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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Will Super Mario Galaxy take the crown from Ocarina of Time?

ElRhodeo on 04 November 2007
Helios said:
ElRhodeo said:

But I'd strongly disagree that Twilight Princess is a rehash of OoT. IMO, the twilight thing added a completely new feel/look/sound to the game. And the story had far more twists and interesting moments than OoT's. I loved the story driven game passages (e.g. escorting the wagon, sneaking into the castle to save midna); TP breaks the traditional division of overworld (=doesn't really matter) and dungeon (=core gameplay), which I appreciate. Last week I played the ending for the second time, and I'm absolutely amazed once again.

Yes, I agree, Twilight Princess did improve upon OoT in nearly every way - except replayability. I too loved the story-driven elements that set it apart from the other games in the franchise. The problem is, it really never tried to be anything but OoT-deluxe. It also failed to live up to its own lofty promises; most of the early story turns into a garbled mess, a rehash, or is simply forgotten. Why did the Bullblins kidnap the kids? Why does none of the townsfolk know about the attack on Hyrule Castle? How was Zelda revived? Why was the Triforce/Master Sword/Temple of Time never given proper attention? Why was Ganondorf even in this game?

These are issues I personally cannot ignore. I think the game was just heading in the wrong direction. On the positive side, Phantom Hourglass thankfully does not share the same dilemma.

 

BengaBenga; What was it OoT did that hadn't already been done in ALttP? Aside from the new 3D elements and innovative battle system, I'm having trouble finding anything 'revolutionary' about the game. I still like OoT better - lots of small improvements - but for me at least the game wasn't nearly everything people say it was.


Oh... I must admit that I didn't notice any of these holes in the plot :) To me it was very consistent, but I'm not one of the people trying to connect all Zelda plots.
I just know that I absolutely loved TP, the setting, the atmosphere, the music (!)... There's actually places in TP I like to visit again, just for the atmosphere. Eldin Bridge at night, for example.
I have complaints about TP as well, though: I think the pacing was off. The last third seemed rushed to me, there was no more story between the dungeons. And I hated the sky dungeon. But I was very happy with the game, overall.

Actually, I was a little disappointed with Phantom Hourglass, now that you mention it. It was a VERY traditional Zelda game, with hardly any sidequests. I love sidequests, Majora's Mask was wonderful :) 

Well, if you say OoT was essentially the same game as ALttP... whew, you obviously demand a LOT of innovation in your Zelda games. Don't forget that making a Zelda game means walking a thin line between tradition and innovation. 



Currently playing: NSMB (Wii) 

Waiting for: Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii), The Last Story (Wii), Golden Sun (DS), Portal 2 (Wii? or OSX), Metroid: Other M (Wii), 
... and of course Zelda (Wii) 
Around the Network
-Edge- on 04 November 2007

Hell yeah, have you not played the demo? Galaxy very well has the chance of besting OoT!



outlawauron on 04 November 2007
shams said:
jhlennon1 said:
You don't understand Ocarina of Time fanboys. In their mind it's impossible for any game to beat OOT before they even play the game. OOT is nothing special and was bested by Twilight Princess.

Final Fantasy VII is the greatest game of all time in any case.

LOL :)

Having played and finished all three, I can easily state that OoT is lightyears ahead of both Twilight & FF7.

FF7 has a really cool style, a great open exploration mechanic (for most of the game), and an awesome story. But in terms of being a "game" it doesn't come even close.


Hey shams, if he thinks that FF7 is the best game. SO bet it. Let him. I didn't like OoT half as much as everyone here, but I still respect their opinons.

 Much like I do with Galaxy. I thought the demo I at Gamestop was very underwhelming, but you don't see me telling you that your wrong.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

shakarak on 05 November 2007

@ rol. How can u rank majoras mask as your favorite game not rank ocarina of time as your top 5. Those games are practically identical in terms of gameplay, graphics, sound, as well as the story is very similar with the same characters and what not. That just seems like a top 5 list just to be different then the rest.



