I'm kind of getting tired of OoT...

Ocarina of Time is massively overrated.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great game. It definitely set a standard for the Zelda series, it revolutionized the industry, and 13 years ago I'm sure it was the best game of all time.

Here's the problem, though: it's 13 years later.

These are the three big gripes I have with OoT.
1) The graphics are dated. Yes, I know everyone agrees about at least this one point, but think about this for a second... in 1998, we had Ocarina of Time. In 2004, we had Half-Life 2. Ocarina of Time to Half-Life 2 in six years is a BIG leap graphics-wise.

2) The game is relatively easy. Some of you are going to say that it was much more challenging than later entries in the series, like Wind Waker for example, but hold on - for those of you who are old enough to have witnessed the release of both OoT and WW, how old were you when you first played OoT? How about when you first played WW? Unless you waited a really long time to pick Ocarina up, odds are the difference between those two ages is about five years. Maybe you just got older and got a lot better at solving puzzles and things in video games. Here's my example: when I first got Wind Waker (9 years old, around 2004 or 2005), it took me 3 or 4 days of playing an hour a day to beat the Tower of the Gods, which was a dungeon fairly close to the middle of the game. When I got to Tower of the Gods on my recent playthrough yesterday, I beat the whole dungeon (collecting all the items too, no less) in an hour's worth of playing. Argue it all you want, but 99% of the time games that come out later seem easier because you got older and got better at playing games. I first started Ocarina in 2008, got stuck on the Forest Temple, and started a new file earlier this year. On that new file, I've only run into three major tough points: I couldn't figure out how to get through a corridor puzzle in the Forest Temple (turns out I was ignoring an open corridor or something); I died a few times against Phantom Ganon because I kept missing the right painting until the last second; and I in the Fire Temple, I couldn't figure out what to do in the room with the stairs after you got the Hammer (still working on that). Not exactly the challenge level I faced when I first played Wind Waker.

3) This is by far the largest problem I have with Ocarina, one that stares me in the face every time I play... OoT is GENERIC. Aside from the fact that it set up the formula for 3D Zelda games (gameplay, story, etc.), when you compare it to the console Zelda games that have come out since, it really doesn't have a defining feature. And while this helps it avoid some of the flaws that its successors ran into, it also prevents OoT from shining where its successors did. Sailing around in Wind Waker was boring as hell in most cases (at least until you got the warping song), but that was a result of the fact that the game's world was massive and had hours upon hours of content.

I don't remember ever spending less than 20 minutes on collecting treasures/playing mini-games/etc. for one quadrant in Wind Waker, not counting the side-quests that spanned multiple islands or the larger islands such as Windfall and Outset. Likewise, while the 3-day system in Majora's Mask was annoying from a gameplay perspective (you had to play the Song of Time backwards if you wanted to actually do anything in those three days, you had to save stuff in the bank before time ran out, yadda yadda yadda), it gave a sense of urgency to rescuing the world that Ocarina of Time just didn't have.

So while I think OoT is still a great game and deserves praise for what it did in 1998, it just doesn't stand up as the best game of all time any more unless you keep looking through nostalgia goggles. (And I apologize sincerely to the people who simply say Ocarina of Time is their favorite Zelda game, not the best, and took insult to this.)

As someone who personally loves OoT out of all the other Zelda games, I respect your post.


I grew up with OoT and it plays a large part of my childhood and early inspiration to life which has affected my art today, so it's easy to guess why I love the game so much.

I think it all depends on the age of the gamer when they picked up the game and their personal tastes to video games in general that affect their opinion on matters like this.

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

As someone who personally loves OoT out of all the other Zelda games, I respect your post.


I grew up with OoT and it plays a large part of my childhood and early inspiration to life which has affected my art today, so it's easy to guess why I love the game so much.

I think it all depends on the age of the gamer when they picked up the game and their personal tastes to video games in general that affect their opinion on matters like this.

I guess it does come down to the age of the gamer, and the first gamers zelda game.

