Poll: Ocarina of Time

[Jak The Great]

Yeah its overrated as all hell but its still good. Oh and your comment about the graphics, of course they look crap it was made about 10 years ago.

So? That doesnt stop them from being crap!

I personally think that since you're already so biased against it that it will never live up to your expectations. I think you should play the entire game before you judge it. With only 2 hours of gameplay you saw maybe 2% of what the game had to offer.

Why should I have to wade through hours of crap to get to the good bits?

Ok, to the first quote: if you're going to respond, make sure you respond to the right person.

You keep mentioning TP as your ideal game, yet the first couple hours of that weren't very exciting either. What kind of games do you normally play by the way? Because Zelda doesn't sound like your type of game at all.

EDIT

"You must judge a game by the standards of its time. Not doing so and judging 10 year old games by modern standards is like saying that the Roman legions were shit because a single squad of SAS could pretty much have wiped them out, given enough time and ammunition. The Romans were still the strongest military force of their time."

Thank you Mymla. Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[implodingMan]

I haven't played that game in.. oh about 8 years I guess. I can't really comment but I remember it being excellent, only surpassed on the n64 by Majora's Mask.

I'm thinking of playing through both of them again this winter break, assuming I can find my old controllers.

 

[Spaz91]

You keep mentioning TP as your ideal game, yet the first couple hours of that weren't very exciting either. What kind of games do you normally play by the way? Because Zelda doesn't sound like your type of game at all.

EDIT

"You must judge a game by the standards of its time. Not doing so and judging 10 year old games by modern standards is like saying that the Roman legions were shit because a single squad of SAS could pretty much have wiped them out, given enough time and ammunition. The Romans were still the strongest military force of their time."

Thank you Mymla. Couldn't have said it better myself

Twilight Princess isn't my ideal game I just see it as a hell of a lot better than OoT.
As for the type of games I play: shooter and puzzlers mainly. The only genre I blankly avoid is sports games.

And yes the Roman Army is shit, theyre dead! I can, will and do judge by current standards, age doesnt mean crapiness isnt crapiness. A turd is a turd no matter how old it is (disregarding other biological proccesses but moving on...)

 

[-Seraph-]

Your shallowness knows no bounds.

 

[Jak The Great]

Twilight Princess isn't my ideal game I just see it as a hell of a lot better than OoT.
As for the type of games I play: shooter and puzzlers mainly. The only genre I blankly avoid is sports games.

And yes the Roman Army is shit, theyre dead! I can, will and do judge by current standards, age doesnt mean crapiness isnt crapiness. A turd is a turd no matter how old it is (disregarding other biological proccesses but moving on...)

so going with your logic any army that has or ever existed is shit because someone better is always around the corner... if that's the case why do we bother if something will always overpower you. Oh wait, it's because those super armies of the future CAN'T EXIST without the armies of the past or the present. It's called progress for a reason. Hell I'm just waiting for the army from the 29th century to wipe us out because we're shit compared to them. oh wait, they haven't because they don't yet exist.

Were you even gaming when the SNES / 64 platform jump was occurring? If you were then you should know what wonderments gamers were getting to experience for the first time. Remember there were no true 3D games until around this time.

It's no wonder you don't have any appreciation for older games. Why do you play games now? There's going to be a better one in 10 years. But why play that one when another 10 years can pass and an even better game can come out. Hell why play games at all, virtual reality is coming in the next century. But why play that when virtual reality 2.0 is going to come out 20 years after that?

See a pattern? Time frame makes a hell of a difference.

 

[DannyDamage]

Echoing everyone else here but graphics were sweet at the time, great story, characters, plenty to do, awesome score and let's not forget the ocarina-factor hehe.

 

[LucanDesmond]

Personally I was never a huge fan of it. It wasn't a bad game by any means, but I've never felt that Zelda handled the transition to 3D as well as it could have. I've been a Zelda fan my entire life. The first video game I ever played was The Legend of Zelda on the NES and I've loved the series ever since.

In my opinion the best game in the series is still The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past for the SNES. Good story, perfectly crafted Hyrule, simply amazing. Ocarina of Time suffered from one really big problem for me: graphics. I know this has already been a hot debate in this thread, but heres my $.02.

Some games on the N64 could hide the systems poor graphical capabilities. Games like Starfox 64. Through the games speed, action and distant, zoomed-out camera angles, you never really noticed the fact that the N64 could barely handle rendering a few painted polygons. In a game as detailed as The Ocarina of Time, that kind of graphical weakness REALLY shone through. I don't care if the graphics were GOOD AT THE TIME, they should have waited to move a world as beautiful Hyrule into 3D. Waited until they had hardware that could handle it. If you want a perfect example of what I'm talking about, look at artwork depicting The Master Sword, then look at the pointy gray stick you pull out of The Temple of Time.

