Wind Waker or Ocarina Of Time? Why Is Oot The Greatest??

In my personal opinion The Wind Waker was a great game even though it had its ups and downs; for example one of the things you gotta love about this game was the new “Parry Attack” which I find it very useful in certain fights of the game (Darknuts would be a pain in the a** without it). Also I’m not the type of gamer who only cares about the main quest, I enjoy exploring around, doing side quests and that’s another reason why I like Zelda so much, because it has the best side quests ever. I also like helping other characters in the game like all the people you get to help in Windfall Island if you’ve played The Wind Waker. These are all just few of the goodies that TWW offers, but honestly I never really liked the fact that about 80% of the game was spent on this ocean, just sailing from an island to the other and most of the time you just stared at the TV watching Link sail, hoping to get to the next island soon because sometimes it took forever to reach it and nothing interesting really happened on the way , and also having to play that stupid wind song every 5 minutes in order to make your boat go faster really started to irritate me, and another thing I never liked my boat neither, always pushing me around, telling me where to go, saying hurry up Link!! Do this Do that, And all this bunch of stuff, trying to make Link feel bad about collecting some extra pieces of hearts (and taking pictures to get the cool figurines in the Nintendo Gallery), visiting his folks in Outset Island or just trying to take a break, I mean it was easy for him to say hurry!! Since he was not the one who was gonna fight a big a** monster, Nah! he just waited safely outside of the dungeon. Man, sometimes I missed Epona so much, now that was a real friend, she was always there without arguing about how long It took me to go buy milk in the Lon Lon Ranch in Oot, she never said anything, she couldn’t talk, she was just there because she was an unconditional friend, without expecting any reward or anything, a real faithful friend, not like this stupid boat (and I know he was once the King of Hyrule but who cares he never saved or did anything for the Land like Link has done plenty of times before, I mean if you beated The Wind Waker, tell me, where was he in the final battle when Ganondorf attacked Link and Princess Zelda?Remember? I thought I saw him trying to ask the Triforce to grant him a wish by laying his hand on it just before he disappeared while seeing Ganondorf beat Link and Zelda‘s a**es, I was like where the hell did he go??? Not that Link needed his help anyways, but you know it was the right thing to do. ), he was just there because of his own interests, because he knew Link was the chosen one, and that he was the only one that could help him, unlike Epona. Also someone mentioned something about how vast the territory in The Wind Waker was; just so you know that if you add all the islands in which you can actually have control of Link you’ll end up with NOT even HALF of the territory offered by Ocarina Of Time or Majora’s Mask, the rest is just pure boring ocean, so please let’s not talk about size and another thing, I believe that if it wasn‘t for the loooooonnnngggg sails to get from one place to the other, most people would beat this game in a couple of hours with no problems at all. I also believe that other than the Dungeons, one of the few fun places to go is Windfall Island, because the rest are just islands with nothing to do in them, and to me, that‘s just boring. Finally making a long story short, The Wind Waker was a great game just like I said, but honestly I wouldn’t change Ocarina Of Time’s Hyrule (or Majora’s Mask’s Termina) for The Wind Waker’s oceans, Would You?.


Sincerely,
WhItE_LiNk

The reason for this is because of how revolutionary the game was.It gave us everything a Zelda fan would want: great graphics(for the time),an epic quest,an advanced targeting system(Z-targeting.Nothing like it had ever been seen before),a huge overworld(for the time),lots of sidequests(again,for the time),and it just left that mark there.WW was initially hated because of the graphics.And,that hatred never quite disappeared.And then,we have the hideoulsy boring sailing(to most people,I actually kinda liked it),easiness,and small islands.It was a great game,sure,but it just didn't pack the same punch that OoT did.

Screw all the atmosphere reasons. Screw all the story reasons. Froget about graphics, sound, everything. Let's talk about how fun it is to play.

Zelda is a game, so the deciding factor is how fun it is to play.

I perfer WW over OoT. I would take it over OoT any day.

Why?

Well, for starters, just because a game is revoulutionary does not mean it's worth while. Tomb Raider was a 3D game that pretty much paved the way for 3D games with high mobility such as Tenchu and Ninja Gaidan. It was revoulutionary. Did I think it was fun? Hell no! The game was about as exciting as a dung bettle rolling...err...dung across the desert.

