miracleofsound said:
KeyMaster45 said:
But my point was that I was comparing to another game from an era even before it, the 16 bit era.
Check my first paragraph, I'm talking about 2D and CG(3D, 64bit w/e you feel like calling them) games. Calling it 16bit is splitting hairs.
If your only options of movement are up and down on the Y axis, and left and right on the X axis its a 2D game. Perhaps I should have split my second paragraph up and merged the first half with the first and the second half with the 3rd paragraph and my point would have become clearer.
The year it came out has nothing to do with my opinion of it as I've been gaming for 19 years and have a pretty good knowledge of thier history and development.
Let me attempt and make my overall point clearer, as I feel it was not so originally.
You are comparing a game (LTTP) who's controls, puzzles, enemies, and gameplay exist and are designed to work within a two dimensional world; to another game (OOT) who's controls, puzzles, enemies, and gameplay exist and are designed to work within a three dimensional world. Attempting to compare the two side by side is illogical due to the simple fact that both games are intrinsically different in their base design concepts. The only point, as far as I can see, that you can have valid arguments over is the difficulty and execution of guiding the player into further progression of the game's story, side stories, etc. In that argument LLTP is the clear winner as you can play a vast majority of the content, if not all, without ever feeling the need to pick up a guide of any sort. Even then though you can have discrepancies because one requires you to think with a spacial understanding of a three dimensional universe.
As for the effect of time upon your opinion of both games, I believe that was unclear as well.
If I am not mistaken you said that you played LLTP in the general vicinity of its relevant life-span. Where as you played OOT within the last year or so. The amount of years you have been playing games is irrelevant as is your mastery of Gears 1 and 2. The relevancy, in terms of time, to this argument is one's frame of reference. We perceive things in the confines of the time period in which we play them, to have no prior exposure to something of a higher quality leads us to believe that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread; this is indeed the case with OOT. When picking apart OOT there are indeed many design flaws with it, and I will admit that there were indeed many times where I sat cursing the screen cause Link wouldn't mount that fucking horse, he wouldn't lock onto the right object, etc. To put it simply because you have experienced games of a far greater magnitude than OOT you cannot view it in the unbiased eyes of someone who played it during the relevant time frame.
All of your points are indeed quite valid, but your biggest one being the camera angle is easily fixed by simply tapping the Z button on your N64 controller to center the screen on which ever way Link is facing. It cannot be denied, however, that your view of the game has been tainted from the start not only due to time but to your own childhood preferences of not liking early game CG polygons.
I cannot, and will not refute that your opinion of the game is not true. I will, however, argue that your opinion is flawed; tainted by the passage of time and your own previous prejudices towards the game. There is also the undeniable fact that the two games are fundamentally different in the design processes that went into them.
Therefore you cannot make your opinion of which is better based upon control scheme differences and undeveloped technologies due to the fundamental differences.
I feel that my point is now explained more fully and clearly now. If you have any questions about it I would be more than happy to answer them.