I respectfully disagree. I think "Ocarina of Time" is a great game even when one is not looking through the nostalgia goggles. While the story is rather generic, its execution is a lot more interesting to me than the other games. Throughout the game, you truly do go through a lot in a very entertaining coming-of-age story. You enter the adventure a young boy with a dagger-like sword and a wooden shield who has been isolated his entire life, and at the climax you are facing an ultimately evil being as a man.

While the storyline is the same as others, one really feels more attached to Link in "Ocarina of Time" than in most other games, and their attachment is furthered when they grow up. People can relate to the childlike wonder of seeing a new overworld full of new things to explore (which is much like their own childhoods, in which the real world's mechanics and structure were more mysterious than predictable), and then they can relate to the darker yet more rewarding adult-segment of the story as they re-explore the overworld that they are familiar with, which has changed quite a lot since the beginning of their journey (much like how they grow older themselves, now familiar with the way the world works but with that familiarity including more mature challenges to overcome).

Overall, what I'm trying to say is that the game has a lot of artistic merit in terms of the execution of its admittedly generic plotline.

While I recognize OoT as the worst of the series, I will say that it is a colossus of Nintendo; it was, essentially, the thing that really gave Nintendo it's popularity. For that, I can put aside my differences and look at it as a great game, (even if it is overrated and stupid, which I believe it is) It is also a defining moment in many people's childhood, and even if I make the most nostalgia-crushing Top 10s on YouTube (hint: I do) I will always respect that.

But yeah. I can't sum OoT up in one word, but ten: adventurous, brilliant, beautiful, nostalgic, revolutionary, bland, empty, outdated, imperfect, and stupid.

Being a not-so-average gamer, the thing I like most about Ocarina of Time is that you can do the impossible and see the invisible with various tricks and glitches.

You can beat the dungeons in pretty much any order you want, or not beat any of them at all. There are hundreds of glitches and odd tricks ranging from practical stuff like bomb hovering to the really goofy stuff like ass chest and fish drinking. With pausing, it's possible to play the game frame by frame so to be able to pull off tougher tricks.

There's just something magical about the way the code and content comes together to form a surprisingly stable, especially considering all the crazy stuff that is possible.

Windwaker just doesn't have that level of freedom (at least not yet). It has it's own crazy glitches, but most of them are virtually impossible to do as a human without breaking your controller/thumbs. Also, in Ocarina of Time you have pretty much free access to the world (at least through glitches), not so with WW.

I'm a bit tired of OoT, but not really for the same reasons. I've beaten the game more than 15 times already and know just about every little detail there is to know about the game already. I used to speed run the game to extend its replay value, but now the routes are so convoluted and frustrating that I don't think all the effort is worth it anymore. Now that I've beaten the Master Quest of the 3DS version, I don't see myself returning to the game for another few years.

I'll have to say that OoT's still my second favorite Zelda game, and that it does do somethings incredibly well.

First and foremost, what I love about OoT is its incredible pacing. Unlike many other Zelda games, there's little filler to be found, and the degree of non-linearity allows for a somewhat customized experience depending on what you feel like doing, whether you want to put off the Bottom of the Well for later or just get it over with right now.

Also, just being able to visit all the areas once you escape Kokiri Forest makes for a triumphant feeling of freedom that's only matched with the second half of TWW. Sometimes you are limited in what you can do in those regions until a later time, but getting a sneak peak only makes it more exciting when you come back to that area with the necessary tools to progress. It's very awesome feeling.

Last, I really do appreciate all the tiny secrets the creators scattered in the game. All Zelda games do this, but I think OoT has the best hidden secrets, the type that you might not notice even after playing through the game 10 times. Just watch this video and see how many things you never knew about the game; it'll surprise you.

2 - OoT is definetely harder than newer games, especially WW. I replayed all of the 3D games in 2010. After playing TP and WW, OoT challenged me. You know, the enemies actually try.