I felt I needed to bring that point: Just becuase something is revoulutionary does not mean it's good.

So now to explain why I think WW is superior to OoT in every aspect. Listen closely.

WW fixed many of my complaints from OoT and MM. Those problems and solutions were the following:

The combat in OoT was great...but flawed. For one, the combo system was there, but it DIDN'T work. The spin attack was useless and only served as a waste of magic power. The lock on would often lose focus (link would swing in the wrong direction, basically) if the enemy moved while you were in mid-animation.

In WW, the combo system worked, and worked well. The spin attack was possibly the most useful attack in the game. The lock on never lost focus because it would work with animations. The combat was overall alot more fast a frantic.


Another thing that annoyed me in the N64 zeldas was the utter lack of nearly all camera control. The only thing you could do was center it behind you. That was it. This got extremly annoying in tight areas especailly during combat.

I wanted more camera control in WW and they went ahead and put in a free camera mode. What more could I ask for?

One HUGE irritation that OoT gave me was how the dungeons were ridiculously short with the exception of the spirit temple. I beat most of them in under 20 minutes. No joke. MM touched up a bit on this area. (it takes me about 30 minutes or more to beat a dungeon in MM) and that was good.

However, it was WW that fixed the problem for good. All dungeons, with the exception of the first took me 45 minute or more. I loved that.

Another gripe I had with the n64 zeldas is how they were VERY linear. The only time you had a choice on where to go next is when the spirit and shadow temples were the only ones left. I don't even think that option was meant to be available.

However, other than the first three dungeons, WW was completely non-lear. You had the choice of going to either one of the temples first. You could get the triforce peices in any order.

infact, the only problem I think was carried over to WW from the N64 games was...the lack of a good challenge.

Now, don't get me wrong, I can play OoT and still have loads of fun. I just could've had more, is all I'm saying.

But let me say this: I don't see what so many people see in OoT. I've never been given a good reason as to why it's peffered so much over the other games in the series.

What Tigerboi said about the WW improvements.

I like OoT and WW the same. I think OoT is overrated and WW underrated. They are both extremely easy to beat, like Tigerboi also mentioned.

Btw, WhItE_LinK, your post is very hard to read. Try adding some spaces here and there (Or paragraphs as they are commonly called).

I think WW was aimed more at younger audiences. The dungeons were a 100 times easier than OoT dungeons, the bossers 1 billion times easier and the whole scheme of things was just childish. Its like watching the movie shrek and then pickin up a shrek book made for 4 year olds

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

Screw all the atmosphere reasons. Screw all the story reasons. Froget about graphics, sound, everything. Let's talk about how fun it is to play.

Zelda is a game, so the deciding factor is how fun it is to play.

I disagree, games have come further then that. There's more than just fun. The atmosphere and mood of the game is in my oppinion just as important as the fun-factor, it makes me want to dive into the world and immerse myself in it, it makes the game something more than just a game.
It is enough for me to consider Oot better, which to me is the best in the series (although I have to admit that it's rather annoyingly overrated). Although tWW was far superior on the gameplay departement.

I guess it's mainly a matter of personal preferences.

Originally Posted by Stuit

I disagree, games have come further then that. There's more than just fun. The atmosphere and mood of the game is in my oppinion just as important as the fun-factor, it makes me want to dive into the world and immerse myself in it, it makes the game something more than just a game.
It is enough for me to consider Oot better, which to me is the best in the series (although I have to admit that it's rather annoyingly overrated). Although tWW was far superior on the gameplay departement.

I guess it's mainly a matter of personal preferences.

I see everything you just named as bonuses. Nothing more.

I've played tons of games with horrible stories (Soul Calibur, Resident Evil, Viewtiful Joe.) and still ended up loving the hell out of them.

I've played tons of games with horrible atmospheres ( Megaman(nearly all of them), Devil May Cry, Sonic.) and still ended up loving them.

And then I've played alot of games in which I had no damn idea what was going on when it came to the story. (The first time I played through metroid prime I didn't scan anything, nearly every mario game.)

But I STILL had a blast with them.

Hell, I never even thought Zelda had a good story. It's never made a damn bit of sense and tons of stuff is poorly explained. Yet, it's my favorite franchise. Simply because I love the gameplay.

Sure, this is opinion based..I guess...but I just don't see how anyone can let anything but the gameplay be the deciding factor. To me that's like watching pornography for the story.

I'm sorry, but to me to say "OoT is a superior game to WW altough Ww has superior gameplay." contradicts. Greatly. Becuase the gameplay is the part that MAKES it a game.

Ohh boy I see a flame war coming from this classic discusion.Anyway my favorite is MM but out of Oot and WW I would definatly chose WW.Why?First of all everything Tigerboi said and then some.Next Oot for me was basicly a 3-d version of ALttp.It was the exactly the same just modify a bit and add depth to ALttp and you have Oot.Finally Ganon was too easy.Just roll under his legs,slash or shoot tail,run,repeat.Seriously everyone says Oot bosses were harder yet in WW I actually have to put some effort in it guarding against Ganondorfs attacks.Also don't give me that crap about Ganondorf and Ganon are both the last bosses in Oot.Ganon is the last boss because the battle doesn't go directly to like in MM(Majora's Mask,Incarnation,and Wrath had no other sequence then a straight off battle).I don't even get hit by Ganon anymore.Isn't the last boss going to be the hardest then why is Ganon so easy.Also ganondorf(Oot) was basicly Agahnim(Alttp,don't know the spelling),Just add light arrows and slashing(as I said a modify of Alttp).
WW may have had it's flaws but first I enjoy the boat riding and the sailing.Another thing Oot didn't have a place where you could just fight.WW had orca and MM had reliving the boss fights but Oot was just repeated Ganondorf.In my opinion WW was better than Oot but my favorite is MM by far because of the 3 day system.Replay the game without acctually replaying the game sold me.
This is my opinion on it and if I get flamed then you can just shove it.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time was a big hit because:

-It was in 3D, and
-It had (and still has) so many secrets for the players to explore.

Originally Posted by YamiLink

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time was a big hit because:

-It was in 3D, and
-It had (and still has) so many secrets for the players to explore.

What's your point and what secrets.If it has so many why don't I need a strategy guide and why does it only take me 9 hours and 29 minutes to beat(a basic sit in for me) with everything.Also it wasn't a big hit because of secrets and 3d.If that was all that was need developers would half-ass games.What made Oot a hit was gameplay.Ever play a Nes game?By todays standards they look terrible yet we look pass that for the great gameplay.Secrets are just add ons.Also don't give me that easter egg garbage it's the same thing.Seriously you post makes little sense.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

Screw all the atmosphere reasons. Screw all the story reasons. Froget about graphics, sound, everything. Let's talk about how fun it is to play.

Zelda is a game, so the deciding factor is how fun it is to play.

I perfer WW over OoT. I would take it over OoT any day.

Why?

Well, for starters, just because a game is revoulutionary does not mean it's worth while. Tomb Raider was a 3D game that pretty much paved the way for 3D games with high mobility such as Tenchu and Ninja Gaidan. It was revoulutionary. Did I think it was fun? Hell no! The game was about as exciting as a dung bettle rolling...err...dung across the desert.

I felt I needed to bring that point: Just becuase something is revoulutionary does not mean it's good.

So now to explain why I think WW is superior to OoT in every aspect. Listen closely.

WW fixed many of my complaints from OoT and MM. Those problems and solutions were the following:

The combat in OoT was great...but flawed. For one, the combo system was there, but it DIDN'T work. The spin attack was useless and only served as a waste of magic power. The lock on would often lose focus (link would swing in the wrong direction, basically) if the enemy moved while you were in mid-animation.

In WW, the combo system worked, and worked well. The spin attack was possibly the most useful attack in the game. The lock on never lost focus because it would work with animations. The combat was overall alot more fast a frantic.


Another thing that annoyed me in the N64 zeldas was the utter lack of nearly all camera control. The only thing you could do was center it behind you. That was it. This got extremly annoying in tight areas especailly during combat.

I wanted more camera control in WW and they went ahead and put in a free camera mode. What more could I ask for?

One HUGE irritation that OoT gave me was how the dungeons were ridiculously short with the exception of the spirit temple. I beat most of them in under 20 minutes. No joke. MM touched up a bit on this area. (it takes me about 30 minutes or more to beat a dungeon in MM) and that was good.

However, it was WW that fixed the problem for good. All dungeons, with the exception of the first took me 45 minute or more. I loved that.

Another gripe I had with the n64 zeldas is how they were VERY linear. The only time you had a choice on where to go next is when the spirit and shadow temples were the only ones left. I don't even think that option was meant to be available.

However, other than the first three dungeons, WW was completely non-lear. You had the choice of going to either one of the temples first. You could get the triforce peices in any order.

infact, the only problem I think was carried over to WW from the N64 games was...the lack of a good challenge.

Now, don't get me wrong, I can play OoT and still have loads of fun. I just could've had more, is all I'm saying.

But let me say this: I don't see what so many people see in OoT. I've never been given a good reason as to why it's peffered so much over the other games in the series.

VERY well-said, Tigerboi. It annoys me to no end how OoT is so much overrated and 50% of people have only played OoT and say the others suck. I try to love OoT as much as TWW, but I just can't. But, I actually did enjoy sailing endlessly to small islands, and even if the islands were bigger, I'd still want a lot of small ones. MM was a better game than OoT, simply because it was just more fast-paced and it felt so... real. And I felt very involved in the storyline. You affect the story, while in OoT you just go through the dungeons and watch it happen. And the story is kind of, well, boring. It's almost exactly the same as ALttP. About the secrets, ALttP had endless confusing caverns inside mountains and things like that. There are secrets all over Hyrule. About fun, TWW was a lot more fun than OoT. It might have been a little bit kiddie, but have you played The Minish Cap? THAT was kiddie (but I still enjoyed it). The dungeons in ALttP and most in OoT were just a couple of chambers with boring and over-used puzzles. The dungeons in TWW were actually fun because of things such as controlling Medli and Makar. It just didn't feel right, though, that it was so easy. The Small Key counter never goes past 01. In TLoZ, you can have, like, 50 at a time (seriously). About immersion, I wasn't immersed in OoT, but I was certainly immersed in MM and TWW. It felt like a living, breathing world. Why is TWW ignored so much?

CONCLUSION: WIND WAKER IS BETTER.

Originally Posted by ZM88

What's your point; and what secrets? If it has so many, why don't I need a strategy guide and why does it only take me 9 hours and 29 minutes to beat(a basic sit in for me) with everything? Also, it wasn't a big hit because of secrets and 3d. If that was all that was need, developers would half-ass games. What made Oot a hit was gameplay. Ever play a Nes game? By todays standards they look terrible yet we look pass that for the great gameplay. Secrets are just add ons. Also don't give me that easter egg garbage it's the same thing. Seriously, you post makes little sense.

Yikes! Sorry; don't bite my head off! I admit, I overlooked that...(shame on me, you bad person you, Yami No Linkuu...) umm...sorry, back to the topic...
To me, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time were pretty much equal. I didn't discover video-games 'til I was, what, 11, maybe? So it was so amazing to me! That's why I put those 2 items up there; as they were the first top two things I noticed. To me, any Zelda game is the greatest...um, I don't know why but, ZM88, .....thanks...for pointing that out...

Originally Posted by YamiLink

Yikes! Sorry; don't bite my head off! I admit, I overlooked that...(shame on me, you bad person you, Yami No Linkuu...) umm...sorry, back to the topic...
To me, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time were pretty much equal. I didn't discover video-games 'til I was, what, 11, maybe? So it was so amazing to me! That's why I put those 2 items up there; as they were the first top two things I noticed. To me, any Zelda game is the greatest...um, I don't know why but, ZM88, .....thanks...for pointing that out...

No problem glad to enlighten another person and as for biting your head off I'll let you off hehe...anyway just remember gameplay is the most important element in a game(except in some RPGs).The storyline can be crap or nonexistent(Metroid Prime) and the graphics could be horrible(GTA) but if the gameplay is solid no one will care.

The Wind Waker was a great game, but it wasn't revolutionary like Ocarina of Time was. TWW was just an upgraded OoT (battle system wise) while OoT changed the entire Zelda series.

I liked the temples more in OoT, and you could get the biggorons sword, you could get dins fire, and the whole ganon fight seemed much more dire.

Originally Posted by Nash

The Wind Waker was a great game, but it wasn't revolutionary like Ocarina of Time was. TWW was just an upgraded OoT (battle system wise) while OoT changed the entire Zelda series.

But that doesn't mean it's better. Hell, mario 64 changed the mario series but lots of people (myself included) say that Mario world is still the best.