By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Worst 3D Zelda?

 

Worst one?

Ocarina of TT 60 11.90%
 
Majora's Mask 88 17.46%
 
The Wii Wii Waker 85 16.87%
 
Twilight Princess 106 21.03%
 
Skyward Sword 165 32.74%
 
Total:504
Nintentacle said:
prayformojo said:
Anyone who says OOT wasn't old enough to either play it when it launched, or appreciate just how mind blowing it was.

Seriously.

IMO, just because the game was mind blowing at the time, it doesn't mean another game can be better than it to people.


Which takes more skill and which is more impressive? A game that redfines the way video games are played? Or a game that refines a game that redfines the way video games are played?

OOT was a master stroke. It was an abosolute mastery of art and design. The distance between itself and all other 3D games in it's era was as wide as it could get. When you compare WW to it, you must keep that in mind. At the time, we ALL had played OOT and we thought WW was just more of the same, with cartoon graphics, easier difficulty and boring fetch quests. It didn't wow us. It didn't have much of an impact at all.

In order to judge a game, you must only compare it to it's peers. You can only judge it by what other games were being released at the time it was released. And when you do that, OOT stands alone.



Around the Network

Twilight Princess, in my opinion. The story and tone just didn't appeal to me.



   

Phantom Hourglass.



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

sundin13 said:
JakDaSnack said:
 

Well, if you left your house for 7 years and then came back only to find your house burned down with a bunch of zombies walking around, you might find that things "drastically changed" :P  I'm not talking about the sidequests because that's standard, I'm more talking about the main quest.  Switching timelines to go to a new area was still faster than switching from one zone to another in SS:P  It wasn't as obvious in TP and WW, with skyward sword you basically had a line on the ground that you followed that took you from puzzle to puzzle.  The strongest feature was the puzzles, and unlike the other games, they had puzzles to get to the dungeons, rather than just puzzles in the dungeons.  That was a really cool feature but it kind of just made it feel like one larger dungeon.

Now come on, do you really think you can change someones minds with an online discussion?  Seriously...come on, that never happens:P  At least for me, or maybe I'm just terribly bad at debates.  I mostly do this because I enjoy it, I like being reminded of some of the best parts of zelda games.  I really really enjoyed SS, but I am aware of its flaws, which were the unreliable controls and the fact that it was more linear and more repetitive than previous iterations.  That being said, it did have the strongest puzzles, and if you happened to be one of the lucky few who actually had next to no problems with the controls, then I can imagine you having a fantastic gaming experience:)  But if you actually tried the controls on different tv's, the problems become quite obvious...and frustrating....

"Well, if you left your house for 7 years and then came back only to find your house burned down with a bunch of zombies walking around, you might find that things "drastically changed": I guess that was kind of cool the first time I was in town, but I was actually thinking about Death Mountain and the Zora's place which just got really boring after the time switch. Overall, I think the execution was very lacking and it didn't marry with gameplay very well...

"That was a really cool feature but it kind of just made it feel like one larger dungeon.": Thats probably a part of why I liked it so much. The dungeons are usually the best part of Zelda games, while the overworlds tend to be bland middle men between them, so making the overworld more like a dungeon was a huge plus for me.

Anyways, yeah, I didn't really expect to change anyones mind, it just makes me a little sad to see so many people talking down about a game that I love, and focusing on certain parts when there is so much good to be found in other parts. Also, that issue with the different TV is very strange, as there is no reason in the technology for that to matter (the game didn't use the IR sensor, so sensor bar positioning wouldn't matter)...Either way, I can see the frustration if the controls don't work, but I still feel like it may be a problem with the user and not the game :P Maybe I'm just a natural swordsman or something haha ^.^

The type of TV wouldn't do anything. It's just the issue of motion controls. They will read incorrect inputs randomly. For example: I can't play Mario Kart 8 with the Wii Wheel. It has a delay with the turning. And I've had drifting trigger left, when In hopped right. I wasn't getting any stars in 100cc. The moment I bought the Pro controller, I cleared the whole game. The problem lies with the center shifting. It was real easy to get the controller to screw up after a few times using the beetle. I do love motion controls in a ton of games. But SS had bad error issues. I did like the other aspects of the game. I'm not bashing the whole thing. SS did a lot of good. It just had more negative problems then the good. 



Twilight Princess. It wasn't a bad game by any means but it was too easy. A product of nintendo's 'games for granma's' period I'd rather forget about.



Around the Network

A lot of people trying to downplay Ocarina's greatness are failing to recall two major things - one, the bosses are easily the best in the 3D series - hands down (pun intended) - and two, the story is by far the most advanced and best overall. None of the rest even come close on either of those, and I find both are major factors in Zelda games.


