OOT is the best game ever?

[Saltman]

Wow. I just found out that OOT is the highest rated game in existence!


http://www.gamerankings.com/n64/197771-t...index.html


http://www.metacritic.com/game/nintendo-...na-of-time


Geez, uh... that's quite interesting, but do you guys think that this is really THE best game ever?


I mean, it's pretty awesome alright. But calling it the greatest of the greatest is a bit too much, don't you think?

[CGWorks]

Greatest for me is subjective. In its time and the context that it came out in, I'd say there is when it was the greatest. OoT, like Mario 64, pretty much set the basis for how characters should move around in a 3 dimensional space and how targeting systems work in modern games. At the time OoT's graphics were top notch, its story was epic and to some extent i still believe it is, its level design - outside of the Water Temple and Hyrule Field - is fantastic and memorable, and it features several tracks that I still listen to regularly and sometimes find myself whistling.

But I don't think it's the best game ever made. I feel like people who still say that OoT is the best game ever are blinded by nostalgia. I definitely feel it myself when I play it. Every time I start it up I hear the main menu theme and it reminds me of my childhood, when I would watch my older sister and a cousin whom I thought more as a brother take turns playing it, taking turns and trying to help each other out. It was the first Zelda game I was ever exposed to, and also the first Zelda game I actually owned. In fact it was the first non-Mario game I played. I remember all of this every time I hear the main menu theme and as I play through the various dungeons. Yet I also like to think I'm not blinded by this nostalgia.

The game is over 18 years old, and some aspects of the game haven't aged very well. Things that it pioneered, later games have fine-tuned or improved, such as the camera system, better combat systems, less-devoid overworlds, etc. I honestly think OoT is a masterpiece of its time and I still enjoy playing it (primarily the 3DS remake), but for people to continue calling it the best game ever is going a little overboard. I say all this with the n64 version in mind, but i still stand by a majority of this when considering the 3DS remake

[HylianDev]

Ocarina of Time is often considered to be the greatest game of all time. There's several ways to consider what the greatest game of all time is. Some sort of objective quality standard is usually what people mean, but I won't go there.

OoT obviously left a pretty massive impact, and that impact is probably why people say what they do about it.

Was it very original? The gameplay might've been, though the game itself is nearly a shot-for-shot remake of Link to the Past: A kid wakes up in his house because a voice tells him Hyrule needs his help; he goes to a preliminary dungeon; after talking to Zelda he then has to collect three thingies so he can get to the master sword; getting the Master Sword sends him to a darker version of Hyrule; now you have to get six thingies; you go to Hyrule Castle to do the final fight with an evil human wizard and then Ganon in beast form. Which game an I talking about?

It seems to have been extremely inspirational, but I don't know how much the gameplay itself inspired. It showed that adventure games in 3D can be amazing, and it showed that 3D games can be immersive, but I don't think Ocarina of Time was the only game that could've done this. If we're talking about something being innovative, then games like Adventure or the original LoZ need to be in the discussion far more than OoT does, and that's just if we're talking adventure games.

Perhaps it was just in the right place at the right time?

Hylian's day job, little did we know, was saying controversial things on the internet.

you fool!!!! you fixed it wrong!!!!

Bibby Team

[Zero Kirby]

Pretty much what the other two said. Certainly when it came it out, it was revolutionary in a number of ways. Lock-on to aid the troubles of then-still-new 3D combat. Intricate puzzle and labyrinth design in 3D. And it was where games began to become truly "cinematic." 2D games had cutscenes, certainly, but there were limits on how they could be presented given the technology of the time. This, though, was a game that presented its story with flair, utilizing actual camerawork in order to achieve visual storytelling. Link had become less of a player avatar, characters became more expressive, the adventure felt more real than it had before.

The scope was larger. Previous games could be rather vague on the stakes - we knew Ganon was out to destroy the world and we had to stop him but we rarely felt the effects of this. The Dark World was the closest we got and even then, that's some kind of parallel dimension separate from Link's - the Light World was ostensibly still okay and we were just trying to keep it that way.

In Ocarina, we see Hyrule as Link travels across it, solving problems Ganondorf causes, but they're relatively small problems - indeed, he kills the Deku Tree, attempts to starve out the Gorons, and lord knows what he was doing to the Zora, but Link's easily able to resolve most of them. In general, though, things aren't that bad. Then, Link vanishes for seven years, and the first thing we see is what Ganondorf's done to Castle Town. We see his castle, we see the ruins, we see flames surrounding Death Mountain, and the rest of the adventure only shows just how bad things are under Ganondorf's rule. Forget the Gorons starving - they're being fed to a dragon just because Ganondorf feels like it. All but one of the Zora are frozen underneath a thick layer of ice, and we never see them again until the actual ending, even after we've broken the curse. We've gotten to know Hyrule at peace, and now we have context for the conflict.

... Now, is it a great story? Well, like HylianDev said above, it pretty much is just A Link to the Past again. I'd argue that Link's Awakening has a better story with some really well-done storytelling, and it's just a 2D game (as well as the source for multiple combinations of equippable items, and music being central to the gameplay to the point the player learns multiple songs). Other games have probably had much deeper and more intricate stories in the Super Nintendo days as well. But combined with the increased cinematicism, it was pretty incredible for its time and why so many people find it such an engrossing experience to this day.

