Ocarina of Time is... Kinda overated.

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

about 2 years ago i got both Ocarina of time and majoras mask on wii ware(essentially zero nostalgia filler)
i played Ocarina of time a little them decided to try majoras mask and was enthralled by it
i did not play Ocarina of time till many mouths later

what i am saying i agree. Ocarina of time is rated
majoras mask is the superior game anyway
i would even say windwaker, links awakening, and link to the past are better then Ocarina of time as well

 

[DeltaEdge]

Well, like you, I just played OoT for the first time recently, (last year) and I have to say that I was pretty impressed with it. I did not grow up with Zelda games and am by no means, a LoZ fanboy, but I have to say that I truly did enjoy playing the game and it was quite fun to play. Had nice game mechanics, and I feel that it has aged fairly well in terms of both gameplay and graphics/aesthetics. (Also note: On top of not having played many LoZ games, I am also a bit shallow when it comes to graphics) My main point, it's a pretty great game, and I can definitely see why people loved/love it. I don't think it's the best game of all time, but it is worthy of it's place in the gaming hall of fame.

 

[Denamic]

When I grew up, people around me always jizzed their pants over Zelda games.
Being socially awkward and bordering on being an outcast, I naturally had to get in on the whole Zelda thing to be cool.
So I played the games. Good games, I thought. But I just couldn't figure out what was so special about them.
I've played most of the Zelda games to date, but none of them rank even close to being 'the best' in any way.
Some of them I just outright disliked.
Twilight Spar- I mean Twilight Princess is probably the one I liked the most.

 

[Bloodstain]

I agree. But I prefer Majora's Mask anyway.

 

[bafrali]

I agree, doesn't stop it from being fucking awesome though. Windwaker was also fantastic.

Fuck it, all of the Legend of Zelda games are awesome.

OT: I wonder when will we evolve beyond the overrated threads.

 

[Megacherv]

At the time it was released OoT might have been the greatest game of all time, and it was hugely influential to future game design. But it's been a very long time since then. The fact that the game is still really fun is testament to it's quality, both then and now, but it's no surprise that it has been surpassed in 15 years.

You're the first guy to state it bluntly, so imma quote you for reasons (that's a phrase I've seen floating around here recently)

I mean, one of my favourite games is Destruction Derby for the PS1. It was one of the first games I ever played, and I love it to bits. But seriously, looking at todays library of games, it's not really very good, but for it's time WOW it must've been brilliant.

That's Ocarina of Time in a nutshell

 

[Snotnarok]

I don't see why a lot of people like it so much either, as in the best game evarrr. I grew up with the game myself and it's story is simple like other zeldas that's expected but when you go to hyrule you feel NO reason to save the people there. They're all idiots, all of them and I feel no drive to save them, they have no story no reason they're just random NPCs or whatever.

Twilight Princess you get character drives and motivations and you feel for the people you're saving and are given a reason to want to fight for them.

But yet people rate OoT above TP, by a lot I find and that makes no sense to me given it's practically the same game with more character plot/story/moves/areas better visuals, music and all that good stuff. And the "helper" Midna was actually a character! :|

The reason people rate OoT so highly is not because of story or graphics, but because of the absolutely revolutionary control mechanics. Three-dimensional polygon graphics were still a new thing back when the game came out. Many developers were confused how to make characters control smoothly and fluidly in three dimensions, as opposed to the 2D games of before.

Ocarina came out, and it proved that you could do real time combat and action in a three-dimensional plane. It pioneered the idea of a lock-on button for combat. It pioneered the idea of hack-and-slash combat gameplay, based around using movement and positioning to win fights. It pioneered the concept of combining action and RPG elements.

Without the gameplay innovations Ocarina brought, quite simply, gaming would not be the same as it is today. There would be no Devil May Cry, no God Of War, no Ninja Gaiden reboot, no Dark Souls, no Kingdom Hearts... when you look at action games, Ocarina is pretty much the starting point for the genre in 3D. The mechanics it invented are still used by games today, and that if nothing else is the sign of a stone cold classic.

I'm sorry I don't buy that "if this guy didn't make it, it'd never have been made, ever". Megaman Legends came out before OoT and that game seems to have a fairly similar "Z-targeting" that was improved in the second game to be basically that.

And that doesn't answer the question: why people still call it the best classic, it may be the pioneer for the Zelda series but it lacks motivation, supporting characters who have deep characters to make up for Links lack of voice. Look at Midna, starts out as a horrible annoying pain but she unravels and you find there's more to the character and you want to learn more. And you do that by playing.