SeriousWB on 05 November 2007
outlawauron said:
shams said:
jhlennon1 said:
You don't understand Ocarina of Time fanboys. In their mind it's impossible for any game to beat OOT before they even play the game. OOT is nothing special and was bested by Twilight Princess.

Final Fantasy VII is the greatest game of all time in any case.

LOL :)

Having played and finished all three, I can easily state that OoT is lightyears ahead of both Twilight & FF7.

FF7 has a really cool style, a great open exploration mechanic (for most of the game), and an awesome story. But in terms of being a "game" it doesn't come even close.


Hey shams, if he thinks that FF7 is the best game. SO bet it. Let him. I didn't like OoT half as much as everyone here, but I still respect their opinons.

 Much like I do with Galaxy. I thought the demo I at Gamestop was very underwhelming, but you don't see me telling you that your wrong.


Eh, I don't see how shams was being any more objective than the post he was replying to.  Jhlennon1 said FF7 is the best game of all time in any case, that sounds pretty objective to me, also that OoT was nothing special.  Even if you don't like OoT, saying it is a mediocre game is naive.  Atleast shams didn't just say "FF7 is lame, OoT FTW!!1"

 



Around the Network
ArtofAngels on 05 November 2007

Add a 10/10 form Eurogamer, that should bring SMG ahead of OoT on gamerankings when they update, but another 5 reviews is needed to be accepted.



Picko on 05 November 2007
a.l.e.x59 said:
BenKenobi88 said:
alex59, I think you care about review scores a little too much.

How else would you know if Super Mario Galaxy is truly greater than Ocarina of Time? Because Game Rankings averages the scores of compilations of multiple reviews, it is stronger than a single opinion, not just because more reviews are better than one opinion, but because the reviews are most oftenly done, professionally, by other, major websites. Sure, there is no super computer that pin points a number-based fact, on how good a game truly is, but Game Rankings is the closest thing. Opinions do have meaning, but are not as accurate as many opinions combined. Personally, I like the Mario games more than the Zelda games, but universally, the Zelda games got better reviews than the Mario games. One will use their own opinion over the fact, but one cannot use their own opinion to become the fact. Reviews are not everything. They only serve as a guidance. I cannot have an opinion on a game that I have not played, because I do not know if it is worth spending the money for, so the next best thing is to read the reviews.


 Reviews are not comparable over time. Standards and expectations change dramatically over time and SMG does not have to get even close to OoT to actually be a superior game. A "9" for a game then, is in no way equivalent to a "9" given today. Basically any game that gets anywhere near OoT is probably critically judged a superior game once changes in standards are adjusted for. It would be naive to believe that OoT, as is, would receive anywhere close to its current score under current standards, but thats to be expected. 

 The Gamerankings rankings are effectively useless in determining whether one game is better than another when the games come from different generations. Really the only way for comparisons to be made is if older generation games are constantly re-reviewed every generation, as we witness improvements in gameplay, graphics and sound that change our expectations.



 
Debating with fanboys, its not
all that dissimilar to banging ones
head against a wall 
SeriousWB on 05 November 2007
Picko said:
a.l.e.x59 said:
BenKenobi88 said:
alex59, I think you care about review scores a little too much.

How else would you know if Super Mario Galaxy is truly greater than Ocarina of Time? Because Game Rankings averages the scores of compilations of multiple reviews, it is stronger than a single opinion, not just because more reviews are better than one opinion, but because the reviews are most oftenly done, professionally, by other, major websites. Sure, there is no super computer that pin points a number-based fact, on how good a game truly is, but Game Rankings is the closest thing. Opinions do have meaning, but are not as accurate as many opinions combined. Personally, I like the Mario games more than the Zelda games, but universally, the Zelda games got better reviews than the Mario games. One will use their own opinion over the fact, but one cannot use their own opinion to become the fact. Reviews are not everything. They only serve as a guidance. I cannot have an opinion on a game that I have not played, because I do not know if it is worth spending the money for, so the next best thing is to read the reviews.