3 - This really doesn't bother me because it doesn't have a silly gimmick that ruins gameplay. I'd actually say that time travel was the defining feature, but it was a feature that enhanced the game, as it was awesome to experience Hyrule in 2 different time periods. That totally beats something like transforming into a wolf, which is so forced and makes the game extremely linear. That's what's wrong with the newer games. Not enough freedom.

First, Ocarina of Time did not set up the standard Zelda formula. Link to the Past did started this formula:
1. Initial Problem
2. Complete 3 dungeons
3. Problem gets bigger
4. Problem leads to another dimension/world/time
5. Complete 5 more dungeons
6. Defeat final boss.

Second, I would like to say that Ocarina of Time still stands the test of time for me. I find it fun to play now still, and have a harder time putting it down than a lot of other games.

Originally Posted by Symbiotic

I respectfully disagree.

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

As someone who personally loves OoT out of all the other Zelda games, I respect your post.

The Zelda section needs more of this.

Anyway, I also respectfully disagree. I thought the pacing was a lot better than the modern Zelda games. The overworld (as in all of Hyrule, not just the field) became more and more open as you progress. It feels like you're earning your freedom. You can visit pretty much all the places in Hyrule once you become an adult. Even as a child, you were able to go to Lake Hylia, Kakariko Village, Gerudo Valley, and Lon Lon Ranch before even meeting Zelda. This is mostly why I think that this game still holds up today. I feel like that's what the more modern games are missing.

As for the dated graphics - yes, it is dated. But I don't care that much for poly counts. I care more about the aesthetics. The game was beautiful during its time, and is still, IMO, good looking today. By giving it just a few more polygons, it'll look amazing as shown in OoT3D.

As for the difficulty, I don't think age has to do with how difficult it is. Well, it is to an extent, but it's not something you should base the difficulty level on. I think it's just how often you play it. I honestly don't remember how difficult it was for me the first time I played it, but to me, it's really easy now since I've beat it countless times.

Plus, TWW and TP's enemies deal less damage compared to OoT's enemies. Not to mention they don't do that much except stand there and block.

1. Ocarina of Time 3D looks like a middle-era GameCube game. The original N64 doesn't bother me so long as the TV isn't too large (e.g., over 32"). In comparison, Twilight Princess' graphics were dated on arrival, as it was released a year into the Xbox 360's life cycle and almost simultaneously with the launch of the PS3. Anyway, Super Mario Bros.' graphics are certainly dated, and yet IGN saw fit to pick it no less than twice as being the greatest game of all time.

2. I first played Ocarina of Time one month before purchasing The Wind Waker back in 2003, so I can attest to the fact that it's a harder game. That isn't to say, however, that The Wind Waker doesn't have any challenge, because it does, especially when you're facing off against a dozen or more enemies at once. The enemies in Ocarina of Time simply hit harder, and there's no parry attack to turn armored enemies into a walk in the park. What's more, only one dungeon from The Wind Waker proved difficult (Wind Temple), whereas Ocarina of Time had the Forest, Water and Shadow temples (Fire and Spirit seemed pretty straightforward to me).

3. Ocarina of Time's time travel mechanic doesn't feel like a gimmick (because it's both simple and useful), whereas repeating three days over and over again, sailing across an oversized sea, turning into a wolf to collect crap, and not being able to use weapons in certain areas - while collecting more crap - all do. The gimmicks/defining features of the later games all serve to drag down the pacing in those games (Zora eggs and trading with Gibdos, Triforce shards, Tears of Light, Tears of the Goddesses - all fetch quests), and that somewhat lessens their replay value. Anyway, I'm quite happy with Ocarina of Time's "generic" nature, because it was content with simply being a Zelda game in 3D, whereas the later 3D Zelda games have tried everything under the sun to differentiate themselves from OoT (to the point of passing off various modes of transportation - boats, wolves, trains, birds - as major innovations; in contrast, the horse is completely optional in OoT). That all the more cements it as the franchise's defining game (along with A Link to the Past).

