I can't agree with him because its mostly wrong about OOT and since Wyrdness and ksv saved me the extreme difficulty of what I was going to explain I will just steaerr quote what they said. So this:

"OOT can be classed as timeless not because it was the first 3D adventure game but because it showed the industry how to utilize a fully 3D world even today games utilize it's template and what it brought, that in itself is timeless. It may be your taste ain't geared to Zelda but anytime I see someone claim each Zelda is the same it comes more across as someone who doesn't really play the games as it's like saying 3rd Strike is the same as SFIV, the are significant differences in the approach to each game and it's mechanics and many people go back to OOT even today.

I also don't know what games you were playing back then to think the controls where hideous and sluggish because its control scheme is the template for many 3d adventure games today they were well suited to the 3d adventure genre, before OOT many games used the tank control system that RE utilized."

And that:

"Since games are a medium that are so affected by changes in technology, you cannot fairly compare a 1998 game with a 2012 game. OoT is still ranked "the best of all time" because it was groundbreaking and revolutionary in nearly everything it did. Mechanics, gameplay, camera placement, presentation, scope, depth, and most of all, feel.

It is to games what Citizen Kane is to movies. Citizen Kane may look dated today, but it pioneered so many movie techniques and conventions that it is still regard as the best movie ever by many.

When you say best ever, best of all time, etc, that does not mean you can look at the game out of it's historical context, you just can't.

Ocarina of Time blew people's minds when it was released. It was simply unbelievable that such an amazing experience could be created back in 1998.

That subsequent games improved and refined the formula and ultimately are "better" games out of context, these games would never have happened if it weren't for OoT."

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.  

I also forgot to mention how much i dislike the day/night cycle. At first I thought it was cool, just because it was the first time i'd seen a day/night cycle in a game. But it was so annoying when I wanted to get into town but I had to stand and bash away at constantly spawning monsters waiting for the sun to come up so the bloody drawbridge would be lowered. As was having to go into the field and wait for the time to change in order to do particular side quests and such.

Of course when you learn the day and night songs it stops being an issue.

Also it doesn't make the world seem bigger when travelling across it (as intended apparently) It just makes the day/night cycle seem really, really short in this world. Unless my character is in a town... because that causes time to stop apparently... I know it's suppossed to be one of those things you just accept because it's a game... but seriously how is that suppossed to work? XD

How could I forget the irritating day / night cycle nonsense? Also, why have such an enormous world when you populate it with so little? A gigantic, empty world just feels so lifeless. It also makes it a pain to backtrack before you get the teleportation songs.

Indeed. Replaying some older games usually shows how bad they are by todays standards.

Examples:
FIFA 98 or 99. Still regarded as the best football games and they were bloody fantastic back then. But aside from the licensed soundtrack and the indoor arena (in 98), it's pretty pathetic compared to the newest entry in the series.

Perfect Dark. Played the remastered XBLA version..... below average level design (copy & paste, corridors etc.), disastrous gunplay and repetitive graphics. Barely tolerable as a $10 game.

Goldeneye. Genre has been flooded with FPS and even the most average ones have a better single or multiplayer.

I despise puzzles in games.

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.

Revolutionary does not mean timeless, since the definitions are different, and they refer to different things.  A game can be timeless and revolutionary, but that doesn't mean one can equal the other. Correlation =/= causation and all that jazz. 

And seriously?  The resistance argument was supposed to be absurd, that was kind of the point.  Your logic that something can be timeless just becuase it was revolutionary, while logical to the simple minded, is wrong, I was just showing you why by showing you a simpler to decipher case. 

And seriously dude, don't lecture me on how changes are sooooo different in a series that has always had the same basic idea behind it.  And no, simplifying ANY game to an extreme to claim that all games follow the same logic is just wrong and faulty and full of logical holes.  Why in the world are people allowed to get away with that?  it's one of the most frustrating logical fallacies. If you simplify enough, you can claim any one game is fundamentally similar to another.  Final fantasies are all the same?  Sure, let's go with that, completely different worlds, characters, stories, fighting systems, and gameplay elements, but hey, they all use a variation on turn based combat and share some thematic elements like crystals.  oh, and the protagonists are almsot always male, square enix must by mysogynist. No, that logic does not work.  

