Turn Based Combat has been a staple of games since 1972 (DnD). While the intricacies of turn-based combat change, there will always be a place for it. Back when I was a kid I used to agree that it was absurd to chose from a menu and let my characters do the attacking for me, but then I grew up and saw value in more than what was at that time a pretty narrow view on games. (Platformers, shooters, and action/adventure games were all I played back then.) 

and, as far as the gameplay in Ocarina goes vs even Wind Waker or Twilight Princess, it feels clunky and stiff. Movement is a pain in the ass, the game's pace was not ideal for how the character moved (Especially across hyrule field), and overall there was a lot of room to improve. 

the Turn Based battle systems of Final Fantasy and other JRPG games have advanced, but most of the innovation in that genre was parallel to FFVII. Things changed, things were different, but not necessarily better. I can still play FFI (the original on NES or any of its remakes) and enjoy it because there's nothing inherently wrong with the battle system. IT's simple, but it's not clunky and doesn't feel stiff. if I try to play OOT, all I can think about is how much better even Wind Waker was. This is the main reason I actually like Twilight Princess more than Ocarina of Time. I do agree that OOT brought the most innovation, but just like 95% of all games that came out on N64 and PS1, the games just didn't age well. Final Fantasy, Castlevania, MarioKart, and a handful of others were the only games from that generation of consoles I Can stand to play anymore. 

While OoT definitely doesn't have the smoothest movement and combat as a result of being an early 3D game, to me it feels far less archaic than watching characters just stand there then take turns to perform actions one at a time with little player input beyond just issuing commands. Real time combat just feels so much more dynamic and alive. I feel like there's a good reason why gaming largely moved on from turn-based combat. It just always felt like a holdover from the old days of card and board games, and the development of proper real time combat systems in games like OoT rendered it obsolete. Again, just my opinion.

I think we have to accept that we're just not gonna agree here. Nothing wrong with that. 

Turn Based Combat has been a staple of games since 1972 (DnD). While the intricacies of turn-based combat change, there will always be a place for it. Back when I was a kid I used to agree that it was absurd to chose from a menu and let my characters do the attacking for me, but then I grew up and saw value in more than what was at that time a pretty narrow view on games. (Platformers, shooters, and action/adventure games were all I played back then.) 

and, as far as the gameplay in Ocarina goes vs even Wind Waker or Twilight Princess, it feels clunky and stiff. Movement is a pain in the ass, the game's pace was not ideal for how the character moved (Especially across hyrule field), and overall there was a lot of room to improve. 

the Turn Based battle systems of Final Fantasy and other JRPG games have advanced, but most of the innovation in that genre was parallel to FFVII. Things changed, things were different, but not necessarily better. I can still play FFI (the original on NES or any of its remakes) and enjoy it because there's nothing inherently wrong with the battle system. IT's simple, but it's not clunky and doesn't feel stiff. if I try to play OOT, all I can think about is how much better even Wind Waker was. This is the main reason I actually like Twilight Princess more than Ocarina of Time. I do agree that OOT brought the most innovation, but just like 95% of all games that came out on N64 and PS1, the games just didn't age well. Final Fantasy, Castlevania, MarioKart, and a handful of others were the only games from that generation of consoles I Can stand to play anymore. 

While OoT definitely doesn't have the smoothest movement and combat as a result of being an early 3D game, to me it feels far less archaic than watching characters just stand there then take turns to perform actions one at a time with little player input beyond just issuing commands. Real time combat just feels so much more dynamic and alive. I feel like there's a good reason why gaming largely moved on from turn-based combat. It just always felt like a holdover from the old days of card and board games, and the development of proper real time combat systems in games like OoT rendered it obsolete. Again, just my opinion.

No it did not start that way, but pretty much every Zelda after Zelda 2 has a focus on puzzles and dungeons...expect BotW...which still has a crap ton of puzzles.

I think people criticizing movement in Ocarina of Time, fail to take into account a few things. First no action adventure game in that generation actually had better controls and movement than OoT. Second and perhaps more important: the game ran at 24fps. Obviously if you boot up a solid 30fps WW and switch back to the original OoT, Link's movement will feel a bit off beat.

Nobody fails to take into account anything. The game is criticized for its flaws and that’s as fine as praising it for its achievements. While the concepts were good, the execution was lacking mostly due to technical issues such as the headache inducing frame rate, and [for me personally], the stupidly designed N64 controller. 

What you are doing with this post of yours is being an apologist. Which indicates that you put a blindfold when it comes to the game’s flaws.

I am judging the game for what it was in 1998, which was as flawless as 3-D games got. You are clearly hating on the N64, as I actually felt the game played incredibly well on its controller, I found the 3DS version a little harder to control actually. 

A game doesn't get a 99 Metacritc based on great concepts, the execution was nearly flawless. The framerate was fine until the new machines came around. You are trying to revise history in your post.

I am hating on it because I find flaws in it. Because I don’t, and never have,  praise it like it’s the second coming the way so many of you do. Sure buddy. Sure.

I played the game on the N64 back when it came out. And my opinion of it has been consistent since then.

And I am not basing my opinion of it based on a stupid metacritic score that was put after the fact, despite most reviews for the game having been mostly in printed magazines. Unlike current games, it is impossible to get a correct metacritic score because reviews used for the aggregate aren’t all readily available. Some magazine went out of business, for example. So you make of this whatever you will. 

But I’ll reiterate: I don’t need you or anyone else to form myself an opinion of something. What I mention being flaws, you can overlook them all you want, the framerate wasn’t flawless and you already admitted as much.

So even if only based on this, the game wasn’t flawless. I don’t need to do like you and put a blindfold. I played the game in 1998, and I thought as much of it back then.

Interestingly enough, I am not saying the game is bad in any way. Just that it has flaws. And you take this as hating. This is making me laugh.