General Zelda Rank-Order The 3D Games

[mαrkαsscoρ]

There's nothing wrong with nostalgia.

there is if it clouds your judgement and you start bashing people for not agreeing w/ your childhood views
i'm not saying it happened here,i just kinda see that happen plenty of times

 

[Salem]

there is if it clouds your judgement and you start bashing people for not agreeing w/ your childhood views
i'm not saying it happened here,i just kinda see that happen plenty of times

It's literally NOT all bad. Bashing other's REGARDLESS of reasons is bad, nostalgia doesn't have to be a factor in the reason for bashing other people. Nostalgia in itself is not a bad thing at all.

 

[2bmc]

1. Majora's Mask. Mostly for the depth of the game and the story. As every single person on this website says, its THE BLACK SHEEP OF THE SERIES and STRANGELY DARK yaddayaddayadda that's all great. It's just a well crafted experience that transcends the buttons you press. Love the dungeons because they're actually difficult, and the clock makes it that much better to me. The bosses were pretty good too. Odalwa: simple but fun to fight (arena too large), Goht: funnn and innovative, Gyorg: not anything epic but stimulating and challenging, Twinmold: bleh, nothing, Majora: cool to fight the being in the mask, way too easy with Fierce Diety's Mask. OoT is everything a Zelda game should be, but MM is everything a Zelda game should be and more.
Fav dungeon: Stone Tower Temple
Fav boss: Goht
Fav mini boss: Gomess
Least fav dungeon: Snowhead Temple
Least fav boss: Twinmold

2. Ocarina of Time. It is epic, it is straightforward, and has so many little mysteries of its own to discover. Nothing beats the mystique of this world. Everything feels just grand and important. The dungeons are awesome, and so are most of the bosses. Features my favourite dungeon of the series (Spirit Temple). Everything a Zelda game should be IMO.
Fav dungeon: Spirit Temple
Fav boss: Phantom Ganon
Fav mini boss: Stalfos in Forest Temple or Dark Link
Least fav dungeon: Inside Jabu-Jabu
Least fav boss: Morpha

3. Twilight Princess. It too has an epic feel, though not in the same natural way that OoT does. The combat is boring, but the world and characters are more established. (I know I'm just comparing it to OoT but that's because this game tried to take OoT a step further, succeeding in some ways as well as failing). Loved how the game had big size, but there could've been much more to do. TP feels to me like an OoT-WW mashup (not in style but in gameplay), while what they should have done is include more elements of ALttP. The over world wasn't dense enough. But overall it has that adventurous feel and has many memorable moments and beautiful scenery. Oh, and has the best mini bosses in the series.
Fav dungeon: Arbiter's Grounds
Fav boss: Stallord
Fav mini boss: Darkhammer
Least fav dungeon: Lakebed Temple
Least fav boss: Fyrus or Armogohma

4. WW. Too short of a game for me. My main beef is the gameplay. Easy, unengaging combat like TP. I think the story is amazing, and the stakes in this Zelda game are just as high as any other. The Great Sea was a great concept but ultimately, like TP's over world, could've been established more. This game features pretty much all my most hated dungeons and bosses in the Zelda series (Wind Temple is #1 worst for me. It feels dull on all accounts, nothing exciting is happening in there). Love/hate this game.
Fav dungeon: Earth Temple
Fav boss: Ganondorf
Fav mini boss: uhhhh
Least fav dungeon: Wind Temple
Least fav boss: Gohma

5. Skyward Sword. This game was fun. Lots of fun. But that's what it felt like to me, it felt like a game. To me, Zelda games shouldn't feel like you are playing, they should make you immersed in what is happening. SS is way too linear for me; your hand is literally held through the entire game and everything is a clear cut path. Overworld sucks. The combat improved from WW and TP, but I still think they could've done better. Dungeons overall pretty good. Again, I had fun with it because it felt like a game, but it didn't have a lasting impression on me. And on top of that I'm not a fan of the plot.. I think it was a lame and far stretch of a connection for the Master Sword to be from some average village in the sky. Making the over world literally puzzles within themselves killed the variety of the game. There wasn't nearly enough room to explore. If the next Zelda game could somehow reach a middle ground between TP's and SS's over world. Golden. I do think this game has some of the better bosses in the series.
Fav dungeon: Ancient Cistern
Fav boss: Koloktos
Fav mini boss: Stallmaster
Least fav dungeon: Sandship or Lanayru Mining Facility
Least fav boss: Demise


