MTZehvor said:
Well, I certainly spent the greatest amount of time saying what I thought Okami did better than Zelda (which will usually be places Zelda screwed up that Okami didn't), but that seems kind of the first place to start for a thread arguing why one game is better than others. I think apart from the things I mentioned, the games are pretty equivalent. Both Okami and Zelda have enjoyable combat that I think leans a little too far in the direction of easy, both have some really memorable soundtracks, and both games have some really well designed basic control schemes. I mentioned at the bottom that I wish Okami was more like Zelda in terms of puzzle difficulty. Outside of that, not a lot comes to mind in terms of differences I could discuss that I feel like would be interesting/helpful to discuss. |
My concern is that a few of the faults you placed on Zelda were not faults of every game, you even said a few times "All except (insert specific Zelda game) had this problem." This is the downfall of comparing one unique entry to an entire series of games. Also I think your concern about LoZ being repetitive only has merit if somebody plays more than one Zelda game. A person's first Zelda game isn't so formulaic I would think, and does have that sense of advaneture you described of Okami. Having played Okamiden after playing Okami it fell into the same pattern (purge area of darkness -> solve problem -> explore clean environment.) Also Okami has the issue of recycling the same bosses not twicely, but thricely. Okami changed its formula throughout the game after different lengths of time, but so have Zelda games (OoT child vs. adult link, TP various different patterns throughout each stage of the game, etc, etc.)
Overall, Okami is a masterpiece, as are some Zelda games. So yeah, the differences are miniscule.
