Having recently replayed both recently, I can say with no doubt that I much much much prefer Ocarina. It was just a much bigger deal at the time.
Zelda: A Link to the Past is better than Ocarina of Time
- Thread starter MiracleOfSound
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I never like it when people say that "Game X is better than Game Y, and here's why," when comparing two well-made games. It makes it sound like it's a proven scientific fact rather than an opinion.
Anyways, Link to the Past was the first Zelda game I ever played, and I loved it, but not as much as I love Ocarina of Time. OoT was everything that LttP was to me, and more. I never wanted to stop playing it when I first picked it up. I was never scared of or immersed in anything in LttP, whereas I was scared half to death by the Redeads and impressed by Hyrule Field's sheer size in OoT. I could go on like this for awhile, but I'll just say this: Nearly every Zelda game in the series (Minus the CD-i games) is top-notch and well-made, no matter which one you prefer the most.
Anyways, Link to the Past was the first Zelda game I ever played, and I loved it, but not as much as I love Ocarina of Time. OoT was everything that LttP was to me, and more. I never wanted to stop playing it when I first picked it up. I was never scared of or immersed in anything in LttP, whereas I was scared half to death by the Redeads and impressed by Hyrule Field's sheer size in OoT. I could go on like this for awhile, but I'll just say this: Nearly every Zelda game in the series (Minus the CD-i games) is top-notch and well-made, no matter which one you prefer the most.
Yep! Just got the master sword and giant wallet after much frustration in the Fish belly!ColdStorage said:
miracleofsound said:
I view them as completely different games. I just replayed OoT recently, and it improved my opinion of the game. Much of my first impressions were the same as yours, but playing it again allowed me to appreciate the subtleties of what made it a good game.
One thing that always bothered me about OoT is lack of enemies. The puzzles were great, but there hardly was any good combat. After LttP, combat and puzzles were something to look forward to, but I think we only got puzzles and story/cutscenes instead. Like I said, after playing it again, I think it was as good as it could be, especially given it's time.
That's what made me love Wind Waker as much as I did. It offered the same combat and puzzles as LttP, but also similar on the depth of custscenes (which I found a bit to its disadvantage). I think that WW doesn't offer the same lasting appeal of OoT or LttP because of this.
Link to the Past is a superior game to OoT.
That said, OoT was much more "revolutionary" from what I remember. It was the first game with any sort of exploration and it was very influential at the time of release.
Also, with the "current" generation of gamers, it was basically one of the first games most played, I know that's true for I and my friends, so there's a large bit of nostalgia factor looking back on it.
That said, OoT was much more "revolutionary" from what I remember. It was the first game with any sort of exploration and it was very influential at the time of release.
Also, with the "current" generation of gamers, it was basically one of the first games most played, I know that's true for I and my friends, so there's a large bit of nostalgia factor looking back on it.
I've always believed OOT to be a much better game. It was an original idea great graphics for it's time and it Is still in 2nd place for my favorite game of all time.
i agree whole heartedly with this statement. but let me explain WHY i think that LTTP was better....
I was a gamer ever since the age of 5 and i remember playing the very first LoZ. the game was amazing and fun beyond all belief because of the length, even though some of it dragged on, and the fact that it was the first game i played other than Mario (play the original for literally 6 months and you get bored sooner or later). you could imagine my excitement when Adventures of Link came out. horrible, horrible game. they traded in the top-down look for a side scroller and it didn't feel like the game that i had come to know and love. Link's Awakening was a relief to play, but it was on the game boy, which was fun, but didn't offer the colorful backgrounds and was slightly limited in a sense of direction (telling what's next and sitting back while it lets you figure it out). there was a time where i was stuck on that stupid swamp level for a good 2 months before a friend told me what to do.
then the SNES came out and i was cautious of the next game. but the minute i walked out of my uncle's house into that stormy night and snuck my way into the castle to save zelda, all while dodging and avoiding the guards, i knew that this game had alot to offer. and that's what makes it so great, the fact that it went back to the original formula of the Zelda series but added a graphical upgrade. not to mention each dungeon was brilliant for it's time and always ended with a boss battle that tested your wits and intelligence. not to mention that the map was twice as big as originally thought. when i warped to the dark world, it scared the crap out of me. i was in an unfamiliar place with creepy monsters, but being link, i had no choice but to push forward.
this is a game that i have found myself going back to play NUMEROUS times and i can't find a single part that annoys me to the point where i find it painful to play. OOT has two or three parts that do that to me. but to end this rant, let's be clear, i find OOT a great game too, one of the best on the N64. i just feel that LTTP did a fantastic job of restoring my faith in the series that i now love so much.
