• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Why Ocarina of Time is Not That Great of a Game

Octo Rocked

Dr. Octorokapus BLAAAAAH!
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Location
The American Midwest
Why Ocarina of Time is Not the Best Game Ever

Now that I have your attention....


Yes. Oh, yeah. I went there. I'm doubting the undeniably "best game of all time."
But on a less snarky note, I've heard so many people say that Ocarina of Time was the "best game of all time in the history of everything ever." It has such a positive reputation. Almost every "greatest video games" list places it at the top. Frankly, I'm really tired of hearing about how great it is all the time, as if it's reputation is not up for debate. I've played the game (over a decade after it was released, and shortly after playing Majora's Mask), and I honestly don't see what's so great about it.

I will grant that Ocarina of Time was a great game in a lot of ways. The biggest reason, though, is that it was revolutionary. It was the first 3D Zelda. It had pivotal characters (i.e., ones with actual names) other than Link. We got new races. We got new controls, like Z-targeting) We got backstory. We got great music. And we got twists. Previous games (well, A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening) had had elements of that, but Ocarina of Time was where those features got to shine.

On the other hand, it had some major flaws. It was the first 3D game. It was crude in a lot of ways. I've never tried it, but I've heard that the game only checks for the last two medallions, meaning it's possible to completely skip parts of dungeons. The characters looked blocky and fell into the Uncanny Valley at times. And, of course, there was the infuriating equipment interface that led to much frustration in the Water and Shadow temples where you had to constantly go back and forth in the menu to take your boots on and off. The shift to 3D also lost the room-to-room structure the previous games had. The puzzles are still challenging, but the puzzles are altogether different and require a different sort of thinking and strategy. It comes down to preference, I suppose, and if you like the 2D puzzles, the 3D ones might not be as fun.

Of course, there weren't all that many technical flaws, so let's move on to other aspects of the game. We got to play as an older version of Link! Wow! Cool! And there's time travel! Well, kinda. Basically, you play the first part of the game as Young Link before switching to Adult Link. Once you're an adult, the rest of the game requires you to stay and adult. You can get through the rest of the game, reverting to child form only twice: for the well level and for part of the Spirit Temple. Both almost feel shoehorned in. If you want my opinion, Oracle of Ages used the exact same time system, and used it much better. And while Sheik being Zelda--oops, spoilers. But that's my point. It doesn't matter anymore. Sure, it was a great twist back then, but it's no secret anymore. Other games have twists that are just as good, but are still new enough that they're still actually twists. Also, there was almost no use for the Ocarina of Time. Considering that you could do magical things with your Fairy Ocarina, all the titular ocarina did was let you open a door and, um, make blocks disappear. Yes, that's right. The Song of Time gives you the power to open doors and make blocks.

Now that I've talked about the game's twists and unique feature, let's move on to characters. Yes, you actually get attached to characters. Of course, Zelda, the princess we're supposed to care about most, is one of the least developed characters, appearing in two or three scenes as a child, then disappearing until the very end of the game. It's much easier to like the other characters, who are much more developed. Still, all the characters can be completely described in a single sentence. Need proof? Saria: nature-loving Kokiri who was Link's only friend back home. Impa: Zelda's devoted nursemaid. Ruto: alternates between hating Link and crushing on him. Zelda: the princess you have to save because Ganondorf is after her. Ganondorf: evil and greedy. I could go on, but I won't. Oh, and another thing. Why is it that almost every single woman in this game has a thing for Link?

On to the story. Did anyone else notice that it all felt a bit familiar? Let's see...three MacGuffins, the ability to travel between a healthy world and one in ruins, traversing temples in order to unlock the powers of seven people in order to beat a man who turns out to be Ganon...wait a minute, I'm playing A Link to the Past in 3D, aren't I? Sure, the sages have names, while the maidens don't really, but the parallels are uncanny. The plot is as shallow as the characters who drive it, and is even a blatant ripoff of a previous game. There is nothing particularly deep about it, nothing that makes you think. Especially compared to the titles before and after it (Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask), the story is sub-par.

Now, a bit of review. Ocarina of Time has blocky graphics, does not use its unique functions (time travel, ocarina) well, is filled with shallow characters, recycles an entire story, and has no story depth. One more quick point: while the music was amazing, much of it first appeared in A Link to the Past. It's just more famous because the N64 sound capabilities made it sound better. And yes, Ocarina still has many strengths, but that brings me to my next point.