So, overall..
Fav dungeon: Spirit Temple
Fav boss: Koloktos
Fav mini boss: Gomess
Least fav dungeon: Wind Temple
Least fav boss: Gohma (WW)

 

[Mask-Salesman]

So, overall..
Fav dungeon: Spirit Temple
Fav boss: Koloktos
Fav mini boss: Gomess
Least fav dungeon: Wind Temple
Least fav boss: Gohma (WW)

Interesting to compare that with all the 3D Zelda's.
Hard just to say what it would be for me.
My favourite overall out of the top of my head:

Favorite Dungeon: Spirit Temple (have to agree, this one was EPIC)
Favorite Boss: Goht (MM) and Argorok (TP)
Favoritie Mini Boss: King Igos du Ikana (MM) and Dangoro (TP)
Least Favourite Dungeon: Wind Temple (WW)
Least Favourite Boss: Snake Ganon (WW)

I just hated that part of the fight. God, that was frustrating.

 

[CynicalSquid]

1. Majora's Mask- On a normal day I'd put Ocarina of Time at number one, but I'm starting to grow more of an attachment to Majora's Mask. The game has more feel and purpose to it. It gives you a reason to beat it because many lives are in danger. Lives are in danger in other games, but it's not like "You're the chosen one. Save us!". It's more like a giant fetch quest, but you're also saving many lives while you do it. I guess there is more character in this game because all of the characters have meaning. There is little to no character in Ocarina of Time. In Majora's Mask, you feel more of a connection with the characters. Honestly. the only other time I've felt this in a game is in Pokemon Y.

2. Ocarina of Time - Nostalgia reasoning right here. I play this game all the time and I really forget why until I play it. The game just brings me a lot of good memories, which not many games can do.

3. The Wind Waker - The only reason I put this at number 3 is because I don't want to put it above Ocarina of Time, but I don't want to put it below Twilight Princess. I adore the game. My only problem with it is it's too short. Sailing adds a few hours of gameplay, but if it was just a land based overworld you could easily beat it in a few hours. I love the game, but there are a lot of fillers.

4. Twilight Princess - Spoiler tags just to be safe.

Spoiler

I'm starting to see why people don't really like this game. The gameplay is really basic. They barely put in anything knew, and when they did they were small things that could have been so much better. Most of the characters are just annoying. Even when the game tries to give you a connection with the characters you don't even care. I did kind of like Midna though, and the ending made me sad. The whole "fake final boss" thing would have been so much better if the Palace of Twilight and Zant weren't stupidly easy. Now, don't get me wrong, I still love this game. I like this game more than a lot of 2D Zeldas. It's just bland compared to the other 3D Zeldas.

I've never played Skyward Sword so fight me.

 

[Mask-Salesman]

This is silly, then. If I like TWW the best you can't tell me it's because I'm blinded by the cartoony graphics. Is it not enough to like something the best because you like it the best?

Offcourse it is enough. Even though some gameplay elements may be better in one Zelda, then in another Zelda, you can never forget about one thing; you can't argue with someone's taste in games. That is the beauty of it

 

[PhantomTriforce]

1. Twilight Princess
2. Ocarina of Time
3. Skyward Sword
4. The Wind Waker
5. Majora's Mask

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

This is silly, then. If I like TWW the best you can't tell me it's because I'm blinded by the cartoony graphics. Is it not enough to like something the best because you like it the best?

Alright then, I'll bite.

