Why is Ocarina of Time not in your top 5 games list?- Smeags top 250 thread proves it is in your collective top 5!

[Runa216]

Wyrdness said:

Runa216 said:

Do you understand what the word 'timeless' means?  It means the game, movie, or other piece of art is relevant always.  Ocarina of time was a good game BECAUSE it was a leap forward into the third dimension.  it's quality was pretty universal, but the reason it is so universally beloved is becuase of its status as the first major adventure game done in true 3D that was as good as it was.  However, now that we have sequels to it that do everything better, it's really just a step.  Compared to modern games, it's got clunky controls, terrible graphics, and some bad game design choices.  

On the opposite end, look at the game Super Mario World.  That game was in 2D with very simple sprites, and yet the controls were impeccable and the level design is, even to this day, unrivaled.  I can go back at any time, any day, and still enjoy every second of that game even though I've beaten it hundreds of times.  THAT is timeless.  Ocarina of Time, on the other hand, just feels like a clunky version of better games. 

And I didn't think Ocarina of Time was that great when I played it in 1998 when it first came out. even back then I thought the graphics were hideous and the controls were sluggish, the world expansive but relatively barren.  THAT'S why I never beat it.  It was becuase I never thought it was all that good, even before it was dubbed 'best game of all time' by countless publications and I got my hateboner for it.  Now that I've grown up a lot, I do game journalism, and I like to consider myself a pretty fair reviewer, I can look at a game's strengths and weaknesses and see that,  yes, this was a great game for its time, but it's not timeless.  It has aged poorly.  

Of course, it doesn't help that Nintendo has basically been remaking the same game over and over again and, in my mind, I'd already played it when I beat A Link to the Past a few years prior. 

Sorry but I have to pull up a few things here, OOT can be classed as timeless not because it was the first 3D adventure game but because it showed the industry how to utilize a fully 3D world even today games utilize it's template and what it brought, that in itself is timeless. It may be your taste ain't geared to Zelda but anytime I see someone claim each Zelda is the same it comes more across as someone who doesn't really play the games as it's like saying 3rd Strike is the same as SFIV, the are significant differences in the approach to each game and it's mechanics and many people go back to OOT even today.

I also don't know what games you were playing back then to think the controls where hideous and sluggish because its control scheme is the template for many 3d adventure games today they were well suited to the 3d adventure genre, before OOT many games used the tank control system that RE utilized.

Again, revolutionary doesn't mean it was timeless.  I've stated on multiple occasions that I know the game was a massive leap forward in game design (it and Super mario 64).  It did in fact do great things for the industry, but that doesn't mean it's the best game ever, or that it was head and shoudlers above better games just because it did something first, even if it didn't do it well.  By that logic, Resistance: Burning Skies will forever be the best first person shooter on the Vita becuase it was the first to do so, even if other games will certainly come out and do it better.  

And seriously?  Zelda isn't my taste?  A Link to the Past is my 3rd favorite game of all time (I've recently went back and beat it and got 100% on it for the 5000'th time), The Wind Waker remains one of my top games of all time residing just outside of my top ten, and Twilight princess was THE reason I got a Wii (though I loved the wii's first year or so).  The original zelda is a classic and remains one of the few NES games I've been able to go back and beat, and Minish cap and Links Awakening are two of the best games ever to release on any gameboy.  I love zelda with a passion, and have as long as I've been into gaming; just becuase I don't like the one game everyone fawns over doesn't mean I don't like the style.  It also doesn't mean I'm ignorant. 

And really, how can you argue that it's not 'the same game over and over again'?  I'm aware they're not identical, but every zelda has followed a pretty rigid structure consisting of beating dungeons to get new items and magical artifacts in order to get the master sword and beat ganon. Kakariko village is in most of the games, the hero always looks the same, and a lot of the puzzles are recycled.  There may be new items and new dungeons and a slightly altered story in each one, but that doesn't change the fact that the games are basically the same.  This can also be said about mario, but mario has never been about story or world building, the plot and setting have always just been tools used to set up the platforming in those games.  

The jump from Link to the Past to Ocarina of Time was really, REALLY similar, and Twilight princess followed a similar pattern.  all of which involved an introduction, three pendants, a boss battle, a transition to another parallel world, and a series of temples that requires you shift back and forth between worlds to get items and heart pieces.  A lot of the puzzles in Ocarina were virtually identical but in 3D.  To someone whos first Zelda was Link to the PAst, Ocarina of Time just felt like the same game.  At least Wind Waker had a VERY different feel to it thanks to the art direction and open sea.