Ocarina of Time was revolutionary. I won't deny that. However, that does not mean it will always remain that way. Let's say that a filmmaker comes up with a great movie. The movie is a groundbreaking success. People love it, and it sets the standard for movies from then on. Still, it's this filmmaker's first film. Does everyone get everything right the first try? No. The movie will naturally have flaws. Of course, as the filmmaker grows, he'll be able improve his abilities. He'll gain more experience and maturity. Just because his first film is groundbreaking and revolutionary, it doesn't mean that he'll never make anything better. Sure, some of his later work might not measure up (M. Night Shyamalin is often said to have declined with every film), but chances are he'll be able to pull off another masterpiece. Hey, guess what. I was actually talking about Zelda there in that overly long metaphor. Sure, it's not a movie or anything, but the same thing applies. Just because Ocarina of Time was revolutionary, it doesn't mean that it'll always stay the best in the series.

Some examples of how Ocarina has been improved on. Majora's Mask took the game engine, centered it more around time (like Ocarina should have been in the first place), allowed Link to change into many forms to traverse the world, added new songs, and improved the graphics and gameplay a bit. On top of that, it put it in a new, mysterious world, based the game around the characters (and gave them humongous depth), and put in hugely deep themes and messages.
Oracle of Ages took the time system Ocarina botched so badly and made it work how it was supposed to. (Ages and Seasons also took the game engine of Link's Awakening and made it work better, but that's neither here nor there.)
The Wind Waker again added depth, created new, amazing songs based off of old classics, gave the few sages you met more depth, and gave Ganondorf a motive. Personally, I find Wind Waker one of the strongest games in the series, though it definitely had flaws of its own.
Twilight Princess was a bit weaker, but it had better graphics. Other strong points are stronger characters and the best, most realistic temples in the series (I can imagine the temples being actual buildings, as opposed to just elaborate labyrinths there for no reason).

Anyway, as you can see, Zelda has been developing past Ocarina of Time. Yes, Ocarina of Time was revolutionary and changed gaming. That doesn't meant that gaming can't change anymore. Seriously, Ocarina was a fairly weak game in a lot of ways, and just doesn't hold up to modern standards. At its time it was the pinnacle of gaming, yes, but other games have, quite frankly, aged much better.

I'm not saying Ocarina of Time is bad. It is a very good game. I'm honestly just really, really tired of it always being heralded as the best game of all time. I think that other games have taken its concept and improved on it. This is a bit of a personal gripe I'm going into now, but I'd just like to ask you to think a bit about it, not letting the bias of the hype affect your opinion of the game. I'm not telling you to be jaded and critical like I am, but it's really easy just to assume something is good because someone says so. Please, try not to just accept the opinions of others at face values.

Apologies if I've said anything that has come across as offensive in this overly-wordy. Apart from some snarky sarcasm, it is unintended.

/massive wall of text

Edit 1: made the beginning and the end less aggressive and (hopefully) less offensive. Didn't realize I had been so harsh on all the fans. Again, apologies.
Edit 2: Changed the title from "Why Ocarina is Not That Great of a Game" (after all, it is a great game) to the more appropriate and accurate "Why Ocarina of Time is Not the Best Game Ever."
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Location
Louisiana, USA
Haha, reminds me of my anti-WW thread from way back. It was a bit longer, but still.

It's okay man, I completely understand the need to rant once and a while. I doubt anyone is really going to take this seriously though, as massive as it is.
 

Octo Rocked

Dr. Octorokapus BLAAAAAH!
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Location
The American Midwest
So.... The Beatles aren't great anymore because their music has been developed on?

Heh...ironically, I don't like the Beatles all that much. I mean, I don't hate them, but I just can't really connect with the music as much.

I'm not saying that Ocarina of time isn't a great game. I'm also not saying that once something is improved upon, it becomes dated or less good. However, what I am saying is that things change. Going back to your Beatles example, yes, the Beatles really helped define rock. They are, without a doubt, a very influential band. However, saying that the Beatles are the best band that ever was and that no band will ever be as good as them is something of a fallacy. There are definitely some bands that measure up to the Beatles. However, not everyone likes the Beatles, and not everyone agrees that the Beatles were the greatest band ever. There's a huge difference between defining something and between being the best at it. Sure, someone can invent a genre or a way of doing things, but its possible for someone else to take that and perfect it.

