I can understand being invested in the Zelda character in this game. That said, it's imprtant to remember how much presence she has in the story. Outside of the tutorial, the ending, and a single 10-minute cutscene, she has exactly 4 lines and maybe 3 minutes on-screen. Like I said before, her parts, the best parts, are just a few moments. And the reason these moments probably stick out so prominently is because the rest of the story is so inconsequential and forgettable.

As far as the role of story, a story is exactly a matter of getting stuff done. Establishing and developing characters and setting and advancing the plot are what a story is supposed to do. If your story isn't doing those things, it's just wasting your time. OoT does those things; Skyward Sword, less so.

-It's implied through dialogue that Link was supposed to escort Zelda. Except she went off without him, so he was forced to play catch-up. Except when he does catch-up, he's told to back off. Basically, he's just being jerked around for no good reason.

-Ghirahim toying with Link made sense the first time. Maybe the second time, at a stretch. The third time, after Link stops being a nuisance and actively interferes with his plans, Ghirahim claims he's not going to make the same mistake again, and then does just that.

-"Buidling his skill" strikes me as a cop-out. The same could be said for spending 5 hours grinding in an RPG, and it has just as much impact on the story. During that time, Link unlocks the other areas of the map, which is so inconsequential it can be removed entirely with no effect on the plot.

-The Song of the Hero is the last round of questing required before the endgame. You have to seek out 4 dragons to get the pieces of the Song given to them by Hylia. Except it's all pointless because Hylia, either through Zelda or her servant Impa, could have just given Link the song instead. It's just a contrived excuse to pad out the game.

or maybe people think it's a legitimately well designed game, also for some reason the nostalgia argument applies to OoT but not to Wind Waker or Majora's Mask, I bet a lot of people here have nostalgia for the Gamecube era.

Wind Waker was one of my very first video games, and that didn't stop me to consider this game enormously boring (I blame the sealing), although today I appreciate it more, even more when the HD edition released. But even then, Wind Waker feels more polished and solid than Ocarina of Time.

I mean, come on, Ocarina of Time's "puzzles" are very archaic and combat is dull, I don't understand the praise it gets today because it's not 1998 anymore, every single other game of the series in consoles has surpassed this one.

OoT doesn't have any more character development than SS though.

- Again, Link isn't ready yet, Shiekah openly questions if he's even the one since he has so far to go still.

- Again, Ghirahim is arrogant to a fault. Besides which, by the second time you fight him, you're actually strong enough that its not like he can just kill you on a  whim.

- No offense, but I think you're reading way too deep into the story. It's a Zelda game, contrivance comes with the territory.

No, it does not. But 2/3 is better than Skyward Sword managed.

-Impa questions Link's abilities because he was too late to save Zelda. Except the reason he's too late is because Zelda left him behind. And the only reason Impa got there is because she apparently has a key to the temple's backdoor, otherwise how did she get there first despite the temple still being locked up tight when Link gets there?

-Again, that attitude shouldn't have persisted past the point where Link was directly interfering with Ghirahim's plans. At that point, it goes beyond arrogance into outright stupidity. In OoT, Ganondorf does the same thing, but he has a logical reason for doing so.

-Again, I don't understand this attitude. Could you give me some examples?

No character is OoT ever engaged me like SS Zelda did.

As for Impa having a key, well, again, this is a series that never has much logic; such as, why would enemies create these elaborate dungeons, just for you to solve? Why did Ganondorf not just kill Link at the drawbridge in Oot? Why do characters like King of the Red Lions/Navi/Zelda constantly withhold critical info from Link just cos the player isn't supposed to know yet? Applying logic to Zelda is like trying to apply real world physics to a Looney Toons cartoon.

No objection here. All I ask is perspective. In the end, Zelda is little more than a plot device; fairly well-written and characterized, but still that. If the story were a car, it'd be one with bad fuel efficiency, an unreliable engine, and GPS navigation that you can't turn off. It would have very comfy seats and well-trimmed interior, though.

-I should think the difference between mechanics and story would be apparent. Is an RPG story nonsensical because NPCs don't move? Does the story of an FPS stop making sense because the player can respawn? Does the story of Wind Waker stop making sense because character models are unnaturally proportioned? The fact that dungeon layouts aren't logical has no effect on the story.

-Ganondorf spares Link because he was using him to advance his goals. Without someone to pull the Master Sword and unlock the Sacred Realm, he could not claim the Triforce.

-I never actually finished Wind Waker, so I can't say anything about the King of Red Lions. As far as Navi goes, I don't remember her witholding anything from Link. Am I missing something?

That's the thing though, the characters, like the dungeons, are there to serve as cogs in the game's progression. They do what they do so that the game can proceedf as the developers intendd. As with the dungeons, that often compromises logic, but I'm not complaining as long as it results in a game that is fun to play. Gameplay should always take priority over story  in my opinion.

I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this.