Other small things that I can get over, but still kinda bugged me: The Master Sword was useless once you get the Biggorons Sword. It's supposed to be SILVER arrows, not Light arrows. Ganon should be a giant pig, I know the OoT was supposed to be the original Ganon before he was transformed by evil magic, so its excusable in that one, but they kept him in human form for the gamecube and wii zelda games.

/fanboy moment

 

[gamebrain89]

I religously complete the game once a year, from start to finish. I downloaded it to my wii so my hard copy could be stored and hopefully survive a few more years.

 

[Demir23]

Something about this thread reminds me of a line from the Slackers comic. Paraphrased, it stated that judging an older game based on graphics was retarded and anyone who decided on the quality of a game retrospectively based upon its graphics needed to mature a bit. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[shadow_pirate22]

Except the Water Temple. It's nearly as bad as Turtle Rock was in "A Link to the Past", and that's just inexcusable.

The funny thing is, in the Master Quest remake, the water temple's easier. And shorter.

 

[LucanDesmond]

Something about this thread reminds me of a line from the Slackers comic. Paraphrased, it stated that judging an older game based on graphics was retarded and anyone who decided on the quality of a game retrospectively based upon its graphics needed to mature a bit. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

I agree entirely. My previous post however reflects my opinion at the time of the games release. Not my feelings about it retrospectively. I thought the graphics were bad when I played it back in '98.

 

[Demir23]

Something about this thread reminds me of a line from the Slackers comic. Paraphrased, it stated that judging an older game based on graphics was retarded and anyone who decided on the quality of a game retrospectively based upon its graphics needed to mature a bit. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

I agree entirely. My previous post however reflects my opinion at the time of the games release. Not my feelings about it retrospectively. I thought the graphics were bad when I played it back in '98.

Well, I was referring to Spaz with the retrospective argument, not you. But as for thinking the graphics were bad at the time, that's kind of an odd way to look at it. They were top notch at the time the game came out. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that the game shouldn't have switched to a 3-D interface until the graphics had become more refined, that I can respect. I'd actually be kind of curious to see how OoT would look with updated graphics. But either way, the gameplay and story were more than good enough to make up for any graphical deficiencies in my case.

 

[LucanDesmond]

Something about this thread reminds me of a line from the Slackers comic. Paraphrased, it stated that judging an older game based on graphics was retarded and anyone who decided on the quality of a game retrospectively based upon its graphics needed to mature a bit. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

I agree entirely. My previous post however reflects my opinion at the time of the games release. Not my feelings about it retrospectively. I thought the graphics were bad when I played it back in '98.

Well, I was referring to Spaz with the retrospective argument, not you. But as for thinking the graphics were bad at the time, that's kind of an odd way to look at it. They were top notch at the time the game came out. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that the game shouldn't have switched to a 3-D interface until the graphics had become more refined, that I can respect. I'd actually be kind of curious to see how OoT would look with updated graphics. But either way, the gameplay and story were more than good enough to make up for any graphical deficiencies in my case.

I would also really like to see how the game would play out if it were "updated" to today standards. As for the gameplay and story I thought they were both... shaky. The gameplay felt like it was only half tested. Combat wasn't very intuitive and controlled kinda clunky I think. And the story... well if you've followed the story from the very beginning of the series than you know that they kinda changed what had already been established as backround story. They "George Lucas'd" it. They took something great and then tried to make a prequel story that didn't entirely lock into what came after. Not as bad as George Lucas, but a few small things that just didn't fit right. Maybe its just me though...

 

[Demir23]

I would also really like to see how the game would play out if it were "updated" to today standards. As for the gameplay and story I thought they were both... shaky. The gameplay felt like it was only half tested. Combat wasn't very intuitive and controlled kinda clunky I think. And the story... well if you've followed the story from the very beginning of the series than you know that they kinda changed what had already been established as backround story. They "George Lucas'd" it. They took something great and then tried to make a prequel story that didn't entirely lock into what came after. Not as bad as George Lucas, but a few small things that just didn't fit right. Maybe its just me though...

