• 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

Alex_Da_Great

Dark Link is here...
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Location
Australia
Yeah, but like, you don't get points for getting answers correct, you just lose points if you get them wrong..... arg. Math makes my head hurt :P

Okay a little bit of maths, then I will finish! :P

When you first start a game, you might look at the graphics first of all. That could be your first major test for the semester. You might rate it a 9/10 for the system...

Let me explain this in a diagram:

(Made-up) Zelda Ratings Reference / School Test Reference

Graphics = 9/10 / Graphic Designing = 9/10
Gameplay = 18/20 / English = 18/20
Puzzles = 7/10 / Maths = 7/10
Sidequests = 8/10 / French = 8/10
Dungeons = 15/20 / Physical Education = 15/20
Storyline = 17/20 / Geography and History = 17/20
Originality = 5/10 / Arts = 5/10

Overall Zelda Score = 79/100 / Overall School Semester Score = 79/100

As you can see, some aspects mean more marks than others and if it is not the best for that subject, you don't get the highest score. Do you get what I am saying? :P
 
O

Ocarina98

Guest
so youre a zelda hater??? Is that it? ww has flaws??? He doesnt have too many glitches jow can he have flaws??????



ZELDA HATER YOU ARE
 
B

Buttercup

Guest
you´re right

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."



yeah i agree with you 100 %
alot of poeple say its the ¨best game EVER¨ which means its better than modern day games ( such as Nintendo, Xbox and Ps3 games) and for that reason is fair to judge its graphics that are MEDIOCRE compared to New games on the Wii. come on people you guys are saying its best game ever that it beats all the new games, so dont get mad cuz we judge the graphisc, its fair.
I played Twlight Princess and Ocarina of time at the same time, and i like Twilight princess More, i personally think its better, the story, THE GRAPHICS JAJAJ, the characters, the bosses were awesome. dont get me wrnng I loved Ocarina of time, it was cool, but saying that its the best game ever that no other game will ever top it its too much if you guys are saying that then it makes it fair to judge it by graphics, like or not, good graphics make a game more attractive.
 

Austin

Austin
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
I keep seeing "being revolutionary doesn't make it a great game". Someone is going to have to explain that to me. How is bringing something completely unexpected and unthought of to the table not part of what makes a game great? Yes, OoT has essentially the same story as ALttP, but the game plays entirely differently. Any of the gameplay mechanics that you love in the more recent Zelda games would not exist without this game, plain and simple. When you get right down to it, every 3D Zelda game has built off of OoT, nothing more. They may be improved, but that doesn't make them better. You're judging OoT against modern gaming. That's not how it should work. Compare a game to the other games that were around in its time. Then you'll figure out its real value.

Also, why does it matter if OoT recycled ALttP's plot? WW took the targeting system from OoT, so by that logic WW isn't terribly creative as well.

And what's up with criticizing OoT's graphics? This has already been said, but I'll say it again. THE GAME WAS RELEASED MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO. Quite obviously, the graphics are not going to be on par with what we see today. It's like saying that the pyramids aren't a big deal because we can build them again in two weeks with modern technology. Does that argument sound logical to you?
 

jugglaj91

I am me....
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Location
NY
come on people you guys are saying its best game ever that it beats all the new games, so dont get mad cuz we judge the graphisc, its fair.

I totally disagree. My whole standpoint isn't about criticizing graphics. My point is about people who believe graphics make a game. I said it before, smoothing out the graphics to make it more like TP would NOT make it better. It is the SAME puzzles, characters etc. That is why I get upset about graphics coming into a debate.

Apparently this generation of gamers has gone to complete crap if you believe graphics have ANYTHING to do with the GAMEPLAY. People love the original Zelda and say NOTHING about how it's graphics are sub-par. I do not care if it is 2D or not. I have yet to see someone complain that it doesn't look like ALttP.
 
B

Buttercup

Guest
I totally disagree. My whole standpoint isn't about criticizing graphics. My point is about people who believe graphics make a game. I said it before, smoothing out the graphics to make it more like TP would NOT make it better. It is the SAME puzzles, characters etc. That is why I get upset about graphics coming into a debate.