OoT is only driven by, "you are the hero of time, you have to beat Gannon and save Zelda and Hyrule". Okay but I don't know anyone there that I like or can connect with, I just have this REALLY annoying fairy who no one likes, and I can't just do this quest because I'm commanded to, you need drive and motivation. And this isn't something that can be blown off by 'it's an old game', there have been RPGs on previous systems have had deep characters and plots so OoT really has no excuse. Z-targeting doesn't make a good game, it's a gameplay element.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

While I agree with OP that Wind Waker is overall a better game than Ocarina of Time (my opinion), I think Ocarina of Time had the better beginning. Wind Waker had a really slow start for me and I took a break of about 4 or 5 months before going back to it. Ocarina of Time tosses you into the first dungeon within the first 5 - 10 minutes depending on how quickly you can find 40 rupees and, the sword.

I love Ocarina of Time but it isn't my favorite Zelda title. The 3DS version fixes some of the issues the original release had (you'll see what I mean in the Water Temple) and the improved textures look really good. It isn't as dark as Majora's Mask and Navi is nowhere near as annoying as Fi from Skyward Sword (or Cortana from Halo 3).

My top 3 Zelda titles (to completely invalidate the last two paragraphs) are these:

Zelda 2 - Adventure of Link
Legend of Zelda - A Link to the Past
Legend of Zelda - Wind Waker

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I think things like this have to be put into perspective. You have to imagine playing it back then, when it was new and fresh. At the time, it DID blow your mind.
Hell, Doom blew my mind as a kid, and totally changed PC gaming yet if you play it now, you are going to just think "What is this crap?"
Granted, I wouldn't, because I love old games, but newer games who had never played these games.

 

[rob_simple]

General opinion here seems to be that it's not as great as people say it is.
Keep in mind that many people play it when they were younger, and as we know, there's that cursed nostalgia making people see it better than it really is.

That being said, it is a great game, even after all these years, but other games in the same genre, and even in the same series have far outpassed it.

There is truth in your words, as ever, but I think it's also worth remembering that what made an amazing game in 1997 is completely different to what we expect today and that causes the exact opposite of Nostalgia Goggles.

These 'Old Game X isn't as great as everyone says' threads always irritate me, because you can't possibly hold them up against the standards of modern gaming and not have your opinion skewed by things like current-gen graphics or the game depth that greater processing power allows.

If you do want to judge all classic games like that, then Goldeneye --generally regarded as the industry gold-standard for shooters-- is a piece of shit, nigh unplayable mess.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

By today's standards, it's not very good, but back in it's day Ocarina of Time was phenomenal.

 

[Austin Howe]

In other news, BioShock isn't that good, and bacon is tasty.

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm sorry I don't buy that "if this guy didn't make it, it'd never have been made, ever". Megaman Legends came out before OoT and that game seems to have a fairly similar "Z-targeting" that was improved in the second game to be basically that.

Megaman Legends may have had an early form of targeting, but it is Ocarina that created it as we know today, and it is the Ocarina model that countless games still use as their form of lock-on when fighting enemies.

And that doesn't answer the question: why people still call it the best classic, it may be the pioneer for the Zelda series but it lacks motivation, supporting characters who have deep characters to make up for Links lack of voice. Look at Midna, starts out as a horrible annoying pain but she unravels and you find there's more to the character and you want to learn more. And you do that by playing.

Story is not more important than gameplay. A game can be classic for its story, for its combination of story and gameplay, or its gameplay alone. Super Mario Galaxy is one of the most acclaimed titles this generation. It has no story to speak of. Minecraft has no story. Angry Birds has no story.

If you define games as being defined by narrative, then what do you call things like Solitaire, Minesweeper, or Chess?