Ocarina of Time had meaningful exploration (optional spells, songs, sword and arrows), wasn't padded with fetch quests, allowed overworld exploration early on and kept some form of non-linearity, which was a defining feature of its predecessors. Zelda games after Majora's Mask have become increasingly linear, easier (the camera pans in on puzzle solutions, unless Link himself stares at them), padded with fetch quests and in some cases, have crippled the series' exploration element. Lastly, both Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword have horrendously long tutorial segments.

I honestly do not believe that the series has gotten collectively better under Mr. Aonuma, although I would concede that the stories and certain game play mechanics have indeed improved over time. The increased emphasis on storytelling, however, has stripped the series of its exploration-heavy/non-linear roots (even if these two need not be exclusive), and now even its cohesive, action/exploration-focused overworld has been crudely segmented and turned into a series of "outside dungeon areas." I cannot look at that as innovation. Instead, Zelda keeps moving further and further away from its core principles. Ocarina of Time was the last Zelda game to carry on the spirit of the first Zelda game.

The thing people need to realize is that Zelda is a rather simplistic series you can apply your post to nearly any other of the games. Not that it's a bad thing I enjoy being able to still be able to find a game that is simple I like games that focus on having fun. Example WW has a generic story you collect three items get the master sword. So what the Zelda series comes down to is the order you play it in. If WW or TP is your first game then it stands to reason that they would be your favorite. This is perfectly fine because there is not a Zelda game that is better then another in the series it's almost all opinion. If people were to play the games without reading reviews and message boards and getting polarized against the games there would be a lot less hate towards the newer games and people would realize that they are as good as OoT.

Claiming that it's all a matter of opinion - "No Zelda game is better than another" - appears to me to be a cop out because game design, much like writing, painting, creating music, etc. requires skill, and skill is something which can be measured. No one would take seriously, and rightfully so, the opinion that my blank canvas, with a solitary black dot on it, is as beautiful as Michelangelo's Sistene Chapel. An extreme example, sure, but also a true one.

Another good example would be that Ocarina of Time is a much better Zelda game than is Spirit Tracks. Spirit Tracks doesn't even have a proper land-based overworld and the Spirit Flute doesn't always work (and this is a common complaint).

Originally Posted by SouthpawLink

Claiming that it's all a matter of opinion - "No Zelda game is better than another" - appears to me to be a cop out because game design, much like writing, painting, creating music, etc. requires skill, and skill is something which can be measured. No one would take seriously, and rightfully so, the opinion that my blank canvas, with a solitary black dot on it, is as beautiful as Michelangelo's Sistene Chapel. An extreme example, sure, but also a true one.

Another good example would be that Ocarina of Time is a much better Zelda game than is Spirit Tracks. Spirit Tracks doesn't even have a proper land-based overworld and the Spirit Flute doesn't always work (and this is a common complaint).

So then my question is this my roommate actually does like Spirit Tracks better than Ocarina of Time in terms of story, gameplay, and music. Does the fact that most people disagree with him invalidate his opinion? Some people may like your black dot better than the sistene chapel. If it touches them in just the right way. Basically does that make the individuals feelings about the painting wrong? So yes it does come down to opinion on what the individual finds to be good.

While people are certainly free to have their opinions on various things, some opinions are in fact better substantiated than others. Liking something is one thing, and preferring it to something else is fine, but claiming that it's better than another thing is quite different. These latter opinions are subject to scrutiny and debate. What's more, people can recognize the goodness of things without particularly liking them.

If no opinions are better than any others, then why do we even bother to debate them at all, be it Zelda, music or anything else? Isn't this all rather pointless to discuss anything's "quality," if all opinions -- even contradictory ones -- are somehow equally valid?

Here are some informative pages to check out regarding the evaluation of opinions and making aesthetic judgments:

How Art Can Be Good
GoodArt.org Frequently Asked Questions
Thinking Critically about the Subjective-Objective Distinction
Not Thinking. All Opinions Are Equal is a Stupid Opinion, Logical Fallacy

Originally Posted by Master Vainqueur

While I recognize OoT as the worst of the series, I will say that it is a colossus of Nintendo; it was, essentially, the thing that really gave Nintendo it's popularity.