Sometimes you need to acknowledge that your favorite game isn't the best, and that it has flaws, some which are deep. My favorite game of all time is Final Fantasy X. And, as it has been discussed continuously, it is a rather average game to some, for a variety of reasons, many of them from a design point of view. I acknowledge that, and it's still my favorite. To do other wise seems.... closed minded.

So, it might be wise of you to do the same thing, and keep an open mind. It seems to me like you read my post, saw the "cartoony graphics" part, and decided that would be all you responded to. In fact, I see that a lot; people taking a single quote of what I'm saying, and then attacking me for that, without even thinking about the point I'm trying to get across. Please, read my entire post. Don't object to it right off the bat because WW is your favorite, and try to think about it from another point of view.

WW has some serious design flaws, and I address a lot of them. Saying "it's my opinion I love it, you have yours" is an instant conversation killer that takes away meaningful discussion, which seems to be your defense constantly. Sorry if my opening statement on the WW section got you frustrated, but that's what that part of my post was about. I hate SS. But it's a very well designed game. I love OoT, but it's not all that well designed by today's standards. If that's not objective, I don't know what is.

So you can think what you'd like. But I urge you to either think about what I've said with an open mind, or address what I've said on those merits. Responding with "Please", "Rediculous", and things like that don't do either.

You can like WW the best. I like FFX the best, and it's my favorite, but it has some big flaws. Not mutually exclusive. This is why I have two separate lists: TP is the best to me because I like it the best, just like you said. But it's not the most well designed. See what I'm saying?

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

I am aware of this. I don't think TWW is the best game ever even though it is my favourite game ever. That would have to go to some real masterpieces like (imo) FFIX or TLOU or SM64. But TWW is (imo) the best Zelda game ever. However, you can't say you are being 100% objective even when you are separating best from favourite. You must know this. There's going to be a lot of people who think they are being objective who have different opinions of "objectively the best". It all still boils down to opinion. Why? Because there are features that some people don't like that others do like. So while some may say these features are bad and therefore the game isn't the best, others may disagree.

We kind of already talked about what I think is an objective opinion, and what you think is an objective opinion. I'm quite weary of talking about this - in my initial post, I outline what's good or bad about each of the games from a design point of view. This includes how the games are structured, the different mechanics they use, and the approach used by the games to obtain each of these. If you don't agree, that's fine, just like I already said. But when I created the second list, I did EXACTLY what I said I would do: set aside my personal opinions of the games, and look at them from a different side of view. You ignore all of my post except the WW part, which is just because you happen to think that game is on the wrong side of the spectrum. Please, I implore you to read the whole thing, and get my full point of view. SS is VERY well designed with what it's trying to do. I don't personally agree with the direction AT ALL. But I still put that aside, and realize how good it actually is, regardless of my personal opinions and desires that came from it. The reverse is true for OoT; I love it, and it's deeply intrenched in my childhood; but it hardly holds a candle to most of the other 3D Zeldas from my objective point of view. If you don't agree, fine. You didn't have to take issue with it. But you did, so I'll fully justify my point of view to you. Just understand that WW is a small part of how I approach all of the games from my other perspective.

As per your request, I will address each point in your previous post and show you why I disagree. I don't wish to start a debate, I am simply showing you why even "best" is opinionated.

That's fine. I'll address each point you make, but I'm not here to tell you why you should hate WW. I'm here to tell you how it has serious flaws that should be acknowledged and considered.

I agree with you on this point. I wish there was a little more substance. But rarely do we find a Zelda game with much substance, especially in the 3D Titles (like, yeah, OoT's Hyrule Field is sooooo amazing). So this is why, to me, despite this point being true, it has little to no effect on my opinion of the game.

