OoT definitely did not have the best plot of the series. It doesn't have the best gameplay of the series. It has VERY FEW plot twists and the items are very plain. Yes, it's a good start, but based on what there is now, it is very overrated.
Hmm, just defending OoT here:
I wonder if a time-travel plot could have been played out any better. Of course, time travel is what made the plot so endearingly interesting, as Link would experience events and meet people as a child and then see the same things seven years later except to find out that everything had changed drastically, almost always for the worst. Because of the time travel as well, Link basically paved the way for Ganondorf to obtain the Triforce, and for him to ruin the world and people he knew as a child, which also lead to me finding myself absorbed in the plot, because I knew all the evil could be traced back to me ultimately . Link's best friends as a child also turned out to be sages because of Ganondorf's evil plans, and Link saves these friends and finds out they still care about him even after him abandoning them for seven whole years. This intrigued me, to find out that people Link met in the past would become key in his destiny, and that they would all ultimately owe him their lives. And even the characters Link didn't know as well, such as the fisherman in Lake Hylia, were played out quite well along with the major characters. Of course, there were more connections in the past than just Link's old friends. Finding out that I could use the past to alter the future was another amazing concept. Seeing Nabooru being captured by the witches in the Spirit Temple as a child is a very good example. Finding out that Nabooru had been a slave for years when it only seemed like seconds to me, was quite fascinating. The factor of "abandonment" also comes back in to what I was thinking at the time.
I've talked about characters, but the time traveling element of the plot brought around much more than changes of the characters. Seeing what Link's actions had caused to the the land geographically was very interesting as well. Seeing Death Mountain even fiercer than before because of Ganondorf's actions (Which were again, traced back to Link), Zora's Domain being completely frozen over for the same reason, and Kokiri forest overrun with monsters because Link wasn't able to save the Great Deku Tree are some prime examples. All this occurred because of the time traveling element which the plot of the game introduced, and as I said, I found it very absorbing. There are other examples as well, including the condition of Castle Town, and how Hyrule Castle had been uterly destroyed and replaced by the Evil King's Tower. Time travel is what made the characters and places very interesting in the plot (To me anyway), and it was played out perfectly. Even the minor things, such as how Lon Lon ranch was taken over, and how you freed it and Malon, contributed to it. And on the topic of the time traveling plot element, you also mention plot twists. Ocarina of Time had more than your typical Zelda game. For instance, the whole time traveling plot element itself acted as a plot twist. Your best friend, Saria, turning out to be "The girl from the forest", was made into a sage, even though she started out in the beginning of the game being only that, a friend. This also applies to Darunia, and to a lesser extent, Ruto. The Zelda/Sheik twist is, of course, the most famous in the series, and remains more popular than anything else in the series today. Along with these and more, you must take into account that the more recent Zelda games haven't produced as many stunning plot twists as the ones I've mentioned. MM and WW seemed to try, but none of them ever matched up to the "Wow!" factor, and Twilight Princess just seemed to downright fail with plot twists all together.
With game play, of course it was a complete new field of expertise, that Eiji Aonuma would later call one of the most difficult projects he's ever worked on. However, time has proven that even though the first concept of something can be greatly improved with later games, doesn't mean that it won't stand a test of time and be completely over shadowed as newer games came along. Super Mario 64 of all games can teach this. Sunshine and Galaxy beat it in every possible way when it comes to game play, but this does not mean that Mario 64 can be trumped by Sunshine or Galaxy. A game's game play is what, in essence, can define it in every way possible. But, if this is kept true, how can some hold Mario 64 over Galaxy? The answer is quite simple: The style of the game play, even it can be made "better", might not be "better" to some at all. Many prefer Mario 64's game play just because it's their style of playing games, and it can't be made "better" to fit their style. I do believe the same can be said about, say, Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. Twilight Princess obviously handles better, but like I said, "better" isn't always what changes someone's gaming style. Because of the two differences of game play between Ocarina and Princess, some may prefer the "better" game play of Princess, while some prefer the "inferior" game play of Ocarina.
It all comes down to how you like to play your games, which completely differs from person to person, and I believe this holds relevance to the current discussion. One person's "better" game play may actually be inferior to a certain person's preference, which is why I don't think it can be compared from game to game as time goes on and produces more installments, and which is why people sometimes prefer older game play to newer game play. If "better" game play is what rules all, then all recent games would be considered much better than their predecessors, which means Galaxy would always be considered better than Mario 64, and that Metroid Prime 3 (Which again, handles much better than the Prime games ahead of it) would always be considered better than the original Metroid Prime. It just doesn't work like that. Older game play is preferred over newer all the time, which further adds to the discussion of what is "better" and whether or not the term "better" is actually relevant at all.
Just my opinions really. There aren't meant to be accepted as fact or anything, and are just my views on those two brought-up game elements.
EDIT: The edit was just for you Charge.
Let's see what you have to say.