Though Ocarina of Time was an extremely successful game, Mario already had the popularity of Nintendo in the bag. I mean, his nickname is Mr. Nintendo for Pete's sake.

OoT was the fourth Zelda I played, so I never developed any special attachment to it that a lot of others that began with that game has. Therefore I never did quite regard it as the definitive Zelda game in the series. Just one of the better ones, however I tend to like the games that came after a little more. I still like ALTTP more than OoT and it still stands as my favorite sequel.

My opinion with OoT is more like exhaustion, I have heard enough from it. Yea I know a lot of people started with it and they like it a lot but still it gets a little old constantly hearing about how each new game in the series cannot stand up to OoT. It does seem like the fandom for the game has gone a little out of control. However that is how nostalgia works, people love something cherished from years ago just a little bit more than anything that comes along now. I suppose people that came to the series later on like other games in the same way for probably the same reason, it was their first and it introduced them to the series.

You're not alone.

My opinion with OoT is more like exhaustion, I have heard enough from it. Yea I know a lot of people started with it and they like it a lot but still it gets a little old constantly hearing about how each new game in the series cannot stand up to OoT. It does seem like the fandom for the game has gone a little out of control. However that is how nostalgia works, people love something cherished from years ago just a little bit more than anything that comes along now. I suppose people that came to the series later on like other games in the same way for probably the same reason, it was their first and it introduced them to the series.

Took the words right out of my mouth~

For me, the very first time I played Ocarina of Time, I was 5 years old. But I could barely read at the time so I don't really have nostalgia goggles for it. But when I played it on the ROM and the GameCube, I did thoroughly enjoy it. But as much as I've played it and as much fandom the game gets, its driven me away.

I could go on, but I think the best way to explain anyone who's bored with now is that it is dated.

Originally Posted by Jin

However that is how nostalgia works

People say they're getting tired of hearing about OoT all over the place.

I'm getting really tired of hearing everybody say that only nostalgic people like OoT the best. Seriously, there are other reasons why people like OoT besides nostalgia.

Originally Posted by SouthpawLink

While people are certainly free to have their opinions on various things, some opinions are in fact better substantiated than others. Liking something is one thing, and preferring it to something else is fine, but claiming that it's better than another thing is quite different. These latter opinions are subject to scrutiny and debate. What's more, people can recognize the goodness of things without particularly liking them.

If no opinions are better than any others, then why do we even bother to debate them at all, be it Zelda, music or anything else? Isn't this all rather pointless to discuss anything's "quality," if all opinions -- even contradictory ones -- are somehow equally valid?

Here are some informative pages to check out regarding the evaluation of opinions and making aesthetic judgments:

How Art Can Be Good
GoodArt.org Frequently Asked Questions
Thinking Critically about the Subjective-Objective Distinction
Not Thinking. All Opinions Are Equal is a Stupid Opinion, Logical Fallacy

Yes some opinions are better substantiated then others. Look at the twilight princess haters fan club you have some who can give legitimate reasons for not liking the game and then you have people who hate to go with the flow. Same thing with people who like twilight princess. However it is nearly impossible to objectively judge a zelda game being better than another. This is why, depending on both environment and culture is going to determine what is good and what is bad. The reason people debate is because they want their feelings to be fact. All games can be "objectively" torn apart if you try. I agree with you that there are things that can be objectively better, but a game as a whole there is so little that is not plain opinion. Such as the graphics of TP are better than OoT, however saying the story is better in OoT is better than TP is going to be a lot harder to justify why because it is really up to the person playing the game of how good it is not someone who is like "I am a smart person therefore I get to decide what's good and what's not."

Really all I'm trying to say is that people shouldn't be forced to think the way everyone else thinks. There is way too much of "my thoughts are better than your thoughts because of this, this, and this" in the world. If every human being thought along the lines that this is what is objectively good creativity would be severally hampered because no one would ever deviate from that. At the end of the day it seems that things that people say are good will ultimately come down to the majorities feelings.