There isn't much defense in saying that other games do the same thing, for one major reason that ties into what I'll do into below; the other 3D Zeldas are not nearly as spread out or out-distanced with their varying areas as WW is (sailing is a huge part of this). I'll grant you that 3D Zelda as a whole is never chocked full of content in each of its varying areas. But the problem is exemplified in WW when everything is so spaced out, and these islands have little to no telling about what they actually are and what they have to give. In a game like MM, all of the areas don't waste your time. Great Bay is massive with how you access all of the Zora eggs. But it isn't so spread out that you have no idea what you're doing, and you feel PURPOSE every time you reach a new section of it because it's there for a very valid, very determined part of what the gameplay has to offer. WW does no such thing. The tiniest islands are spread out everywhere, and so many of them are so irrelevant to everything going on. The game can very waste waste your time with something that isn't substantial at all, such as a four eyed reef, and then reward you with little to nothing because of it. A well designed game doesn't waste your time with things that aren't relevant to what your doing, and things that don't adequately reward you for going out of your way to do said things. WW doesn't do either of those, and this is just more obvious because of the process by which you go to access each of these islands in the first place, which is very long no matter what you think of sailing as a mechanic (see below for more of that). In MM, you can walk and warp SO EASILY to everywhere, so it's never an inconvenience.

And this is why your "objectively true" statement is still opinionated. You applied your opinion to it, and this is very clear.

Hmm, forgive me for getting sarcastic I suppose. I was more or less trying to insert humor into the post, so it wasn't a bland read. You do acknowledge in the next quote that it's factual, so I guess it's of no consequence. Again, ready my analysis on the other games to see how I'm objective. I get the feeling you would agree with what I have to say about OoT.

Despite everything you said in there being factual, this doesn't necessarily equate being bad, and the language you applied to the facts makes it seem that way. Contrary to popular belief, many people enjoy sailing. I will tell you this: The sailing between Forest Haven and Tower of Gods is ridiculous and should never have been that annoying. HOWEVER, sailing in general to me is actually pretty fun. I just like the peacefulness. If I only have to sail a few squares I actually really enjoy this because it's just so peaceful to me. But unfortunately TWW rarely makes you only sail a few squares and then the problems you say are true.

I'm happy we agree with long distance, as that is especially more apparent.

Well, I was looking beyond what people might think of sailing as a concept. Sure, it can be peaceful sailing on the blue water, I like it myself for that because of it. But just liking the way it makes you feel doesn't excuse what it does for the game, and that's breaking up the action and plot for a concept that doesn't add anything new to the table as the game goes on except for treasure hunting and maybe bombs in you count those. You divide your points into two categories, being long distance and short distance, so I'll address both. My initial post did the same as well, but I suppose I can reiterate: For long distance, sailing does exactly the opposite of what past and future Zeldas did. Is this relevant for evaluating it? No, but it makes a good example. If you need to traverse from one area to another, it's no simple feat. If you need to go across the map for something you forgot, or something you need, it's not as simple as pressing a button or just running with you Pegasus Boots over to that location. You have a LONG wait and process ahead of you. This isn't a big deal at first. But as the game goes on, and as you have to seek out the triforce pieces, the process gets repeated over, and over, and over. That's bad game design. Forcing the player do repeat a tedious and long process is one thing; it can be justified when such a process has so degree of challenge or satisfaction to it. But WW is neither. It's the same sailing mechanics over and over with no variation, forcibly repeated over and over as the game goes on. It wastes so much of your time, and I can't think of another game where it's such a long process to get from point A to point B because of the limited warp options that WW provides for you. Elder Scrolls does a fantastic job with quick travel; such a concept could have been so useful for WW.
That's just for a long distance, however. I suppose you could apply the wind manipulation issues to a long distance type of travel, but I think it's much more relevant to the short travel. Also, keep in my that what you say about such scenarios being on the short side isn't true - whenever you see a treasure spot that you want to obtain, or whenever you decide you want to board an enemy checkpoint, the EXACT issues that you acknowledge as flaws occur. You're forced to change the wind's direction in order to get to what you desire, and then change it again whenever you've gotten whatever you look for. Zelda is SO BAD about menu cycling (OoT with the iron boots is infinitely worse, but this is for one temple), but WW has the mechanic throughout the entire game just for the basic action of traveling. You can't honestly say that you enjoyed pulling out the Wind Waker twice to change the direction of the wind twice just to get the singular green rupee you got through a treasure chest (I guess you could tell me you enjoy that, but I'm guessing that's not the case since we basically agree with the flaws of short distance sailing). Also, it doesn't really matter if the game doesn't force these types of short distance travel, as they can be self imposed so many times. Just the fact that it can be self imposed ON TOP of the game making you do it is flawed enough, without taking anything else I've said into consideration.

I agree, the parry makes the game laughably easy. It is a fun game mechanic though, I just wish it wasn't so over powered and you only had to use it in special circumstances.

Yeah, I'm glad I've seen some other people that think the same thing. I've been playing through the HD version recently, and something also struck me - the fact that you get Grandma's Soup (or whatever it's called) so stinking early. And you get two servings of it in one bottle, making the fact that you can't fill up multiple bottles kind of irrelevant. I blame the recent trends of video games in general though, to be honest. But at least games like TP and SS have the Cave of Ordeals, and the Boss rush mode. Cave of Ordeals is still very difficult post game in TP, and SS's boss rush mode gave me a lot of problems just because you could do very little between each of them (I ultimately went for the Hylian Shield, of course, although I do believe you could go even further).

Actually, Castelvania: Lords of Shadow (a huge personal favorite) does amazing things with an enormous difficulty. Can't recommend it enough.

But the triforce quest? Why is it bad? Because you didn't enjoy it? Now I'm not even the biggest fan of the Triforce Quest but a lot of people really enjoyed it. Something like that can't be objectively bad. Few things can be objectively bad (like bad controls or bad graphics). I know a lot of people who really liked it and I will tell you as someone who didn't love the quest that there are portions of it that I'm looking forward to, like the Ghost Ship. The only thing that I think is "objectively" bad about the Triforce Quest is the fact that you need to dig up the pieces in the Ocean. This is just a time waster and provides no substance to the game.

Actually, your last sentence applies to the entirety of the triforce quest in the way that how it's presented and executed is very poorly done. I do quite a bit of analysis on my initial post about this, but I'll reiterate. The main example I point to is Metroid Prime (I'm sure you've played it), which does nearly the EXACT same thing as the triforce quest. But here's the difference - in WW, it's thrown upon you at the very end of the game, when things should be wrapping up. The exposition for the plot is very nearly complete, and it's apparent that the showdown is imminent. Why does the game shove this down your throat at the last minute after all of this has been building up? Metroid Prime pulls this off so spectacularly. You get the knowledge that such a quest exists long before the game is even close to being over, which allows you to keep you eyes out for possible locations of the Chozo Artifacts (the triforce piece equivalent, if you will) and to go more in depth to the areas as you find them. On top of that, some of the Chozo Artifacts are very easy to find, which means that EVEN IF you didn't know that this fetch quest exists, you could still make progress. WW drops it on you at the very end of the game, and forces you to go in-depth with the world in places you have no idea where to find because the game does a VERY poor job of indicating where exactly you find these trifroce pieces. No buildup, no foreshadowing that such a quest exists; it just tells you to find them in the endgame for no reason. It just reeks of an artificial game extender, just like TP did with those stupid sky statues that I can't stand. That's bad game design because, like you said, it wastes you time. But that's just the concept and execution of the concept, not how you obtain the pieces themselves (the process, I mean). But we seem to agree that it isn't all that good, so I'll stop there.

I will explain the biggest part of how nothing is "objectively the best" game. What it boils down to is how badly the flaws bring down the game. To me, the flaws you mentioned didn't bring down the game enough for it to not be my favourite. So in my mind, I don't see them as huge flaws. Because I don't think the flaws are huge, it can't be brought down even on my "objective" list. Do you see what I mean? In my mind, the flaws are so minuscule in TWW, that it is both subjectively and objectively the best Zelda game. But I don't make claims like the latter, because I've shown you how many people have different games as "objectively" the best.