Apparently this generation of gamers has gone to complete crap if you believe graphics have ANYTHING to do with the GAMEPLAY. People love the original Zelda and say NOTHING about how it's graphics are sub-par. I do not care if it is 2D or not. I have yet to see someone complain that it doesn't look like ALttP.


Graphics sure do make twilight Princess more enjoyable ( sorry english is not my mother language I am mexican XD) well at least it did for me, since i didnt get a chance to play it when i was a kid so i woulnt know the whole Feeling that you get when you first played Ocarina of time, however i did get that feeling the first time i played twilight princess which i didnt find it on ocarina of time. anywasy that aint the point, Graphics are important, not as important as game play,but they are, as time passes, the new gamers demand the consoles attractive graphics so that the games dont get absolete, thats what they did with twilight princess, as I see it, Nintendo took everything on Ocarina of time and made it better, smoother, even longer but for some reason EASIER ( NEw kids these days really dont wanna spend more than 3 days stuck on a temple, they like things fast, and since Nintendo cares more about the new younger people, then it gives them what they want cuz of $$$<---cha ching

anyways i did enjoy a link to the past it was cool ;)
 
B

Buttercup

Guest
I keep seeing "being revolutionary doesn't make it a great game". Someone is going to have to explain that to me. How is bringing something completely unexpected and unthought of to the table not part of what makes a game great? Yes, OoT has essentially the same story as ALttP, but the game plays entirely differently. Any of the gameplay mechanics that you love in the more recent Zelda games would not exist without this game, plain and simple. When you get right down to it, every 3D Zelda game has built off of OoT, nothing more. They may be improved, but that doesn't make them better. You're judging OoT against modern gaming. That's not how it should work. Compare a game to the other games that were around in its time. Then you'll figure out its real value.

Also, why does it matter if OoT recycled ALttP's plot? WW took the targeting system from OoT, so by that logic WW isn't terribly creative as well.

And what's up with criticizing OoT's graphics? This has already been said, but I'll say it again. THE GAME WAS RELEASED MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO. Quite obviously, the graphics are not going to be on par with what we see today. It's like saying that the pyramids aren't a big deal because we can build them again in two weeks with modern technology. Does that argument sound logical to you?

we judge the graphics cuz people keep saying that its the best game EVER that it beats EVERYTHING on other games including PS3 games and Xbox 360 games INCLUDING the GRAPHICS area , it makes it fair to be judged by graphics since people are messing with new games. Ocarina of time was hella of a good game, but saying the best one in history that beats new ones? thats way too much, so since it can beat EVERYTHING on the NEEW GAMES then its fair to judge it by graphics.
 

jugglaj91

I am me....
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Location
NY
People say it is the best game ever right? Nobody said it has the best graphics ever. But I digress because most of the people I talk to around town that say graphics make a game were born when OoT was released. I was 10 when it came out. Sure I will comment on graphics as everyone does but to me I have to play the game that catches my eye before I judge it. Sure I was excited for TP, but I didn't take graphics into it. A good game is good because people want to play it, not just stare at how good it looks. I still stare in wonder sometimes at what the NES could pull off in certain games. Either way, the way I see it most of you will complain about this generation in a couple of years when everything goes 3D. Graphics are for the time, NOT the game in my eyes.
 
J

johnny90898

Guest
I think MM and TP are much better than OOT. It is just too easy a game. The bosses are all simple, where in MM, Gyorg gave me real trouble. (until I figured out to shoot arrows) In TP, all the bosses were harder the ganondorf in ocarina. But other than bosses, this game is one of the best, I'm just the kind of person to fight in games.
 
B

Buttercup

Guest
You may want to think this over. I doubt that even OoT haters would agree with you.

jajaj why i agree with him i spend more days figuring ot OOT Dungeons because....it got me bored XD on the otehr hand TP was mere actioon Uh la la
 

bbevington90

The Mask Salesman
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Location
Happy Mask Shop
At the time, the game was an absolute masterpiece, and it's what got people into Zelda. I had played ALttP with friends before OoT and I liked it, it was cool, but when OoT came out I was amazed by it. It's still my favorite game of all time, but I don't know about it being the greatest game of all time either, but it is to me.

I do see where you're coming from though, I bet if I had played current Zeldas and MM before OoT I'd feel a tiny bit short-changed too, with all the hype about OoT and all. Still though, when you really pay attention and forget about what people say about it, you'll see how absolutely spectacular it is, I promise.
 