Also, I believe I gave evidence other than that: mainly, that the plot is a rehash of an old plot, the characters are shallow, and the story completely lacks depth.

Again, I'm not saying that Ocarina of Time was a bad game. It was a really good, enjoyable game. And while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they should make sure that it is, indeed, their own opinion and not just the most common opinion. I'm pretty sure half the people who love it do because the other half fervently insist that it is THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME! Frankly, I'm sick of hearing that it's so amazing without ever hearing why. Also, the way it was hyped so much really let me down when I actually played it and it didn't seem as amazing as everyone said. A good game, yes, but not the #1 game of all time.
 

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Heh...ironically, I don't like the Beatles all that much. I mean, I don't hate them, but I just can't really connect with the music as much.
Honestly, I don't really connect with them either :P. That's always the default example to use whenever some criticizes a classic. I suppose I can't really view this topic objectively, as OoT is one of my favorite games of all time (not THE favorite, mind you, that prize goes to KotOR). I will say that the plot is not much of an issue though, if you look at the plot of every Zelda game in the simplest possible terms, it's always "bad guy threatens life as we know it, a gifted child rises up and finds the courage to vanquish the bad guy".

Overall, it's just a matter of personal opinion.
 
L

Linkmsg92

Guest
Well now that you're done with your rant, can you stop trying to force the fact that your opinion is the correct one? The title of this thread says "Why Ocarina of Time is Not That Great of a Game" not "Why I THINK Ocarina of Time is Not That Great of a Game." So to me it seems like you're just trying to go against a common opinion just to be "that guy." My apologies if that wasn't what you were aiming for, I just really feel like that's the effect you wanted.
 

Zeruda

Mother Hyrule
Joined
May 17, 2009
Location
on a crumbling throne
To be honest it was tl;dr. I've seen billions of these posts for over 10 years now. In the end, they usually result in "OoT didn't meet my expectations so I don't think it's so great". OoT is amazing. Revolutionary. It's one of my least favorite Zelda games, but I can still agree on those facts. I did skim through, and couldn't disagree more with this:

Now, a bit of review. Ocarina of Time has blocky graphics, does not use its unique functions (time travel, ocarina) well, is filled with shallow characters, recycles an entire story, and has no story depth. One more quick point: while the music was amazing, much of it first appeared in A Link to the Past. It's just more famous because the N64 sound capabilities made it sound better. And yes, Ocarina still has many strengths, but that brings me to my next point.
1) Graphics
--- Blocky, yeah. It was called N64, and it was 1998. The graphics were fine for the time. If you want better graphics, download the texture mods.
2) Elements
--- It used the ocarina and time travel incredibly well... in fact, the entire game (and its sequel) were centered around them almost entirely.
3) Shallow Characters
--- Really? Princess Zelda matured from a naive child who wanted to save the world into a noble, determined heroine that did everything in her power in order to do just that. In fact, all the sages were pretty well detailed for characters of that time. Even characters we barely saw were detailed- instead of just learning a song, the ghosts were brothers (Sharp and Flat) and composers. There were secrets of a lost race (Sheikah). I mean... were you even paying attention?
4) Music
--- While much of the music was recycled, you have to realize that most series do this. Everybody praises Nobuo Uematsu for his recycled and remixed same-old songs, so where's the love for Koji Kondo? Plus, OoT gave us Gerudo Valley and Saria's Song. NUFF SED.

Nobody whines about Final Fantasy being remade and always having a Cid and always having and airship and blah blah blah. It feels like you're picking on OoT just because it's popular.

I agree that OoT isn't OKSJDFOMFGAWESOMEEXTREMESAUCE, but it's still incredible. Unfortunately, it's only this popular because that was its transition to 3D, and before that Zelda wasn't that heralded. I usually don't argue against the OoT-isn't-that-great rants (because I agree), but this sounds more like some kid comparing OoT to games from this current decade. Or just plain hatin'.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Location
Brazil/USA
If I may ask, what was the first Zelda game you played and when was the first time you went through Ocarina of Time?
 