 Reviews are not comparable over time. Standards and expectations change dramatically over time and SMG does not have to get even close to OoT to actually be a superior game. A "9" for a game then, is in no way equivalent to a "9" given today. Basically any game that gets anywhere near OoT is probably critically judged a superior game once changes in standards are adjusted for. It would be naive to believe that OoT, as is, would receive anywhere close to its current score under current standards, but thats to be expected. 

 The Gamerankings rankings are effectively useless in determining whether one game is better than another when the games come from different generations. Really the only way for comparisons to be made is if older generation games are constantly re-reviewed every generation, as we witness improvements in gameplay, graphics and sound that change our expectations.


I disagree, as most reviews always take into consideration what a game brings to the table.  The table being the gaming industry, the game's genre etc.  While many games now have better graphics or controls than OoT, they will not have brought as much new to the table.  Our expectations do change, but that's a good thing about reviews, they are relevant to the time the game was released, and that's exactly how they should stay. 



Picko on 05 November 2007
SeriousWB said:
Picko said:
a.l.e.x59 said:
BenKenobi88 said:
alex59, I think you care about review scores a little too much.

How else would you know if Super Mario Galaxy is truly greater than Ocarina of Time? Because Game Rankings averages the scores of compilations of multiple reviews, it is stronger than a single opinion, not just because more reviews are better than one opinion, but because the reviews are most oftenly done, professionally, by other, major websites. Sure, there is no super computer that pin points a number-based fact, on how good a game truly is, but Game Rankings is the closest thing. Opinions do have meaning, but are not as accurate as many opinions combined. Personally, I like the Mario games more than the Zelda games, but universally, the Zelda games got better reviews than the Mario games. One will use their own opinion over the fact, but one cannot use their own opinion to become the fact. Reviews are not everything. They only serve as a guidance. I cannot have an opinion on a game that I have not played, because I do not know if it is worth spending the money for, so the next best thing is to read the reviews.


Reviews are not comparable over time. Standards and expectations change dramatically over time and SMG does not have to get even close to OoT to actually be a superior game. A "9" for a game then, is in no way equivalent to a "9" given today. Basically any game that gets anywhere near OoT is probably critically judged a superior game once changes in standards are adjusted for. It would be naive to believe that OoT, as is, would receive anywhere close to its current score under current standards, but thats to be expected.

The Gamerankings rankings are effectively useless in determining whether one game is better than another when the games come from different generations. Really the only way for comparisons to be made is if older generation games are constantly re-reviewed every generation, as we witness improvements in gameplay, graphics and sound that change our expectations.


I disagree, as most reviews always take into consideration what a game brings to the table. The table being the gaming industry, the game's genre etc. While many games now have better graphics or controls than OoT, they will not have brought as much new to the table. Our expectations do change, but that's a good thing about reviews, they are relevant to the time the game was released, and that's exactly how they should stay.


Indeed they should stay the way they are and they are relevant to the time they were written. But at the same time, that doesn't change the undeniable fact that reviews are in no way comparable over any substantial length of time. It is quite simply illogical to compare, say a N64 game, against, for example a Wii game, and say that one is better than another because of the score it received.

A perfect example of how impossible it is to compare reviews over time is to look at Resident Evil 4.

Gamecube: 95.9%
Wii: 91.2%

Now looking at that, clearly the Gamecube version is superior. However, from what I've seen almost everyone things the Wii version is superior, it has better controls, more gameplay options etc. However, it received a lower average score and rightfully so. Afterall, expectations have changed in the two years since RE4 was originally released. In this case expectations have changed by about 4.7% (actually probably a bit more because the Wii version had extra content). That shows the change in expectations over a two year period, can you imagine what the change in expectations are over a ten year period? It seems fair to say that it is impossible to compare those scores.

 



 
Debating with fanboys, its not
all that dissimilar to banging ones
head against a wall 
a.l.e.x59 on 05 November 2007

Super Mario Galaxy is now at 97% on Game Rankings... It's slowly catching up to Ocarina of Time, and currently, it is higher than Super Mario 64!