Unfortunately, the type of analysis for what is objectively the best game will always be there, even if you don't like it. This is true with any entertainment medium that has ever, or will ever, exist. Is Citizen Cane the best movie ever? Hell no, I don't think so. But when I studied it, and took a step back, I realized just how much it did. The concepts, the ideas, the execution, so much of it was so revolutionary. It's structured so well in a plot and cinematic sense, I have to give it credit for being on of the most masterfully crafted movies there has ever been. Casablanca does the exact same thing. These films are analyzed to death, to determine which is objectively the best..... Just because you think it doesn't have merit, doesn't mean that it's something that people will do, including myself. Games are nearly the same thing, albeit not near as sophisticated given the shallow history of it at this moment in time. Shadow of the Colossus is seen as a spectacularly designed game that does wonders for the medium. This is an objective statement, shared by so many in the game community. You may not agree, but that doesn't make the warrant and analysis any less relevant. Does any game reviewer not claim to be objective? This type of analysis is so huge to entertainment, and it can't possibly ever go away. The same applies to my criticism of WW, which I feel is very valid and true. I can't make you see that, nor can I force you to agree that I'm being objective. You're allowed to think whatever you want to think, and I'm not at liberty to tell you otherwise. What I will tell you, however, is that everything doesn't boil down to opinion, in the sense that you're presenting it in. Sure, there will always be those that disagree with everything, no matter what is said. But somethings, such as good game design, can be universal.

If you don't agree with any of this, I respect that .

If I think TWW is objectively the best Zelda game, who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

I'm not here to tell you your wrong, as you obviously are very passionate about liking Wind Waker. I'm here to tell you the other side. If you're definition of "objective" is that everyone agrees on it.... Then I have to say you're mistaken. My analysis is what happens when I put aside my personal feelings for the game, and evaluate it on game design. We all process things differently, just like I said in an initial response to one of your comments.

You can think what you want, and that's fine.

 

[Tetra's Wink]

I'm currently replaying through MM, and, to be honest, I don't know why people love it so much - I am seeing A LOT of flaws in this game. I am now more confident than ever that the other 4 3d zelda games are miles and miles better than it. And MM has also dropped in my overall list. All just my opinion of course.

 

[Mask-Salesman]

I'm currently replaying through MM, and, to be honest, I don't know why people love it so much - I am seeing A LOT of flaws in this game. I am now more confident than ever that the other 4 3d zelda games are miles and miles better than it. And MM has also dropped in my overall list. All just my opinion of course.

This is making me very curious? What are those 'flaws' you are talking about? The perfect game that has no flaws doesn't exist in my opinion. And what may be a flaw to some, isn't a flaw to others. I'm not attacking your opinion or anything, I'm just very curious what A LOT of these flaws are?

 

[Tetra's Wink]

This is making me very curious? What are those 'flaws' you are talking about? The perfect game that has no flaws doesn't exist in my opinion. And what may be a flaw to some, isn't a flaw to others. I'm not attacking your opinion or anything, I'm just very curious what A LOT of these flaws are?

1 - The controls are slippery - Have to be at the precise angle for everything. The snowhead temple is an example of this - rolling as a goron over that first jump was painfully hard because the controls were that slippery and he wasn't facing where I was aiming ever. Also getting that stray fairy in the same room is just about impossible - I fired the arrow directly into it many, many times, and it did bugger all. I also had severe trouble with slippery controls when getting the lens of truth, doing those jumps where the owl leaves his feathers. I knew exactly where to go, but the controls were that slippery that I kept falling anyway. I've never had this problem (to this extent at least) with any other 3d zelda game.

2 - The camera angle is horrible - changes randomly, and bascially has a huge impact on the things that I mentioned in point 1.

3 - The game is repetitive. I know that this is part of the three-day cycle. But it gets very annoying having to have the guards in clock town say the same thing to you every time you save, having the person at the bank to check your stamp every time etc. And don't get me started on that business scrub in clock town - if you accidently walk anywhere near his patch, you'll have to endure his enormous cut scene every time.