Dr3W21

shoegaze girl
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Location
New Albany, Indiana
I have to agree. Sure, it was the greatest game for it's time, but they have made better ones since. I think Twilight Princess beats it easily.

(it still wont beat the Halo trilogy! haha)
 

athenian200

Circumspect
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Location
a place of settlement, activity, or residence.
I agree about the graphics, the parallels with ALttP, and later games improving on the time system. I disagree about the depth of the characters, though... I feel like Ocarina's characters have a lot more depth than, say, Twilight Princesses characters (excluding Midna, of course).

The graphics were a little blocky, I'll give you that. But it's really not as noticeable if you play on an old 20" SDTV, which is what most people had in 1998. The natural blurring hides most of it. Games practically HAVE to have better graphics now, with TVs able to show every pixel perfectly. But there's no reason why they couldn't update the graphics in a re-release.

The game's story did parallel ALttP, but I felt as though it enhanced the story rather than just rehashing it. The characters had a lot more depth than they did in ALttP, and you don't seem to be giving them any credit for that.

As for the time system... I admit, you got me there. OOA and MM did a much better job of making time part of the game. For a game with "time" in the title, time travel felt very "tacked on."

I don't think OoT was the greatest game of all time either, don't get me wrong. My favorite entry in the Zelda series is Wind Waker. But I still think OoT is better than TP, and it's around 3 or 4 on my list. It's still a great game, even if it's not the greatest... IMAO. ;)
 
L

Linkmsg92

Guest
To be honest it was tl;dr. I've seen billions of these posts for over 10 years now. In the end, they usually result in "OoT didn't meet my expectations so I don't think it's so great". OoT is amazing. Revolutionary. It's one of my least favorite Zelda games, but I can still agree on those facts. I did skim through, and couldn't disagree more with this:

1) Graphics
--- Blocky, yeah. It was called N64, and it was 1998. The graphics were fine for the time. If you want better graphics, download the texture mods.
2) Elements
--- It used the ocarina and time travel incredibly well... in fact, the entire game (and its sequel) were centered around them almost entirely.
3) Shallow Characters
--- Really? Princess Zelda matured from a naive child who wanted to save the world into a noble, determined heroine that did everything in her power in order to do just that. In fact, all the sages were pretty well detailed for characters of that time. Even characters we barely saw were detailed- instead of just learning a song, the ghosts were brothers (Sharp and Flat) and composers. There were secrets of a lost race (Sheikah). I mean... were you even paying attention?
4) Music
--- While much of the music was recycled, you have to realize that most series do this. Everybody praises Nobuo Uematsu for his recycled and remixed same-old songs, so where's the love for Koji Kondo? Plus, OoT gave us Gerudo Valley and Saria's Song. NUFF SED.

Nobody whines about Final Fantasy being remade and always having a Cid and always having and airship and blah blah blah. It feels like you're picking on OoT just because it's popular.

I agree that OoT isn't OKSJDFOMFGAWESOMEEXTREMESAUCE, but it's still incredible. Unfortunately, it's only this popular because that was its transition to 3D, and before that Zelda wasn't that heralded. I usually don't argue against the OoT-isn't-that-great rants (because I agree), but this sounds more like some kid comparing OoT to games from this current decade. Or just plain hatin'.

I couldn't agree more with Zeruda. Very well stated.
 

Octo Rocked

Dr. Octorokapus BLAAAAAH!
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Location
The American Midwest
1) Graphics
--- Blocky, yeah. It was called N64, and it was 1998. The graphics were fine for the time. If you want better graphics, download the texture mods.
2) Elements
--- It used the ocarina and time travel incredibly well... in fact, the entire game (and its sequel) were centered around them almost entirely.
3) Shallow Characters
--- Really? Princess Zelda matured from a naive child who wanted to save the world into a noble, determined heroine that did everything in her power in order to do just that. In fact, all the sages were pretty well detailed for characters of that time. Even characters we barely saw were detailed- instead of just learning a song, the ghosts were brothers (Sharp and Flat) and composers. There were secrets of a lost race (Sheikah). I mean... were you even paying attention?
4) Music
--- While much of the music was recycled, you have to realize that most series do this. Everybody praises Nobuo Uematsu for his recycled and remixed same-old songs, so where's the love for Koji Kondo? Plus, OoT gave us Gerudo Valley and Saria's Song. NUFF SED.