My least favorite is TP. I've never been able to make myself play through it more than once. I've tried. I can't do it.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

@metrium lol what ?? Is dungeons a must to have just because its a Zelda game? I find WW to be the most entertaining and fun ZELDA game to play. Guess thats probbaly because you don't have to go from one dungeon to anoteher adn to another which makes the game quite boring to play



prayformojo said:
Nintentacle said:
prayformojo said:
Anyone who says OOT wasn't old enough to either play it when it launched, or appreciate just how mind blowing it was.

Seriously.

IMO, just because the game was mind blowing at the time, it doesn't mean another game can be better than it to people.


Which takes more skill and which is more impressive? A game that redfines the way video games are played? Or a game that refines a game that redfines the way video games are played?

OOT was a master stroke. It was an abosolute mastery of art and design. The distance between itself and all other 3D games in it's era was as wide as it could get. When you compare WW to it, you must keep that in mind. At the time, we ALL had played OOT and we thought WW was just more of the same, with cartoon graphics, easier difficulty and boring fetch quests. It didn't wow us. It didn't have much of an impact at all.

In order to judge a game, you must only compare it to it's peers. You can only judge it by what other games were being released at the time it was released. And when you do that, OOT stands alone.

OK, let's compare Ocarina to Xenogears. I know it's not fair to compare an action adventure to a straight RPG, but there really aren't that many games from 1998 which people still talk about. 

1. Gameplay: Ocarina. Xenogears' gameplay was not bad by any means, as chaining combos and piloting gears both worked well, but Ocarina shaped modern action titles, particularly if they used swords. The Ocarina influence on Dark Souls is significant.

2. Graphics: N64 games will always look better than PSOne games, but Xenogears was no slouch, either. It uses traditional anime/ Square techniques to cover it's shortcomings as best it can.

3. Story: Xenogears. Xenogears runs circles around Ocarina in this department. Other Zelda games--both before and after, but mostly after after--prove that Zelda can tell good stories when it wants to.

4. Total Length: Xenogears. 130+ hours, anybody?

 

So no, in context Ocarina was really, REALLY good, but it doesn't deserve the oodles of praise no game could ever live up to. It was a good game, but it had some critical shortcomings and has since been thoroughly eclipsed.



Egann said:
prayformojo said:
Nintentacle said:
prayformojo said:
Anyone who says OOT wasn't old enough to either play it when it launched, or appreciate just how mind blowing it was.

Seriously.

IMO, just because the game was mind blowing at the time, it doesn't mean another game can be better than it to people.


Which takes more skill and which is more impressive? A game that redfines the way video games are played? Or a game that refines a game that redfines the way video games are played?

OOT was a master stroke. It was an abosolute mastery of art and design. The distance between itself and all other 3D games in it's era was as wide as it could get. When you compare WW to it, you must keep that in mind. At the time, we ALL had played OOT and we thought WW was just more of the same, with cartoon graphics, easier difficulty and boring fetch quests. It didn't wow us. It didn't have much of an impact at all.

In order to judge a game, you must only compare it to it's peers. You can only judge it by what other games were being released at the time it was released. And when you do that, OOT stands alone.

OK, let's compare Ocarina to Xenogears. I know it's not fair to compare an action adventure to a straight RPG, but there really aren't that many games from 1998 which people still talk about. 

1. Gameplay: Ocarina. Xenogears' gameplay was not bad by any means, as chaining combos and piloting gears both worked well, but Ocarina shaped modern action titles, particularly if they used swords. The Ocarina influence on Dark Souls is significant.

2. Graphics: N64 games will always look better than PSOne games, but Xenogears was no slouch, either. It uses traditional anime/ Square techniques to cover it's shortcomings as best it can.

3. Story: Xenogears. Xenogears runs circles around Ocarina in this department. Other Zelda games--both before and after, but mostly after after--prove that Zelda can tell good stories when it wants to.

4. Total Length: Xenogears. 130+ hours, anybody?

 

So no, in context Ocarina was really, REALLY good, but it doesn't deserve the oodles of praise no game could ever live up to. It was a good game, but it had some critical shortcomings and has since been thoroughly eclipsed.

You're entitled with your opinion, but I completely disagree. There's a reason OOT is considered the GOAT and it's not because it was second class when it released. 

How can Xenogears be better than OOT when it wasn't even considered better than the FF games that were on the same system and belonged to the same GENRE? 



JazzB1987 said:

if all then i gues Phantom Hourglass because of the shitty controls. And visiting the same place so many times was somewhat annoying.

If home consoles only
=Twilight Princess because of huge but empty world worst race design ever (after talking about an ancient mythical tribe living in the clouds etc and the awesome look of the zoras etc. I expected something better than skinhead chickens with boobs) and it has translation errors in some versions. It also has "you got a green rupee its worth 1 rupee" shit every time you start the game. Epona was semi useless because of the wolf etc...  also the game relies way to much on nostalgia (lost woods, temple of time, epona etc.)

but I have to say the end of the game was pretty awesome.


3D Zelda games, phantom hourglass was a top down zelda game