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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Top The Legend of Zelda Games!

 

What is actually the best Zelda game?

Zelda: Game and Watch 8 3.94%
 
Link: The Faces of Evil 11 5.42%
 
Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon 11 5.42%
 
Zelda’s Adventure 5 2.46%
 
Freshly Picked Tingle’s Rosy Rupeeland 19 9.36%
 
Tingle’s Balloon Fight 9 4.43%
 
Link’s Crossbow Training 39 19.21%
 
Picross - Twilight Princess 18 8.87%
 
Other 35 17.24%
 
See Results 48 23.65%
 
Total:203
Nuvendil on 18 October 2016
curl-6 said:
Nuvendil said:

1) If Sailing is coma inducing than traversing OoT's green void could straight up kill a man.  At least the sea had enemy outposts you could take down, small islands to find for side activities, treasures to fish up, and some visual movement.  Hyrule Field in OoT is a flat green emptiness with virtually nothing of worth to be found.  And what's worse, whenever you are young Link you have to run, slowly, aggonizingly around.  And with Wind Waker HD, the Sailing becomes convenient quite early on and you even get an adequate fast travel system.  And I feel the ocean also gives the world a sense of vastness far greater than OoT, which very quickly feels small despite that vast emptiness in between.  

2)  I strongly disagree, but then my taste has grown very broad and flexible over time and not everyone shares the same experiences that shape their tastes in the same way.  And at least there's expressiveness in Wind Waker.  OoT's NPCs all share like 5 expressions grand total.  And the writing is very strong.  But again, taste in art style is is flexible and subjective.  But I would contend it was used exceptionally well and the script played to its strengths. 

Also, I'll concede the dungeons were lacking numerically, but I enjoyed those that were there.  And the combat was a very big step up, the writing was light years past OoT's in terms of characters (seriously, I will continue to contend that OoT *has no true characters*, as characters necessitate more features and fleshing out than OoT gives any NPC) and even surpasses Majora's Mask, and some of the more severe issues like that quest were resolved in the HD version, which is the version I consider the definitive one, similar to OoT3D.  So no, I would contend Wind Waker is a good game, objectively.  I'm not going to keep arguing this cause it's not going to accomplish anything and it's also going to just congest the thread.  So let's just agree to strongly disagree.  

Ocarina's field was a chore, but at least the field didn't take up like 90% of the world with empty nothingness like WW's ocean does.

I actually don't believe there's such thing as a game being good or bad objectively, as all perception of such things is inherently subjective. So it's really all just a matter of opinions. In other words, yeah, agreed to disagree.

Well I'll drop the Wind Waker argument, but I will hold that a degree of objectivity - though not pure objectivity - is possible.  I'm a pretty adament holder to that as a creator myself cause if there are no real quality standards of any kind...then what the crap am I striving towards?  It's a mix, and taste, of course, is always subjective.  

But I think it's very wise to come to recognize that it's possible to not like something that is truly good and to like something that is truly not very good.  I've never gotten a quarter of a way through a Souls game, but I would still give Bloodborne a very high rating, like a 9 or so.  Meanwhile I have spent hundreds of hours with Mount&Blade but I would never in a million years rate it higher than like a 6 cause while it has a lot of original ideas and a good foundation that I have fun with, in terms of presentation, writing, etc...the game is a shit circus.  And to give it much higher than a 6 would be a diservice to games like OoT, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyrim, etc etc etc that stand in the 8+ range.  

But anyways, this is not the place for a philosophical debate of interpretation, evaluation, critique, and all that.  



Around the Network
HoangNhatAnh on 18 October 2016

My top 5 3D Zelda:
1. Ocarina of Time
2. Majora's Mask
3. Wind Waker
4. Twilight Princess
5. Skyward Sword

Haven't played enough 2D Zelda to vote at the moment



Goodnightmoon on 18 October 2016

Yeah, I totally agree with Nuvendil.



Trunkin on 18 October 2016
Miyamotoo said:
Trunkin said:
I'm surprised how well Skyward Sword did. I though people hated that game. I'll definitely have to play it some day.

That Zelda Cycle. :D

Skyward Sword is relly good game despite some flaws (IMO terrible backtracking and most linear Zelda till date).

Eww, backtracking. I remember being insanely hyped for the game when it was first announced, but I couldn't afford it at launch, and eventually a lot of the fan backlash just put an end to my excitement. But you're right, I forgot to take the Zelda Cycle into account.



Platina on 18 October 2016

I'm not familiar with the Zelda Cycle?



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 
          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Around the Network
curl-6 on 18 October 2016
Nuvendil said:
curl-6 said:

Ocarina's field was a chore, but at least the field didn't take up like 90% of the world with empty nothingness like WW's ocean does.

I actually don't believe there's such thing as a game being good or bad objectively, as all perception of such things is inherently subjective. So it's really all just a matter of opinions. In other words, yeah, agreed to disagree.