Octo Rocked

Dr. Octorokapus BLAAAAAH!
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Location
The American Midwest
I keep seeing "being revolutionary doesn't make it a great game". Someone is going to have to explain that to me. How is bringing something completely unexpected and unthought of to the table not part of what makes a game great? Yes, OoT has essentially the same story as ALttP, but the game plays entirely differently. Any of the gameplay mechanics that you love in the more recent Zelda games would not exist without this game, plain and simple. When you get right down to it, every 3D Zelda game has built off of OoT, nothing more. They may be improved, but that doesn't make them better. You're judging OoT against modern gaming. That's not how it should work. Compare a game to the other games that were around in its time. Then you'll figure out its real value.

Also, why does it matter if OoT recycled ALttP's plot? WW took the targeting system from OoT, so by that logic WW isn't terribly creative as well.

Woah, look at this, I'm back!

Okay, I'd actually like to address this. Revolutionary is good. OoT was extremely revolutionary in a lot of ways. That's a large part of why people rank it so highly. But things that are revolutionary do not stay revolutionary forever. TVTMaster used the example of the Model T. It was a huge deal when it came out, but a car company would be insane to still produce it. A lot of cars drew inspiration from it, but cars today are just overall better. The same thing with, say, Lord of the Rings. It's the foundation of modern epic fantasy. It's still a good book on its own, but everyone seems to forget that it too had flaws (the plot takes absolutely forever to actually come in) that other fantasy books have fixed. And yes, people borrow from Tolkien, but they also add their own, unique spins on things. The point is, technology marches on, leaving old versions of things to be obsolete. A game developer would be ridiculed for releasing a game of Ocarina of Time's quality today. While it was good for its time, there's always room for improvement.

And in regards to that second comment: re-using a plot is completely different from re-using controls. Re-using a plot is a cheap excuse to not come up with anything new. Re-using controls is something that makes the game more playable. The Ocarina of Time was popular, and it had good controls, so every game (well, almost every game) similar to it used them. Yeah, Ocarina of Time invented Z-targeting, but it was such a good idea that everyone else decided to use it too. Likewise, Goldeneye was a hugely popular FPS, so FPS's that came after it used a similar control system. To go even further, if I recall correctly, people complained about Street Fighter 3 because it didn't play like Street Fighter 2 (too many new characters and moves). So when they came out with Street Fighter 4, they made it more like Street Fighter 2.

Finally, I'd like to talk about the graphics debate. Please, stop going on about the graphics. I didn't go into them too deeply (or at least I don't think I did...or at least I didn't mean to), simply because, yes, the game was made over ten years ago. Graphics have improved since then. You can't judge an older game's graphics by modern engines. However, this is similar to the "revolutionary" rant I went on a few paragraphs ago. New games have better graphics. You can't say "it had better graphics for it's time!" If something doesn't age, it doesn't age. On a related matter, how you use graphics is important too. I personally think Wind Waker's graphics (yes, the cartoony ones) were better than Twilight Princess's. This is because TP became too much about "brown is real," trying to give it a "darker and edgier" sort of feel. Wind Waker's graphics, on the other hand, told a story. Link actually had facial expressions. Twilight Princess Link had maybe three expressions. So it's how graphics are handled more than the quality of the graphics.

We've beaten that dead horse, let's move away from the graphics, please.
 

PureLocke

A Hero of Time
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Location
Anchorage, Alaska (Nome in the summer)
I rate it as the best of it's time, in it's genre of action/adventure. However if you rate most of the other Zelda games against their peers they don't fare quite as well (ALttP-Super Metriod, WW-Shadow of the Colossus, TP-God of War as some loose match-ups). So as far as dominating the 64-bit generation I'd say that OoT does it. On a technical, graphical, and control level of course TP and WW beat OoT, Nintendo has had the time to hone 3D LoZ controls since OoT and hardware has literally improved exponentially. TP even gets innovation with the use of a motion sensing controller. Doesn't change the fact the OoT is like a crotchety grandfather going on about how in his day "they didn't have fancy wiiamabobs." For me, it is good now, it was great then and it was more successful than it's progeny.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom