True Zelda Fans

Originally Posted by GK: 5895/9999

Zelda didn't make 3D. The PS1 made 3D, and it was only a matter of time before Zelda got a 3D game. People should stop acting like Ocarina of Time revolutionized everything as if it was the first 3D game ever made. Zelda being 3D is nothing special. It wasn't the game that brought all of these amazing innovations, it was the console.

there is so much wrong with this i don't know where to begin...

Originally Posted by TP or Oot

You should consider yourself schooled. It is obvious that it is opinion. Just because you didn't say that it is your opinion doesn't mean it can't be. There is a distinct line between fact and opinion, and what you said was definetly opinion.

Um...I don't think you seem to understand what I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by Parallax

there is so much wrong with this i don't know where to begin...

Absolutely great post, 10/10.

The excuse of "Ocarina of Time brought so much, it wasn't just the 3D that made it great" is completely flawed. It really was the 3D that made it great, but that wasn't even the doings of the game. There were plenty of 3D games before Ocarina of time, so it had an easy time knowing how it would turn out when the series went to 3D anyway. Z-Targeting is all it had, and that was always going to happen with 3D - it's an natural progression. Zelda just happened to be the first. You could have used it in any other game.

Originally Posted by GK: 5895/9999

Absolutely great post, 10/10.

The excuse of "Ocarina of Time brought so much, it wasn't just the 3D that made it great" is completely flawed. It really was the 3D that made it great, but that wasn't even the doings of the game. There were plenty of 3D games before Ocarina of time, so it had an easy time knowing how it would turn out when the series went to 3D anyway. Z-Targeting is all it had, and that was always going to happen with 3D - it's an natural progression. Zelda just happened to be the first. You could have used it in any other game.

Oy vey...

Okay, first of all, no one said OoT was the first 3D game. Yes, I'm fairly aware there were 3D games before OoT (I think there was some Mario game or something that came out 2 years before OoT, though I'm not 100% on that one).

Second of all (and I'm really trying to bite my tongue here), the assumption that OoT doesn't deserve any credit because it was the HARDWARE that actually created the 3D is....well, for lack of a better term, un-smart. If we go by this rationale, then really, NO GAME deserves any credit, even the original Super Mario Bros, because it was really the NES that did all the work. Do you agree with this?

Third of all, I think most would agree that the jump from LttP to OoT gameplay wise was kind of, sort of, marginally bigger than the jump in gameplay from OoT to any of its sequels. Just a thought, though.

Obviously a gameplay jump from 2D to 3D is going to be better. That has nothing to do with Zelda. Also, In the case of Ocarina of Time, it really is the hardware. This isn't the case with other games, because they're generally different. Ocarina of Time is A Link to the Past in 3D. All it brought was Z-Targeting, and like I said, that would have come at some point anyway. It's not exactly Zelda-specific.

Dude, that argument is silly. I'm trying to be civil here, but you're making it kinda difficult. I still don't know what point you're trying to make by saying that OoT didn't advance 3D as much compared to other games. But your other point about how eventually somebody else would have come up with something like Z-targeting - yes, that may definitely be the case, HOWEVER, OoT did it first. Tell me, should Einstein not have gotten any credit for relativity because somebody would have come up with eventually? Archimedes with his theorem on displacement? Newton on his laws of motion? I'm sorry, but this argument is retarded.

Originally Posted by Parallax

Oy vey...

Okay, first of all, no one said OoT was the first 3D game. Yes, I'm fairly aware there were 3D games before OoT (I think there was some Mario game or something that came out 2 years before OoT, though I'm not 100% on that one).

Here is a list of all the video games that came out in 1997 (1 year before OOT) With the exception of gameboy games, ALL of them are 3D.

Second of all (and I'm really trying to bite my tongue here), the assumption that OoT doesn't deserve any credit because it was the HARDWARE that actually created the 3D is....well, for lack of a better term, un-smart. If we go by this rationale, then really, NO GAME deserves any credit, even the original Super Mario Bros, because it was really the NES that did all the work. Do you agree with this?

Super Mario Bros for NES gets credit because it was the game that got sidescrolling platforming perfected, which has nothing to do with its hardware. Thats why it is given credit. All the claims you are making are because of the N64. OOT did not contribute any gameplay elements to #D games other than a lock on and camera center button.

Third of all, I think most would agree that the jump from LttP to OoT gameplay wise was kind of, sort of, marginally bigger than the jump in gameplay from OoT to any of its sequels. Just a thought, though.

The only reason gameplay jumped so much was because of the transition from 2 to 3D. The only reason gameplay hasn't changed as much since is because it won't be neccesary until games make another such leap.

Now go read this page and come back when you actually know what you are talking about.

I don't think you have to love every Zelda game to be called a true Zelda fan. I mean, I haven't beaten every single game but I still consider myself a true Zelda fan because I feel I'm loyal. Yes, I may have some gripes every now and then, but as one of my friends said, "It does no good to whine because you know in some way, shape or form, you will play the games."

I grew up with Ocarina of Time so I do go back and replay it the most. But I don't think it's any better or worse than other Zelda games. If I had to pick a favorite game, I'd probably side with Oracle of Ages. Why? I couldn't tell you. I think each game is intensely personal for each player and that's where all the tension comes in--people trying to defend what they think makes a Zelda game good against what someone else thinks is good.

And yes, I'm afraid of change. I'm human. So I'm wary about huge changes, but ultimately, changes has to happen. I'm a writer so I need stories and character development and basically I need something I can cherish.

Interesting thread, though.

While OOT is not the only true game in the series, it is, in my eyes, the best. TP shared hardly any similarities with OOT, but TP was fun and one of the best. The only thing bad about it was the wolf which had NOTHING to do with Zelda. I mean, why the hell did he transform?
But I'm getting off topic, while change IS good, it's not good to have too much too fast, because for all you senile old bats who are in love with OOT and all of that game it freaks you out.

Originally Posted by Parallax

Dude, that argument is silly.

No it isn't.

I still don't know what point you're trying to make by saying that OoT didn't advance 3D as much compared to other games.

I didn't say that anywhere. I'm saying Ocarina of Time brought nothing new to the series like everyone thinks. 3D did.

But your other point about how eventually somebody else would have come up with something like Z-targeting - yes, that may definitely be the case, HOWEVER, OoT did it first.

It's nothing to do with Zelda though. It's just a tiny part of a gameplay mechanic.

Tell me, should Einstein not have gotten any credit for relativity because somebody would have come up with eventually? Archimedes with his theorem on displacement? Newton on his laws of motion? I'm sorry, but this argument is retarded.

Do you know that people would have come up with those theories? I'm struggling to believe that you're comparing those massive, science changing theories to an incredibly simple 'hold button to lock onto an enemy'. It was nothing spectacular.

Wow, I really shouldn't have came into the Zelda sections. I apparently forgot the reason for leaving this place.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

Here is a list of all the video games that came out in 1997 (1 year before OOT) With the exception of gameboy games, ALL of them are 3D.

*smacks forehead*

Okay, maybe I should stop using sarcasm from now on, until i start encountering some slightly more intelligent folk.

Here, let me clarify so there's no confusion:

I WAS KIDDING. I KNOW THERE WERE OTHER 3D VIDEO GAMES BEFORE OCARINA.

Super Mario Bros for NES gets credit because it was the game that got sidescrolling platforming perfected, which has nothing to do with its hardware. Thats why it is given credit. All the claims you are making are because of the N64. OOT did not contribute any gameplay elements to #D games other than a lock on and camera center button.

1. Yeah, SMB had nothing to do with the hardware. It could have been created on a refrigerator, I'd bet. (PREEMPTIVE NOTE: THIS ALSO SARCASM)
2. For the last time, I'm discussing OoT's innovations in the context of ZELDA games. Not GAMES in general.

But since we're on the subject, I would find it interesting what you would consider the games that actually were significant throughout history.

The only reason gameplay jumped so much was because of the transition from 2 to 3D. The only reason gameplay hasn't changed as much since is because it won't be neccesary until games make another such leap.

Which was kinda my point. The jump is a lot more significant than most of you try and make it out to be.

Now go read this page and come back when you actually know what you are talking about.

*airplane flying overhead*

Originally Posted by zeldamaster17

While OOT is not the only true game in the series, it is, in my eyes, the best. TP shared hardly any similarities with OOT, but TP was fun and one of the best.

Thank God somebody noticed. I'm so sick of hearing people say TP is an OOT clone. OOT has much more in common with Alttp than TP does with OOT.

The only thing bad about it was the wolf which had NOTHING to do with Zelda. I mean, why the hell did he transform?

Well it isn't the first time you play as an animal. You play as a rabbit in Alttp for instance.

But I'm getting off topic, while change IS good, it's not good to have too much too fast, because for all you senile old bats who are in love with OOT and all of that game it freaks you out

Senile old bats? Its usually the younger players that are screaming "It wasn't/was too much like OOT so it sucked". The older zelda fans who liked zelda before OOT came out (like me) usually aren't as obsessed.

Originally Posted by Parallax

Okay, maybe I should stop using sarcasm from now on, until i start encountering some slightly more intelligent folk.

For the record, sarcasm is rather difficult to determine in typed form.

Odd, all the old people I talk to are obsessed with the old times.

Originally Posted by zeldamaster17

Odd, all the old people I talk to are obsessed with the old times.

*looks at profile page*
Ah, your only 12. In your case they would be older. The average diehard OOT fanboy is about 15 or 16 (and typically first played the game when they were 8-10).

Originally Posted by GK: 5895/9999

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

I didn't say that anywhere. I'm saying Ocarina of Time brought nothing new to the series like everyone thinks. 3D did.

This is head-banging-against-the-wall level absurdity.

Okay, tell me. What Zelda games DID bring something new to the series, that OoT failed to do? I'm dying to hear.

Do you know that people would have come up with those theories? I'm struggling to believe that you're comparing those massive, science changing theories to an incredibly simple 'hold button to lock onto an enemy'. It was nothing spectacular.