All right, you make very good points. Yes, I am judging graphics by modern standards and not the standards of its day, and am therefore being somewhat unfair. Still, you have to judge things by modern times, as well as their own. I do have to grant, though, that graphics really have to be judged by their own time, and considering that the shift to 3D killed several series (Sonic comes to mind), Ocarina of Time's actually increased it's series' popularity.

I have to disagree with you on the time travel and ocarina usage, though. The titular Ocarina of Time had little advantage over the Fairy Ocarina, as both had magical powers. The time travel made the game seem like two separate stories, as opposed to one single one. In all honesty, Majora's Mask used the Ocarina of Time more than the game where it was the titular object did, and Oracle of Ages used the time system much better and more frequently. In Ocarina of Time, you go back and forth in time maybe two or three times. In reality, it was more of a twist than a function, which is disappointing.

The characters, while they were better than they had been in previous games, were much weaker than they were in others--most notably Majora's Mask, which was all about the characters. Twilight Princess did horrible with any character other than the main ones, but Zelda, Midna, and Zant were all very strong characters. Anyway, I suppose Zelda is more developed than I gave her credit for, though it seems that she's only developed when she's Sheik. As soon as she reverts back to Zelda, she is immediately kidnapped and reverts back to nothing more than "princess who must be saved."

As for the music, you have another very good point there. All the games have very good remixes and make good use of the series' leitmotifs (fancy word meaning "musical themes that pop up a lot), and Ocarina was one of the best, reusing the best songs while adding some really good ones. Still, if you're going to praise Ocarina because it's revolutionary (which it is...I can't deny that), make sure that it's not because of the music.

The game's story did parallel ALttP, but I felt as though it enhanced the story rather than just rehashing it. The characters had a lot more depth than they did in ALttP, and you don't seem to be giving them any credit for that.
Again, a very good point. Ocarina really did do just that, and did it well. However, again, if you're going to call Ocarina revolutionary, do it because of the gameplay and shift to 3D, not the story. That's both the story for most games and the music for most games that A Link to the Past helped shape. Perhaps it's more revolutionary that Ocarina itself in some ways.

And to Nociti (and anyone else who may be wondering), my first Zelda game was Oracle of Seasons. I played Ocarina of Time seventh (meaning directly in the middle of the main series), and played it in fall of 2009, immediately after Majora's Mask (played summer 2009). So I'll admit that playing Majora's Mask first really affected my opinion of it, and I find Majora's Mask equal too or above it in almost every way (it loses points for the somewhat frustrating time system that makes it so unique), which isn't too surprising. After all, it came right after Ocarina of Time and had the opportunity to improve on its problems.

Edit: also, yeah, the main post is extremely long and could probably be trimmed down. I'll do that and change the title to make it more accurate a bit later.
 

Zeruda

Mother Hyrule
Joined
May 17, 2009
Location
on a crumbling throne
Anyway, I suppose Zelda is more developed than I gave her credit for, though it seems that she's only developed when she's Sheik. As soon as she reverts back to Zelda, she is immediately kidnapped and reverts back to nothing more than "princess who must be saved."
I suppose growing into a woman who understand and accepts her mistakes isn't developed? She shows even more development by giving Link a chance to start over instead of asking him to stay and help Hyrule rebuild- something she'd have probably asked had she not changed her younger, naive ways. She may have needed rescuing, sure, but that's because in that form she'd not physically able to defend herself. Being physically unable to fight does not mean one isn't developed. She showed great development both as Sheik and as Princess Zelda.

The character development for its time was pretty awesome. MM had better character development, yeah, but that was what... 2 years later? You keep comparing it to newer games, so of course it's going to pale in comparison to many. I agree that it's not the most incredible game, but the argument that it "is not that great of a game" is just way too far out there. There have been plenty of greater games released, but OoT is still greater than many games today, even for being so dated.
 

TheSerpent

The Happy Mask Salesman
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Location
Scenic nowhere
I agree with some parts, but I must disagree with what you said about graphics and the puzzles on it.

For one, I couldn't care less if the graphics are "blocky". As long as I can see, I'm fine. As for the puzzles, I've always been good at puzzles, and people shouldn't rate a game down because the puzzles are "too hard for them".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom