OoT has holes in it big enough to drive a pick-up truck through. Why didn't Shiek reveal that he was Zelda
after Link defeated Ganondorf? Why didn't Ganondorf capture Link too? How were those Hylian girls supposed to be descendants of a goron, a zora, and a kiriki? Nintendo made
two "Author Saving Throws" to get out of that one: the split timeline and "Twilight Princess". How many plot holes can you find in WW and TP? If they are truly lesser plots than that of OoT, there should be more.
3: The characters are far more in depth in WW and TP. They actually
help Link. I don't mean giving him maps to treasure, they actually
save his life. Yeah, where were you on that, Shiek?
4: This is an extremely good point. WW does have a good control scheme, but the Gamecube controller is a bit awkward. TP suffers from the same problem on the Gamecube, but the Wii controls for it are just an embarrassment. That's probably why TP tends to get a lot of flack.
These are options. You don't have to do them. I enjoyed completing OoT 100%. It's all meant for fun, not greed.
"Sub-dungeons"? The last time I checked there where 12 dungeons. Three were just a little easier and sorter for beginners.
Dungeons have BOSSES. No, the White Wolfos and creepy...white...zombee...thing don't count. The bosses in the game have title cards, thus those are incomplete dungeons. Pathetic in comparison to LttP, which had extremely extensive dungeons. MM, WW, and TP showed us that dungeons weren't everything, but the state of the dungeons is a problem for OoT.
Does Link to the Past have six side quest, 3D rendered graphics, 30 areas (12 of which are dungeons). Link to the Past only has seven main characters while OoT has over 40. LttP also only has 67 while OoT has 71. How is Link to the Past more extensive?
That, I will admit, is totally my subjective opinion. I just love LttP so much, but I'll be willing to admit that OoT is truly superior.
Who cares if the fight with Ganon was easy? Ganondorf was a good fight, so why should you cry about having to beat another thing? Nintendo knew that people would complain if you only had to beat Ganondorf because that'll not be enough to beat the most powerful mortal in the land.
When it's a pathetic loser I can. Now, there are factors in WW and TP that make the final fight easier, but there is also more emotion in the fight. You actually can
feel how angry and frustrated Ganondorf is. That's not as predominate in OoT. Ganondorf is well developed in that game, but more developed in the later titles.
It is the best because of these reasons:
The Ocarina function, the music is memorable, the characters are unforgettable, the storyline is purely mythological. You don't see a storyline so rich and organized in Twilight Princess. Though I love all Zelda games, Twilight Princess seemed life-less. It never had the beauty that OoT had. Twilight Princess was the first Zelda game I played and when I played OoT I instantly became a much bigger fan of Zelda.
TP is much more "real" than OoT, for lack of a better term. The NPCs actually seem like real people. In OoT, when you go to the future, hardly anyone seems worried that their kind is dead and a force a pure evil is trying to kill them all. In TP, it's clear that everyone is worried about what is going on and trying to do something about it. Navi was annoying and barely useful, while Midna was charming and invaluable. King Zora just sat on his tooshe, while Queen Rutela tried to save her people
after she died. In OoT, Zelda seems to handle the fact that Hyrule was screwed because of her rather well, while the TP Zelda felt incredibly guilty over the whole thing. Memorable=/=better
Two more reasons Ocarina of Time is the best video game ever made:
1. It was the first of it's kind and it will be kept and preserved for hundreds of years because of that.
2. In the Guinness World Records it is the highly rated video game ever.
It is not the best video game ever. That's just so wrong it's not even funny. Also, it wasn't the first of it's kind. Anyone with an "A" in "obviousology" could tell you that. "3D Monster Maze" and "Dungeons of Daggorath" were the first 3D video games. OoT wasn't even the first 3D console game. "Doom" and "Wallenstein" were the first 3D console titles, if memory serves. "Doom" is still remembered, despite "Halo" being clearly better than it.
Also, on your second point: "Avatar" is the highest grossing movie ever, does that mean it's the best? No, not even close.