Hynad said:
Dude, let me refresh your memory, unless you didn’t even read the OP. The OP asks: Which you you prefer, and why? It isn’t asking us to question their rightful place in gaming history, or attempt a wanking contest about which is objectively better than the other. If you aren’t capable of accepting that someone sees flaws in something, or that something that doesn’t bother you may bother someone else, then you should definitely try maturing up a little. Simply because others don’t see exactly the way you do, doesn’t make them wrong. I managed to articulate some of the things that bothered me with OoT. And somehow, you can’t fathom it. I would suggest you get over it. |
Your articulations are opinions, not facts. A fact is that you are in the minority regarding the game. They are not wrong in your view, but they are in mine. This is a place for debate and as such I will debate your opinion with mine. If you aren't capable of being contradicted, then that's your issue.
“Rarely is there such a perfect mixture of graphics, sound, and gameplay that even the most cynical players will admit that Zelda 64 is poised to shape the action RPG genre for years to come.”-IGN
“The control really holds the game together. Most 3D game designers still haven't mastered the art of controlling characters in a 3D environment, but that's not the case here. Link moves beautifully, and controlling his various actions is a breeze. “ -Gamespot
That was the general consensus in 1998. If the framerate was so "headache" inducing, and the controls clunky, I can't see how the game would be recieved so well by so many. You seem to have a deep issue with that fact for some strange reason.