OoT is only driven by, "you are the hero of time, you have to beat Gannon and save Zelda and Hyrule". Okay but I don't know anyone there that I like or can connect with, I just have this REALLY annoying fairy who no one likes, and I can't just do this quest because I'm commanded to, you need drive and motivation. And this isn't something that can be blown off by 'it's an old game', there have been RPGs on previous systems have had deep characters and plots so OoT really has no excuse. Z-targeting doesn't make a good game, it's a gameplay element.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with this. Good stories and presentation are all well and good, but games are defined by gameplay. A game can have the most basic story in the world, yet if the gameplay is revolutionary enough, then it will be remembered as a classic. Here are some examples:

Doom
Quake
Wolfenstein
Unreal Tournament
GoldenEye
Ultima
Dragon Quest
Super Mario
Sonic The Hedgehog
Metroid
Resident Evil

None of these games have anything even close to a good story. Many of them, such as Mario and Sonic, practically dispense with the need for a story altogether. These games were all defined by their gameplay, and they are all amongst the most influential games of all time. Despite what you may think, a game can get by simply on the strength of its gameplay. It doesn't matter how basic Ocarina's plot is. The gameplay was that unique that it captured people's imaginations, and inspired developers to create a million copies. Games are still being created today that follow the template Ocarina created. Darksiders is essentially Ocarina Of Time with an HD paintjob and bigger shoulder pads.

Z targeting allowed for precise targeting of enemies with melee combat. It allowed players to go for single enemies within a horde, rather than simply fighting any and all. In doing so, it fundamentally shifted the dynamic of gameplay, allowing developers to create new enemy strategies and new ways for battles to be played out. It is as important a development as adding mouse-aiming to FPS shooters.

You're either misunderstanding me, or not reading what I'm typing, OoT may have had "Z-targeting" down right the first time they tried it but you're trying to tell me that "If Zelda didn't have Z-targeting it'd never be created ever" and I provided a game that had a similar means of targeting with a sequel that had it down perfectly. Come to think of it, Tomb Raider 2 had lock on and allowed Laura to attack 2 people at once so I think the credit for the lock-on game mechanic can go to a few titles not just one.

Yes games can live up on gameplay alone, I will never deny that given that I play plenty of games like that, however Zelda is an RPG where you are doing a lot of running around and there's text being slung at you of legends and what not. So having a good story or at the very least good characters that you feel for is important in a game like that, and there are none beyond the girl on the farm, your starting town and Zelda, who you never meet until the end.
I want to feel reason to save the world, I never finished OoT I got really far but gave up out of no reason to go on, I wound up watching my cousin beat it instead because the game is incredibly boring. However I'm progressing through Twilight Princess and want to know what happens next, who Midna really is and who else I'll meet who will need help, I would up beating Darksiders twice because the story is interesting and the characters you meet are untrustable and you want to learn more.


Again the question isn't being answered: Why is OoT claimed by many as the best Zelda? I don't see anything that it does better than later Zeldas, or Link to the Past in a few ways. And the gameplay wasn't unique because I was playing Megaman Legends before I played Zelda and thought Legends was better in every way. That's subjective but the points stands, Zelda isn't the only game that plays like Zelda.

I'm sorry I don't see Darksiders as a Zelda clone, I'm not sure how anyone can say that given it's obvious mash up of inspiration from different games ranging from Metroid, God of War, Zelda, Devil May Cry and Portal and it manages to do it in a different setting and story.

 

[elvor0]

It's just one of those games where the sum is greater than the parts. It may play a bit iffy now, but its influence cannot be disputed. It's not even my favourite Zelda game; that being Majoras Mask, where for some reason the ocarina is actually a more vital thing than in OoT. But had OoT not been as good as it was, MM would've never been made, and it used OoT as a building block to really shine through and improve on everything OoT introduced. Plus OoT was the perfect example of a Heros Journey, the call to adventure, the Villain, the Quest, the loss of innocence and growth into Adulthood, the Magic "Sword", the trial, and the Showdown.

It's like Lord Of The Rings, it's...not really that well written a book, it's in dire need of an editor, and some of the characters are a bit flat, I read it way before the films were even conceived, and given the choice I'd tell someone to watch the films rather than read it. But what it achieved is what people remember it for. Same with Citizen Kane, Half Life etc etc.

 

[Davey Woo]

I was also underwhelmed by OoT, two of my friends couldn't believe I hadn't played a Zelda game, and made me play it, and after 4 hours I had no urge to carry on playing it. To me it was just an old game with clunky controls (though that might just be because I can't use Nintendo controllers) and a not-very-good story.

 

[pearcinator]

It revolutionised Action/Adventure games.

It isn't over-rated...just dated. Still the best game ever made when taking into account when it was made. No game has ever blew as many minds as OoT did back in the day.

I like Majoras Mask better but OoT and MM compliment each other perfectly (they both have what the other doesn't).

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

I don't really care for the series in general. I didn't play them as a kid, so my nostalgia gland doesn't start flaring up when the Zelda series is criticized.