For me, "overrated" is something that got undeserved critical praise. For example, GTA IV: It has a 98 on Metacritic, and I think it should have a much lower score. Therefore, I think it's overrated.

People know what overrated means, they just can't separate lack of quality and personal preference.

I didn't even think OOT was good back when it first released. it just felt like an uglier, clunkier, 3D version of Link to the Past. It's also the game that made me realize how little I liked the entire 5th gaming generation, due to the fact that the industry COULD do 3D, but couldn't do it well enough to compare to the fluidity of 2D. 

Even back in 1996-2001 or so, I kept silently hoping for more 2D games when everyone else wanted 3D games. "Just imagine how good a new mario would be if it was 2D but had this graphics technology!" Even back then I could identify that 3D was the future but the tech wasn't good enough to make the games play well or look good, and even back then I felt that gaming took a step down. Now that I'm grown up, I see how right I was, and I have a very hard time going back to play games from that generation, because SNES mastered 2D, and I don't think the industry had a good hold on 3D until PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox. 

Other games I couldn't stand include: Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Majora's Mask, and virtually every other 3D platformer on the N64 or Playstation. The only games from that generation I look back upon fondly are RPGs like Final Fantasy because the clunky graphics and stifled movement didn't impact the gameplay. Those games were more about story and character development than tight, precise controls. 

Graphics aside, did you even play through OoT when it came out? So many gameplay elements of todays games was invented by OoT.

Exactly! Words have meaning, and people are using the word wrong. This thread has become "popular titles I dislike" as opposed to "Overrated games". The terms have different meanings, and it's a difference between objectivity and subjectivity. 

The first time I attempted it i made it about 1/2 - 2/3 through the game and couldn't be bothered to finish it. Too many things were hidden from the player, too many little things were required, the game had poor conveyance of where to go next and what to do next, and there were too many elements that, even as a smart kid, I needed to consult an FAQ to decipher. It had too many poor design choices, didn't use 3D Well, and felt clunky. 

Watch the sequelitis on Zelda for a more comical take on the reasons I disliked that game. 

The biggest issue I had was that everything wasted your time in that game. All enemies had a wait sequence where you were expected to just wait. No attacks, no control over the battle, just wait. Wasted my time. Made no sense in a 3D game that I couldn't climb a fence, and...yeah. it pioneered a lot of things, but mastered none. 

As you were apparently only judgind Ocarina of Time by it's visuals, I can not resist suspicion that you are doing the exact same thing you're talking about.

AS apparently you've not read a single post of mine concerning Ocarina of Time, I'm gonna stop arguing with you over it. 90% of my issues with OOT are gameplay and control based, and while I do mention the game looked ugly, it's not the primary point. The fact that you were not able to discern that shows that you're too busy whining about my assessment to actually give a proper, well-reasoned counter-argument. 

That answer of cou came online while I was typing mine. Anyway, I could not disagree heavier with everything you said in that answer... Most of it is, in fact, personal taste. And having to wait fr an enemy to attack is what you do in every role playing game with turn-based fight system aswell

I've actually posted multiple responses saying the same basic things but saying it multiple ways to get my point across, so you only were going by one or two of my more recent post. 

Also, that is a terrible, nonsensical argument regarding wait times. Comparing an ACTION ADVENTURE game's combat mechanics to a TURN BASED RPG is NOT the sort of thing you need to be doing if you're attempting to persuade anyone. They are wholly different genres with wholly different gameplay styles. This argument is the most absurd version of its own counterpoint. Like, that'd be like complaining that a fighting game has input lag and that's okay because in an RTS things take a while to start moving anyway. 

Bad argument. 

As an aside, this is exactly why I've greatly limited my time spent debating on the internet. Arguments like that (about having wait time in an action-adventure game is okay because wait time is okay in other genres) are plopped at my feet that make so little sense and have so little bearing on reality, yet I'm expected to debate against them despite them having no inherent value and it just distracts from the real points and the actual logic that I try to use.

Ignoring these worthless arguments makes me look bad, when in reality it should be making others look bad. Values are so misplaced and reason is so lacking that almost every argument on the internet is equally stupid.

It's VERY rare I come across a point I haven't already considered that actually has merit.