Otter said:
Malt4zar said:
Ocarina of Time is my favorite game of all time (original, i known) but i have to ask, who is this really for?
The original game is AMAZING for it's time, and that time was 1998. There are games on it's on series that surpasses it in scale. Like, what's the plan here? Hyrule field for instance is sooo tiny and uninteresting, no amount of realistic trees and bushes wiil be enough to hide that fact. BUT, if they changed it too much, it wouldn't be Ocarina of Time anymore, would it be? Hyrule field is more like a hub world akin to princess peach castle than a sprolling open world, and that was totaly fine for it's time, it worked. The tecnology wasn't there yet.
My point is, i think a sequel would be a lot better. I consider Twilight Princess to be pretty much a "Ocarina of Time 2". So a knew entry akin to this two games would make a lot more sense.
I'm not saying that the game is going to sell porly or anything like that, just to be clear. I'm just talking strictly as a fan of the original. |
The Blueprint of Ocarina of time is still incredible and I'd say its easily best paced and varied Zelda by a long shot if you're looking for a blockbuster experience. It absolutely deserves to be archived in a modern form for fans to relieve and for the almost 20m new fans (since BOTW) to visit for the first time.
The music and locals are truly iconic and there hasn't been a more whimsical and tone setting introduction that the one in OOTs Kokiri Village. Within 15mins you can be within your first distinct dungeon, a completely tonally and narratively distinct area and not just 1/100 shrines (Looking at you BOTW/TOTK). You've glimpse the evil that is Gandondorf, you've entered the great deku's mouth to purify it of a curse. It really epitomises the spirit of Zelda in a way other entries do not, no matter how much bigger or more complex their worlds are.
Scale really isn't the be and end all of immersion.
The young and adult dynamic shifts the world in a way which remains untouched. Places you remember fondly in the opening hours are now haunted or have completely different dynamics/character relations.
Comparatively Windwaker is bloated and less varied. The core component of Twilight Princess (The twilight world) is ugly and repetitive. Skyword sword has you sit through 30mins of text dialogue just to get the game started and then makes you backtrack half way through the game in one of the worst ways we've seen in a Zelda game. BOTW/TOTK lack momentum and dedicated levels design.
OOT is peak Zelda. It's fair you bring up Hyrule field but i don't think that is really a conundrum in solving it. If you fill the main hub world with a few more interesting gameplay dynamics, sidequests and content, no one is going to say you've ruined the game lol
_____________________________________________ That's a great point, i agree.
But let's talk about what this title means, for the videogame industry as a whole. Apart of being a great game on it's own right, a big appeal of ocarina is it's revolutionary status. Adventure games were never the same after oot realeased on the n64. Heck, 3D gaming as a whole were never the same again. I don't think you're be able to replicate it's importance with just some new graphics and that's were comes the dilema. Oot is a revolution in gaming, and that's a really big aspect of the title. So, haven said that, there are two ways to go about this remake. You either make a faithful recreation, including it's faults that were there because of hardware restrictions (i.g Tiny and uninteresting hyrule field, in a world post Witcher 3 and BOTW) OR you make big ass changes that completely changes the formula, but at that point you can't call it "Ocarina of Time" anymore. I completely agree when you said that this Zelda has the best pace in the series, but a simple coat of paint won't cut it. We have OOT 3d for that and some unofficial realeases on the pc. Change to much, and you have a complete diferent experience. Either way, a new game in the oot style would have been better in my opinion. |