Having played the other Zelda games as well, I can kind of understand where you're coming from on the story front, but overall I thought it was a solid prequel to the series even if it didn't quite fit right, as you said. And yes, the controls weren't perfect, but there's more to game play than just controls and over all I found combat and maneuvering through the world to be quite enjoyable. But, once again, it is simply a matter of opinion. I'm not going to get upset that you didn't enjoy a game as much as I did. Well, I might, but I'd be being facetious. XP

 

[gamebrain89]

I never really understood where OoT fit in with Link to the past and the rest.

 

[LucanDesmond]

Having played the other Zelda games as well, I can kind of understand where you're coming from on the story front, but overall I thought it was a solid prequel to the series even if it didn't quite fit right, as you said. And yes, the controls weren't perfect, but there's more to game play than just controls and over all I found combat and maneuvering through the world to be quite enjoyable. But, once again, it is simply a matter of opinion. I'm not going to get upset that you didn't enjoy a game as much as I did. Well, I might, but I'd be being facetious. XP

Indeed. I never said that you shouldn't like it ;P. I was just stating what I didn't like about it. I don't actually think it was bad, but I hold the Zelda series to VERY HIGH standards, so anything less than perfect kinda gets on my nerves. Just like FF games... I haven't cared about them for almost 10 years because Squenix knows they can shovel horsesh*t on us with a big fancy FF logo on it and it will sell millions of copies. But not to me.

I never really understood where OoT fit in with Link to the past and the rest.

OoT is supposed to be the very first one. Link and Ganon and Zelda and all the rest didn't exist before OoT. As for the rest, they aren't exactly put into any kind of order. Link to the Past happens BEFORE the 2 on the NES, but aside from that no order has really been established.

 

[gamebrain89]

Having played the other Zelda games as well, I can kind of understand where you're coming from on the story front, but overall I thought it was a solid prequel to the series even if it didn't quite fit right, as you said. And yes, the controls weren't perfect, but there's more to game play than just controls and over all I found combat and maneuvering through the world to be quite enjoyable. But, once again, it is simply a matter of opinion. I'm not going to get upset that you didn't enjoy a game as much as I did. Well, I might, but I'd be being facetious. XP

Indeed. I never said that you shouldn't like it ;P. I was just stating what I didn't like about it. I don't actually think it was bad, but I hold the Zelda series to VERY HIGH standards, so anything less than perfect kinda gets on my nerves. Just like FF games... I haven't cared about them for almost 10 years because Squenix knows they can shovel horsesh*t on us with a big fancy FF logo on it and it will sell millions of copies. But not to me.

I never really understood where OoT fit in with Link to the past and the rest.

OoT is supposed to be the very first one. Link and Ganon and Zelda and all the rest didn't exist before OoT. As for the rest, they aren't exactly put into any kind of order. Link to the Past happens BEFORE the 2 on the NES, but aside from that no order has really been established.

Ok that helps. I did know that Majora's Mask was after OoT but before Twilight princess which was after OoT but before Wind Waker, But I never really understood where all the NES and gameboy games and every thing fell.

 

[Demir23]

Indeed. I never said that you shouldn't like it ;P. I was just stating what I didn't like about it. I don't actually think it was bad, but I hold the Zelda series to VERY HIGH standards, so anything less than perfect kinda gets on my nerves. Just like FF games... I haven't cared about them for almost 10 years because Squenix knows they can shovel horsesh*t on us with a big fancy FF logo on it and it will sell millions of copies. But not to me.

Aw, I actually like FFX too. XD Though I will admit, FFI was probably my favorite of the series, if only because of how it portrayed the classes and let you pick how you built your party. [/tangent]

 

[Isaac Dodgson]

ZOMG HOW COOD U H8 OoT?? ITS LIKE TEH BESTERIST GAME EVAR!!!!!!1!111!!!1!!!!!11one



Ahem, that aside, I'll present a more serious case. The game is one of my all time favorites, but you have to be a fan of Zelda to begin with to appreciate the revolution to Zelda that OoT brought. You no longer had this top view map that encompassed all of Hyrule, but now a fully rendered 3D world, and sure the Graphics are shit now, but for fuck sake man it's on a damn N64! and before they came out with that graphic expansion cartridge thing you could throw in there (which makes MM look worlds better by the by). To top it off, it gave you a new intriguing story line, while echoing themes from past Zelda games. Is the game without it's flaws? No, of course not. The difficulty curve at times is spastic, most of the items are completely useless after their introductory uses, the overall length of the story is kinda short, and the dialogue makes me sick sometimes, but for heaven's sake... IT'S ZELDA!

As for the timeline of the games...Well that's tricky...very, very tricky...