4 - Again with the three-day cycle, it doesn't even make sense anyway - when you go back in time to save, you lose rupees, arrows etc, but you do not lose boss remains, masks, songs etc, which quite frankly doesn't make any sense.

Maybe 'annoyances' would be a better word to use than 'flaws' (for points 3 and 4 that is - I really do feel that points 1 and 2 true flaws though, that really impact on the game for me).

It's just not my cup of tea (in terms of zelda). I admire them for trying something different. But for me, it didn't work. Plus I much prefer to play a zelda game with no pressure of time, and to not have events undone every time I save.

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

My definition of objective is the actual definition of objective. However, my main point is while you may be saying things that are factual these do not necessarily mean it is objectively the worst. The flaws in the game are factual but it depends person to person how much this effects the game, and therefore there is no "objectively" worst game.

Ahh, come on man, you're disappointing me. My second to last point was all about how every medium of entertainment always produces attempts to objectively evaluate it. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it goes away, or it isn't relevant.

The definition of "objective" is to put aside personal opinion and evaluate something. Are you saying this is impossible? Or are you saying that being objective just doesn't flat out exist? Critics everywhere disagree.

I've done more than enough to justify the reasonings behind my list (my last post, alongside with my initial one). You're still ignoring the fact that I place games I personally dislike (SS) near the top, with games I do like (OoT) near the bottom. This is the VERY DEFINITON of objective; I put aside my personal opinions to evaluate them. WW just happens to be in a spot you don't like, and you decided to call me out on it. And I'm more than willing to reply, as I'm quite confident in my position.

If you don't think objectivity is possible, that's cool. But it won't change how critics have approached evaluation for centuries, and it won't invalidate it. Like I said in my last post - does a game reviewer not attempt to be free of bias? Does a judge of a debate not seek to evaluate the arguments based in substance, not pre dispositions? Criticize me for my analysis as you'd like, but this is just how things work. As long as you can defend your viewpoint and justify it, as I have, it's well warranted, and should be thought upon.

 

[ShadowDiety]

1. Twilight Princess
2. Ocarina of Time
3. Wind Waker
4. Majora's Mask
5. Skyward Sword

 

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

You are being objective to the extent that someone can be objective.

Excellent. I'm glad we're finally on the same page, as your post about not believing I was being objective worried me.

This is by only saying things that are factual. But how much these facts make or break a game is subjective and always will be.

Then I am very confused as to why you decided to challenge my list in the first place. Because it seems that you're defense has fallen back to exactly what I thought it was when you replied to my list, so I'll post it again here:

Saying "it's my opinion I love it, you have yours" is an instant conversation killer that takes away meaningful discussion, which seems to be your defense constantly.

You acknowledge that objectivity is possible, and you admit that I do that to the best ability that can be done. You even acknowledge that everything I have to say about WW's design flaws has a large degree of truth to them. So.... why did you take issue with my list? Just to tell me that how bad flaws affect a game is subjective, because you happen to like WW? My posts are ALL ABOUT how the WW flaws you acknowledge are so damning because of the nature of their existence - choices that drastically affect core elements of the game, such as transportation and play time. I lay out so clearly why these overshadow the many flaws that the other 3D games present through my initial list, so I expect much more of a defense other than "how badly flaws affect a game is subjective" when someone rather bluntly challenges me and I finally decide to humor them.

However, I digress. I feel that I've done more than enough to justify my point of view, and as a result I feel even more confident in it. But since we've gone full circle, back to the "it's my opinion" stage, I suppose that I'll reply once more with my initial quote:

No problem man. You're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Different people see different things, no doubt about that.

My style is not to go around and reply to people's opinions with "No, you're wrong for having that, and here's why from a design point of view". I don't do that. When a topic like this comes around, I DO hope to present a thought-provoking alternative to a mainstream thought, not personally assault individuals for thinking something.

But when someone replies to me with the "it's my opinion I love it, you have yours" response, yes, I'm going to comply and fully justify my mode of thought. In turn, I would hope I can have a deeper discussion that transcends "my opinion vs yours".