- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Location
- Kalamazoo, MI
I have lot all hope in "Skyward Sword" ever being the unanimously agreed best Zelda game. Quite a few of these arguments show that the fanboys are not going to let go of OoT because of all the memories they have of it. Time to counter all the points made in OoT's favor.
"The plot is the best out of them all!"
As a pointed out before, OoT has a great plot that only suffers because of several plot holes. WW has a more extensive story. OoT spells things out for you rather early, while WW leaves things vague for a while. WW also has more complexity. OoT can be divided into two seperate arcs, while WW can be split into three or four. There is a lot more going on.
TP has a very similar plot to OoT, but without so many glaring plot holes while filling in some of that game's plot holes. Isn't getting rid of plot holes better than having them? Unlike WW, it only has one or two main arcs, but there are several side stories. Alongside the main plot are several smaller, related plots. This comes off as more realistic and extensive.
"Characters are more memorable in OoT!"
Not true. You remember them because of your history with the game, but there are plenty of people who remember WW characters just as fondly. The characters in OoT were a HUGE step up from the NPCs we saw in previous Zelda games. They seemed a lot more like real people. However, the novelty of the characters wore off fast. There is hardly any point in talking to the 90% of the NPCs. Most have only one interesting thing to say. The main characters and a few side characters are thankfully strong. Mido, Saria, Zelda, Malon, Darunai, and Ruto are all particularly well developed.
How does this stack against WW and TP? Both those games have far more developed characters in general. In both games, the NPCs are going through their own arcs that you can see or completely ignore. Also, props have to go to TP for finally giving us a believable reason why someone else can't save Hyrule. I'm not talking about the Hyrule Guards being absolute cowards, that was incredibly stupid. No, quite a few characters explain why they need you to take care of the problem. Link isn't dealing with all that is going on in Hyrule. Everyone has their own problems to deal with and Link has free reign. Makes sense to ask him to pick up the slack. Not only that, the characters feel incredibly realistic. They go through their own arcs and have a lot more to say than the NPCs of OoT.
"It's harder, so it's better!"
This is rather subjective. The point of a game is to have fun. Challenge is fun, but it correct increments. The difficulty of OoT seems rather lopsided at the end. The last dungeon is far to easy, then we have a tough fight with Ganondorf, and last we have him transform into Ganon and become far to easy. Also some of the difficulty in the last few dungeons is due to annoying moves by developers (such as a dungeon with changing water levels). It's not enough to make you want to chuck the game out the window, but that fact should be put into consideration.
Are WW and TP easier? Sure, but not every gamer wants to play a game permanently on the "Super-Mega-Death-Doom-Challenge" setting. If you think they are to easy, why pick up the stuff that makes the game so easy? Nintendo has to consider gamers in general, and the majority of gamers found the difficulty of OoT frustrating. To say that it's better because of something that annoyed most people is highly apathetic.
"The plot is the best out of them all!"
As a pointed out before, OoT has a great plot that only suffers because of several plot holes. WW has a more extensive story. OoT spells things out for you rather early, while WW leaves things vague for a while. WW also has more complexity. OoT can be divided into two seperate arcs, while WW can be split into three or four. There is a lot more going on.
TP has a very similar plot to OoT, but without so many glaring plot holes while filling in some of that game's plot holes. Isn't getting rid of plot holes better than having them? Unlike WW, it only has one or two main arcs, but there are several side stories. Alongside the main plot are several smaller, related plots. This comes off as more realistic and extensive.
"Characters are more memorable in OoT!"
Not true. You remember them because of your history with the game, but there are plenty of people who remember WW characters just as fondly. The characters in OoT were a HUGE step up from the NPCs we saw in previous Zelda games. They seemed a lot more like real people. However, the novelty of the characters wore off fast. There is hardly any point in talking to the 90% of the NPCs. Most have only one interesting thing to say. The main characters and a few side characters are thankfully strong. Mido, Saria, Zelda, Malon, Darunai, and Ruto are all particularly well developed.
How does this stack against WW and TP? Both those games have far more developed characters in general. In both games, the NPCs are going through their own arcs that you can see or completely ignore. Also, props have to go to TP for finally giving us a believable reason why someone else can't save Hyrule. I'm not talking about the Hyrule Guards being absolute cowards, that was incredibly stupid. No, quite a few characters explain why they need you to take care of the problem. Link isn't dealing with all that is going on in Hyrule. Everyone has their own problems to deal with and Link has free reign. Makes sense to ask him to pick up the slack. Not only that, the characters feel incredibly realistic. They go through their own arcs and have a lot more to say than the NPCs of OoT.
"It's harder, so it's better!"
This is rather subjective. The point of a game is to have fun. Challenge is fun, but it correct increments. The difficulty of OoT seems rather lopsided at the end. The last dungeon is far to easy, then we have a tough fight with Ganondorf, and last we have him transform into Ganon and become far to easy. Also some of the difficulty in the last few dungeons is due to annoying moves by developers (such as a dungeon with changing water levels). It's not enough to make you want to chuck the game out the window, but that fact should be put into consideration.
Are WW and TP easier? Sure, but not every gamer wants to play a game permanently on the "Super-Mega-Death-Doom-Challenge" setting. If you think they are to easy, why pick up the stuff that makes the game so easy? Nintendo has to consider gamers in general, and the majority of gamers found the difficulty of OoT frustrating. To say that it's better because of something that annoyed most people is highly apathetic.
It's a Zelda game! It's supposed to be frustrating. It just makes it more rewarding to beat the game. The water temple was so frustrating it almost made me cry. but then when I beat it I felt awesome.
Ganondorf final boss. Eventually, I just practiced playing against Ganondork and learned that the match is basically a reworked version of Tennis, so he's become a cakewalk ever since I was 5. I only recently 'mastered' the Water Temple, learning the trick of "bottom up". I also have 'mastered' the Master Quest version of the Water Temple assuming I am playing the GC disc. The Fire Temple is fairly straightforward in the original quest, I don't quite remember the rooms of MQ. 