I'm not saying Z-targeting is as significant as those theories, goddamn. If Z-targeting is such a simple concept, then whey didn't anyone come up with it until Ocarina? The PS1 was out since 1994 wasn't it? Why didn't anyone come up with something similar in 4 years?

You know what, Z-targeting IS a pretty simple concept. But people seem to forget that stuff like this has to start from somewhere. Moving a character from side to side is a simple concept, but we went through a whole decade before Super Mario Bros. was created.

I'm just saying stop trying to diminish the value of these obviously important qualities that have shaped all future 3D Zeldas as well as several other games.

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

*looks at profile page*
Ah, your only 12. In your case they would be older. The average diehard OOT fanboy is about 15 or 16 (and typically first played the game when they were 8-10).

Well, I played OOT when I was two. I beat it when I was four. Kinda because I was two when I started. And I OOT really brought me into gaming.

Originally Posted by Parallax

1. Yeah, SMB had nothing to do with the hardware. It could have been created on a refrigerator, I'd bet. (PREEMPTIVE NOTE: THIS ALSO SARCASM)

Problem is, you're using sarcasm to avoid the point.

Originally Posted by Parallax

Yes it is.

Great.

This is head-banging-against-the-wall level absurdity.

Okay, tell me. What Zelda games DID bring something new to the series, that OoT failed to do? I'm dying to hear.

If Majora's Mask were the first 3D Zelda game, this would be a completely different argument. Why? Because that game was new and had fresh ideas. How many times, Ocarina of Time did nothing for the series other than being the first 3D game in the series. As for other games? Well, those were all just natural progressions of 3D too. What I'm saying is, Ocarina of Time was no special 3D game. There have been plenty of other 3D games that have made improvements on gameplay.

Holy christ, just in case it still isn't clear enough - Ocarina of Time is not special. It is a 3D version of a SNES game.

I'm not saying Z-targeting is as significant as those theories, goddamn. If Z-targeting is such a simple concept, then whey didn't anyone come up with it until Ocarina? The PS1 was out since 1994 wasn't it? Why didn't anyone come up with something similar in 4 years?

Not sure. It apparently wasn't needed.

You know what, Z-targeting IS a pretty simple concept. But people seem to forget that stuff like this has to start from somewhere. Moving a character from side to side is a simple concept, but we went through a whole decade before Super Mario Bros. was created.

That is a genre being created. Different from a tiny part of gameplay being made.

I'm just saying stop trying to diminish the value of these obviously important qualities that have shaped all future 3D Zeldas as well as several other games.

Ocarina of Time didn't really shape future Zeldas at all. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker aren't anything alike Ocarina of Time really. Apart from having dungeons, but that's been a staple from game one.

Originally Posted by zeldamaster17

Well, I played OOT when I was two. I beat it when I was four.

Very little chance of this being true.

Originally Posted by GK: 5895/9999

Very little chance of this being true.

Okay, I'll admit I had my grandma read me everything plus the strategy guide.

Originally Posted by GK: 5895/9999

Problem is, you're using sarcasm to avoid the point.

Correction: I'm using sarcasm because your point is faulty.

If Majora's Mask were the first 3D Zelda game, this would be a completely different argument. Why? Because that game was new and had fresh ideas. How many times, Ocarina of Time did nothing for the series other than being the first 3D game in the series. As for other games? Well, those were all just natural progressions of 3D too. What I'm saying is, Ocarina of Time was no special 3D game. There have been plenty of other 3D games that have made improvements on gameplay.

Aha, as I expected. You're one of those people that obviously hold things like a different setting being far more important than ACTUAL gameplay innovation. So your argument is as follows:

OoT is nothing more than LttP in 3D because Ganon is in it and there is a master sword included in the game.

Whereas, Majora's Mask TOTALLY deserves more credit than OoT because, although it used Ocarina's engine, battle system, graphics, music and time travel mechanic, characters, it had the audacity and the VISION to have a different final boss than Ganon. And because of that fact, it is the REAL innovator of the 3D games, right?

Oh, and Wind Waker. Sure, it had the same template where you fight Ganon and get the master sword, but OOH LOOK AT THE NEW GRAFIX? Oh and instead of Hyrule field, you travel across a sea instead! INNOVATION!

Holy christ, just in case it still isn't clear enough - Ocarina of Time is not special. It is a 3D version of a SNES game.

Yeah, anyone could have made it. Clearly. Obviously. Why I bet you could have too!

Not sure. It apparently wasn't needed.

And were 2D platformers needed?

That is a genre being created. Different from a tiny part of gameplay being made.

Doesn't matter.

Ocarina of Time didn't really shape future Zeldas at all. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker aren't anything alike Ocarina of Time really. Apart from having dungeons, but that's been a staple from game one.

See above post.


Man, what an amazing 'debate' this has been.

You are an angry little person aren't you?

SO MM was special because you fought someone besides Ganon and went to termina?

OOT and MM were special game but were 2 different stories of the hero and shouldn't be compared they both brought things to the series oots Z targeting and mm's somethin I'm not quite sure of. Every game brings somehin new and old in its special way.

SO what's wrong with what I said mister special?