I was a gamer ever since the age of 5 and i remember playing the very first LoZ. the game was amazing and fun beyond all belief because of the length, even though some of it dragged on, and the fact that it was the first game i played other than Mario (play the original for literally 6 months and you get bored sooner or later). you could imagine my excitement when Adventures of Link came out. horrible, horrible game. they traded in the top-down look for a side scroller and it didn't feel like the game that i had come to know and love. Link's Awakening was a relief to play, but it was on the game boy, which was fun, but didn't offer the colorful backgrounds and was slightly limited in a sense of direction (telling what's next and sitting back while it lets you figure it out). there was a time where i was stuck on that stupid swamp level for a good 2 months before a friend told me what to do.
then the SNES came out and i was cautious of the next game. but the minute i walked out of my uncle's house into that stormy night and snuck my way into the castle to save zelda, all while dodging and avoiding the guards, i knew that this game had alot to offer. and that's what makes it so great, the fact that it went back to the original formula of the Zelda series but added a graphical upgrade. not to mention each dungeon was brilliant for it's time and always ended with a boss battle that tested your wits and intelligence. not to mention that the map was twice as big as originally thought. when i warped to the dark world, it scared the crap out of me. i was in an unfamiliar place with creepy monsters, but being link, i had no choice but to push forward.
this is a game that i have found myself going back to play NUMEROUS times and i can't find a single part that annoys me to the point where i find it painful to play. OOT has two or three parts that do that to me. but to end this rant, let's be clear, i find OOT a great game too, one of the best on the N64. i just feel that LTTP did a fantastic job of restoring my faith in the series that i now love so much.
Both were good games I've beaten both but I would say Ocarina is better because it's just so more expansive and the combat and questing was well built. But it did have Navi so that will cost it some points.
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.miracleofsound said:
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.
And here I was honestly thinking about trying to defend OoT for its own glorious highlights...but then Navi showed up and that effort was set on fire.Roflpotamus said:
The two games were so...parallel in their progression. Gather three triforce-power related thingies in the first half, get the Master Sword, then go beat on more monsters for another six or seven colourful medallion/crystal thingies. Then go challenge Ganon to a good-ol' fashioned game of knifey-spooney, rescue Zelda, put the Master Sword back where you found it and call it a day.
That being said, I'd say they're both excellent in their own separate generations of consoles. Where Link to the Past was king in a time when SNES was pushed to the limits, OoT was a fantastic example of where polygon games could go from there in the early days of N64.
But, yeah. Navi.
I'll give this trophy to Link to the Past for now, and I'll encourage Link to the Past to beat Navi to death with that trophy. The winners here will truly be the audience.
I played OoT when it came out as a Gamecube port and I played ALttP fully when it came out as a Gameboy port. I felt OoT had some clunky controls (which is understandable for the time) but otherwise was a very good Zelda game. ALttP seemed more refined and better put together but it of course came down when 2-D games were getting down pat. I like ALttP better, but only because it has a special place in my heart (it's the first videogame I ever saw). I'm sure if I played OoT when it first came out then it would have a special place too, but, as it is, I missed it when it came out and when I played it the aged nature made it seem less appealing.
I've snipped out the previous quotes to prevent clutter in the threadBoneCrusherBOB said:
There are rare occasions where all the crazy in my head coalesces into one shining moment of understanding
I would agree with you except only one thing really makes me want to throw my controller. A Link to the Past was so damn hard.
I loved both games and consider both different. While they are part of the same series they both have their own flavors.
Ocarina of time was the first time we got to ride a horse in the game. It was also the first time we saw Zelda in the beginning of the game instead of at the end.
To play favorites is not my style and I like what I like. I like both.
One thing I will say. The boss battles in OoT were far more epic
I loved both games and consider both different. While they are part of the same series they both have their own flavors.
Ocarina of time was the first time we got to ride a horse in the game. It was also the first time we saw Zelda in the beginning of the game instead of at the end.
To play favorites is not my style and I like what I like. I like both.
One thing I will say. The boss battles in OoT were far more epic
The lock on thing isn't needed (out of everything, that's what I focus on. Oy). I played throught the game at least 20 times without ever using the lock on for anything. ever, except when the plot demanded it (which I think was never, so I didn't use it).
Actually, you are not the only person who thinks this (as evidenced by the posts before mine). While I respectfully disagree (I do prefer OoT), the choice for best Zelda game is, to this day, still a battle. We have "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past," vs. "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time." The third, somewhat unofficial contestant is "The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask."
Really, it's all opinion. I played the Zelda games in order of release, and I always enjoyed OoT more, but my friend has always loved "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link," the most. Eh, to each their own.
Actually, you are not the only person who thinks this (as evidenced by the posts before mine). While I respectfully disagree (I do prefer OoT), the choice for best Zelda game is, to this day, still a battle. We have "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past," vs. "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time." The third, somewhat unofficial contestant is "The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask."
Really, it's all opinion. I played the Zelda games in order of release, and I always enjoyed OoT more, but my friend has always loved "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link," the most. Eh, to each their own.