Okay look. If it makes you feel any better, the only thing I liked about this garbage game was Koloktos and the main theme for the game. Other than that, ****** gameplay, story, graphics and music. This is probably the worst game I have ever played in my life. I'll just go back to playing an actual Zelda game like WW, TP, OoT, MM and stuff instead of the garbage I got with SS. I rest my case.
I see now why they call you Craptainfalcon.
One must incorporate gameplay, story and presentation. All of this goes into, as you put it "how fun the game is." And I wasn't just factoring Revolutionary gameplay. It's the entire package, including how OoT implemented ALttP's music, how beautiful it appeared, how it surprised people with its story, how other games (including those in the Zelda series) based their aspects off of what it has to offer, etc.
The only revolutionary gameplay element of OoT is the z-target. Everything else is generic button mashing (I love a ton of those games, but that's a fact). Music, story, etc... I agree were great in OoT, but they felt much more extravagant in SS IMO.
Again, opinions differ. But whenever I see a top 64 games list, the ones near the top are OoT, MM, Conker's Bad Fur Day (I HATE that game so much) and SSB. Mario 64 is on the list, but not usually at the top.
I'm afraid anecdotal evidence cannot be used as a justification for a claim. Unless these lists you found were produced by a series of noted gaming sites.
Perfect scores do not a revolutionary game make. They're just explaining how good the game is from a professional point of view, which, as time has proven, can be completely different from what the fans feel. SS is similar to TP in that manner, in that many gave them extremely high scores, but only half the fans liked what the game brought.
Perfect scores do a revolutionary game make. When you have more than the majority of gaming publications giving it a perfect score, that's a statistic about how great the game is, considering how uncommon it is these days for any game to get this many PERFECT scores. And I'm not just holding this out for SS btw. This applies to OoT and TP as well.
Fans are not a reliable source b/c they're a biased sample.
And you keep saying that I'm using nostalgia as a justification, but I'm confused as to your definition of what that means. Using nostalgia as justification means I like the game more because its a part of my childhood, not because it was better in its time than what we have today. The latter is simple comparison.
I am afraid that is exactly what I am saying. The only thing the "in time" argument can be used for is graphics and framerate. If the gameplay, story, music, etc....all the "fun" factors are not good nowadays, then the game has not aged well. Regardless, this is a very subjective thing so lots of people will assert OoT is better, and vice-versa for SS.
There is nothing wrong with linearity in a video game so long as the game is fun. I Personally think TP did linearity right for the Zelda series, despite many's claim that they didn't enjoy it. The reason it is frequently brought up is because exploration is expected in a Zelda game which many consider to be the opposite of linearity.
Again, I agree that the exploration was flawed in SS compared to previous games. However, I do disagree that exploration and linearity are mutually exclusive. A lot of series like GTA and AC emphasize exploration of their vast environments despite the linear gameplay.