| Runa216 said: 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. |
Revolutionary can mean timeless especially if it influences many games after it even in the modern day, at the time OOT was hands down a massive splash to the industry and games for years couldn't match it in quality even when using it's design template, this easily warrants it to be considered to be best game ever by many and media outlets even if you don't like the game, you want even more proof of OOT being timeless you have it here people still talk about the game today and like it. Your Resistance example is one of the weakest counter arguments I've ever read by far and that says a lot having been on various boards, the game has set no bar, influenced little in the industry and is considered of mediocre quality by many a far cry from OOTs situation it's almost as if you desperately tried to be smart with this example.
Liking a few Zelda games doesn't mean it's to your taste and your all Zelda is the same attitude makes you look ignorant it sounds to me that you just skimmed through a few Zelda games and think they're the same this is shown by how you focus on a few elements and use them as proof for your stance. LOZ was free roaming adventure game with no structure to it and is Zelda in a bare basic form, Zelda 2 had reworked combat and a more RPG style approach which changed it drastically from LOZ, ALTTP gave Zelda games a structure and made them more story driven, OOT built on ALTTP's approach and pioneered a templated for 3d adventures, MM had a vastly different structure and goal with a shift in mechanics, WW had strong focus to the game's world and like MM had less of a focus on dungeons, TP had a sole focus on the story while SWS has a drastically different approach then any other Zelda in it's structure, mechanics and design.
The experience from each of these games differs with only TP feeling similar to OOT, by your logic Half-Life2 is the same as the original because it has aliens, guns and Gordon Freeman, FF is the same because of recurring references and themes, Street Fighter is the 2d because it's a 2d fighter and has Ryu and Ken vague similarities don't make games the same mate. We don't care that you don't like OOT some of us just think some of the arguments being thrown around against it are flawed or reeked of people trying to be some sort of hipster.