Well I'll drop the Wind Waker argument, but I will hold that a degree of objectivity - though not pure objectivity - is possible.  I'm a pretty adament holder to that as a creator myself cause if there are no real quality standards of any kind...then what the crap am I striving towards?  It's a mix, and taste, of course, is always subjective.  

But I think it's very wise to come to recognize that it's possible to not like something that is truly good and to like something that is truly not very good.  I've never gotten a quarter of a way through a Souls game, but I would still give Bloodborne a very high rating, like a 9 or so.  Meanwhile I have spent hundreds of hours with Mount&Blade but I would never in a million years rate it higher than like a 6 cause while it has a lot of original ideas and a good foundation that I have fun with, in terms of presentation, writing, etc...the game is a shit circus.  And to give it much higher than a 6 would be a diservice to games like OoT, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyrim, etc etc etc that stand in the 8+ range.  

But anyways, this is not the place for a philosophical debate of interpretation, evaluation, critique, and all that.  

You can respect/admire something without necessarily liking it, I agree, (for instance I respect GTA 5's technological achievements even if I'd rather deep throat a cactus than play it) but the way I see it, even that that respect/admiration is based on what we subjectively think is worthy of respect/admiration.

To bring it back to Zelda, I actually have a hard time these days picking between Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess as my #2 pick behind Ocarina. SS has the better controls, combat, and non-dungeon areas, while TP has the better style, bosses, and partner.



Nuvendil on 18 October 2016
mZuzek said:
curl-6 said:

for instance I respect GTA 5's technological achievements even if I'd rather deep throat a cactus than play it

I highly doubt that.

I don't.   I hold GTA as the single most overrated franchise of all time.  They're not bad, just blown way out of proportion.  And I personally don't enjoy them at all either.



curl-6 on 18 October 2016
Nuvendil said:
mZuzek said:

I highly doubt that.

I don't.   I hold GTA as the single most overrated franchise of all time. 



Nuvendil on 18 October 2016
Platina said:
I'm not familiar with the Zelda Cycle?

Basically, a cycle of fanbase opinions on a title.  A new game comes out and is loved and praised.  Then the honeymoon period wears off and it is cynically criticized ad nauseum, often being compared to a "past gem", until it is ostricized as the "black sheep" of the franchise.  Then later, it is reexamined  more favorably and welcomed back into the fold as an "underrated gem" and eventually becomes declared a classic.   It's not a super smooth transition every time but is fairly reliable.  Much like the Elder Scrolls cycle where ever new game since Daggerfall has "RUINED EVERYTHING" and later that game will become part of the set of classics that the new Elder Scrolls will be "ruining".  Cycles like this are common.



Nuvendil on 18 October 2016
curl-6 said:
Nuvendil said:

Well I'll drop the Wind Waker argument, but I will hold that a degree of objectivity - though not pure objectivity - is possible.  I'm a pretty adament holder to that as a creator myself cause if there are no real quality standards of any kind...then what the crap am I striving towards?  It's a mix, and taste, of course, is always subjective.  

But I think it's very wise to come to recognize that it's possible to not like something that is truly good and to like something that is truly not very good.  I've never gotten a quarter of a way through a Souls game, but I would still give Bloodborne a very high rating, like a 9 or so.  Meanwhile I have spent hundreds of hours with Mount&Blade but I would never in a million years rate it higher than like a 6 cause while it has a lot of original ideas and a good foundation that I have fun with, in terms of presentation, writing, etc...the game is a shit circus.  And to give it much higher than a 6 would be a diservice to games like OoT, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyrim, etc etc etc that stand in the 8+ range.  

But anyways, this is not the place for a philosophical debate of interpretation, evaluation, critique, and all that.  

You can respect/admire something without necessarily liking it, I agree, (for instance I respect GTA 5's technological achievements even if I'd rather deep throat a cactus than play it) but the way I see it, even that that respect/admiration is based on what we subjectively think is worthy of respect/admiration.

To bring it back to Zelda, I actually have a hard time these days picking between Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess as my #2 pick behind Ocarina. SS has the better controls, combat, and non-dungeon areas, while TP has the better style, bosses, and partner.

Personally, I have Twilight Princess HD as my favorite Zelda.  It has writing almost as good as Skyward Sword, Midna is an amazing character, great art style, a good overworld, a good story, good world building.  Basically, does everything really good.  

Skyward Sword has excellent dungeons, unique controls, excellent art style, and the best writing BUT a weak overworld approach (I don't find it that bad though), a good bit of revisiting areas, etc.  Wind Waker has a vast world, improved combat, and some very entertaining characters, but too few dungeons and some monotonous end game stuff hold it back.  Basically, these two have some excellent points but some marked weaknesses that pull them down.

OoT is, imo, jack of all trades, master of none.  Good plot, flat charafters.  Good combat, not much variety to it.  Lots of dungeons with challenging puzzles, but not very interesting to traverse.  Art style gets things done but can feel generic.  Big world, not much in between big areas.  Basically, all pretty good, never feels great.  

Haven't finished Majora's Mask, but I feel it will fall in with WW, SS as a game with really strong areas and some marked weaknesses.