Hiro-sofT Wrote:I played the game once (on Game Cube mind you) and stopped playing shortly after the first dungeon, because I didn't liked it. I watched on YouTube for more to see if it's worth spending my free hours... it wasn't. Then I used my time to play something else instead...
So you played the game once, well after it was released, and never gave it a fair shot? Ok.
Hiro-sofT Wrote:I played SM64 when it came out and back then I really liked it but after playing games like 3DWorld, Sunshine and the others and then replaying it, it simply isn't feeling good anymore (for me at least). Graphics are out of the question (even if I always thought that 3D stuff always looks worse than 2D but that just my personal taste... I'm a sucker for hand drawn graphics these days).
Of COURSE it's not, you'd be foolish to expect it to.
Quote:Saying that a game is good because of its legacy is (at least in my eyes) not a solid statement. Solid statements would be like "it has a very good story that draws you in" or "it controls like a dream" or "it's fun to pick up, because of the variety and moves your character is able to do", not "it was ahead of the games in the year 1898".
It's good if you and I have great memories about these old games and we very much like them (and I have nothing against it, if OoT is your favorite game or one of them), but if we facing the pure facts that this game didn't age that well on N64 and what problems this game has, due to being the first 3D Zelda they did (game performance controls, etc.), this game is no longer worth a 100% rating, at least not for today's standards, when we compare it to the games of 2017/2018. It might have been mind blowing back then, but now this game probably feels like the bare bones of a newer Zelda title. Comparing its Hyrule Field with like TP, it even looks emptier than TP, even though TP is known for its large and empty Hyrule Fields (It now looks like an alpha map for this game).
Had a lot of discussions about that theme/topic in my past with a whole lot of different people and I can already tell, where this conservation will be going, when I continue to talk about it. "I will not get it" and others wouldn't change their mind either, so I do I even bother?
You're right, you don't get it. You cannot compare a game that was made 20+ years ago to a game made 10+ 5+ 2+ etc years ago and expect it to be as good. You can't just say "even if it was groundbreaking for it's time, it's bad now, so we should stop calling it a good game and call it a poopy one instead" because it doesn't work that way, nor should it. The reviews on Metacritic and so on are reviews from back in the day and reflect how games were at that time and how people felt about them.
Of COURSE games have improved, but there's reasons they were so highly rated for their time and the legacy of those games is important as I say because they shaped games for years to come and we still think of them as the gold standard. I simply can't play Mario 64 now, I dislike the way it controls and I think it looks terrible. Does that make it a bad game? Not at all, I respect what it brought to the world of gaming and I DO remember playing it on the n64 back in the day and thinking it was absolutely amazing. There's reasons we still talk about games like that today instead of shrugging them off as bad because they've aged.
It's like... "why are you making a platformer with pixel art graphics that pays homage to old games like Kirby? It's so oldschool now and has been beaten by newer Kirby games in the series like Planet Robobot, shouldn't you be making a fully 3D game in Unity and forget those old pixel graphics? Old style games have been done and improved upon, so what are you bringing to the table that hasn't been done before? It feels so old fashioned, nobody likes old Kirby any more so why pay homage to that old fluff?"