Zela happens in the same world, reusing locations, reusing puzzles, reusing  a hero and gameplay style, and many of them share VERY important thematic elements and features that are supposed to make them stand out.  When Link to the Past did alternate parallel worlds, that was supposed to be a very specific way to make it stand out, but then a few years later Ocarina did the SAME thing by doing young link and old link worlds.  exact same idea with a slight variation (time instead of dimensions).  Then Twilight princess did it.  that's a VERY specific gameplay feature to repeat, especially considering just how important both were to each game's respective stories. Same with the temple layout.  Go to three dungeons to get the courage, wisdom, and power amulets to unlock a secret awesomeness! I know not ALL zeldas do this, but the fact that three follow a very specific layout kind of shows the progression of that basic idea.  IT's just so frustrating when dealing with people who constantly resort to strawman fallacies to make ANY argument nullified becuase THEY don't see it that way.  

Also, you're getting VERY defensive.  Never once did I say any of these games are bad, or that reusing elements is bad.  I am, however, saying that the Zelda games are very similar, and in some ways feel like it's being copied and pasted with a different coat of paint, especially with those three examples.  

My top 5 would have the likes of:

* M.U.L.E

* Civilization

* Borderlands/Borderlands 2

* Zillions of Games

* Something else I don't recall offhand now.  I could name a number of them.

Reality here is that as much as I think Zelda is cool, I don't have room for it.  Do I have issue with people thinking it is their top 5 game?  No I don't.  But, for me, it isn't there.

The resistance example is weak because the point being put across to you by not just me but someone else as well is that OOT is a great game that pioneered many of the 3D adventure aspects that's why it's heavily liked and considered timeless not because it was the first which makes your Resistance example not only m00t but has no bearing what so ever because OOT being the first is not the main reason and it's also puts an amusing irony here due to your "strawman fallacies" comment. The usual "don't get defensive" approach as per usual comes up when someone is pulled on their post I see. Revolution doesn't mean Timeless but it can help make something timeless.

Yes I'll will point out the changes whether you want to accept it or not, a basic idea doesn't make them the same you've homed in on vague similarities and I'll point out the flaws even if you find it hard to swallow. An example is MM is nowhere near the same as OOT even if you have dungeons in both, one game has you manipulating the flow of time to advert a disaster the other is a straight up 3D adventure, one places the player in a cycle of an active world which the player has to interact with to achieve their goal while the other has the player going on an adventure  which is dictated by events in the story, one uses mechanics governed utilization of abilities of other races in the Zelda lore (Gorons, Zoras, Deku) the other requires use of inventory, one takes place in Termina the other in Hyrule (so much for always in the same locations). Zelda happens in the same world well guess what so does games like Resident Evil, Metal Gear etc... what dismantles this notion is that WW, Oracles, MM and LA don't take place in Hyrule at all.

The Final Fantasy example was an example of how your own example is flawed and it's hilarious that you just proved me right even more, as for the character Link for someone who loves Zelda with a passion this part calls you out, OOT's Link design has only been used in 4 games OOT, MM, TP and SWS the other games utilize different designs (so that's the same argument look out the window) and any Zelda fan with half a brain knows why Link is always present he's the incarnation of the original Hero of the Goddess each Link, Ganon and Zelda are not the same (same hero notion out the window) it's an on going cycle between good and evil in the series and the incarnations of the goddess, hero and darkness are locked in it do you even know why the princesses are called Zelda? Ofcourse gameplay styles are similar they're adventure games much like other game franchises have similar gameply elements and styles in their installments.

Could care less is you never said the games were bad I'll still pull your post if the are things I don't agree with or see as flawed.