Gameplay-wise, it is also pretty much a translation of A Link to the Past into 3D, but consider what a huge leap this is. Even in Link's Awakening, where the player could equip multiple items, they could still only equip two, and the sword counted as one. This was the first game where Link had his sword and up to three other weapons to use instantly. Combat in 3D introduced the lock-on, as well as jumping and dodging. When firing a bow, you went into first-person so you could aim with more precision - how many games had a third-person-to-first-person switch that weren't vehicle-based at the time? The world became more fleshed out - hills looked like hills, things that were far away looked far away. Think about it, if Link jumps down a waterfall in LTTP, it's a pretty basic animation. Gerudo Canyon, jumping down that massive gorge, same basic action, totally different experience. (In fact, I think the only reason that gorge is so deep is to create that feeling. It really didn't need to be.)

Has it been improved on? Definitely. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker both take everything this game did and up the ante considerably. Gameplay-wise, Breath of the Wild is a far more compelling and immersive experience. But there's no denying that, at least once upon a time, Ocarina of Time might have been the greatest achievement in gaming.

Falcon Punch is the result of the Sun heating fists. It drives the Blue Falcon. Heating causes destruction of water into the pain, where it then hurts, creating rain. Rain creates flowing water in tears, which can then be converted into other forms through more pain.



This fight has only just begun...

[VinnyVideo]

I can't necessarily say it's the best game of all time, but it would have to be among my personal top five. It may not be perfect, and other games have since surpassed it in a number of ways, but it's still a very fun game with an amazing soundtrack.

Course clear! You got a card.

[Hiro-sofT]

Mostly it's highly rate because a bunch of people, who have way too much nostalgia with the game they played as a child and mostly never again "to not ruin their experience", rated it that high... yeah whatever. It's with a lot of these overrated games (like Mario 64, Sonic 2, Final Fantasy 7)

Zelda is a massively overrated franchise to begin with. Look around, almost every mainstream Zelda is hyped as the best thing ever (look at timewaster and emptiness simulator botW or SNES nostalgia Link to the past). Sure, most of the games a great, but they are not like the best thing ever in the universe.

I kind of really hate this type of hype where the majority of people keep shoving into my face how great that game is, because they played it back then and hate everything else. It makes me even more demotivated to play the game. It's hard to describe, but the more hype there is about a game, the more I hate about it. I don't know why that is so (maybe because you expect more from the game thanks to the hype, than it has actually has to offer). I especially hate it, when I say that it isn't the best game ever made, they start yelling at me and say that I'm not a "true" Zelda fan.

I really hate these people.



Sorry... slipped a little bit off topic there. Didn't mean to do that, but it's easy to go off the track on topics like this sometimes.

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...

EDIT:
Just reading these reviews on Metacritic there makes both of my eyes roll... realism being the reason for a 100/100 rating? Are you even serious? This is the reason why I no longer take review sties and magazines serious anymore.

[Kritter]

I completely disagree with the above statements.

[Zero Kirby]

-basically a rant-

It's okay if you don't like the games you listed, even understandable (if easily seeming contrarian for the sake of being so, since those are all big-name popular games), but there's no reason to be so hostile to so many people who legitimately do have a positive experience with such games.

Of course, it would help us take you more seriously if you actually... explained why you didn't like it? You just said "I didn't like it so people who like it are all nostalgia-blind fools" without really explaining why you don't like it, so there's not much reason for us to take your opinion seriously at all.

I'll agree, a good portion of Zelda games can be overrated, and I myself honestly think a good half of them are garbage, but your post comes off as more angry at fans of the game for liking the game.

(Not saying that there aren't unreasonable Zelda fans out there - it's just, nobody's been hostile to you yet in this topic so such a rant against such people comes off as unwarranted and inflammatory.)

Falcon Punch is the result of the Sun heating fists. It drives the Blue Falcon. Heating causes destruction of water into the pain, where it then hurts, creating rain. Rain creates flowing water in tears, which can then be converted into other forms through more pain.



This fight has only just begun...

[Evil Yoshi Toes]

It's hard to bunch all games into one category as all good games bring something unique to the table, but I'd say it is one of my favorite games of all time.

[Hiro-sofT]

(if easily seeming contrarian for the sake of being so, since those are all big-name popular games)

Most of the stuff was already said what I didn't liked about the games. M64 und OoT have not as good controls and cameras as future games of their franchises. Well, there are plenty of different things I noticed about these games:

The so called good story in both games is basically the same story like before, but a little bit beefed up, so it first looks like a different one (not that much interested in story anyway). In M64 never really like the "collect the star" type of gameplay (I don't know but need to enter the same level multiple times seems a little lazy from a developers side) and OoT (and most Zeldas onwards) does have an annoying trading sidequest, were you just run, teleport and look around for an item, talk to a person and trade one key item to another person to get another key item, which can be traded at another person... I know that trading one item for a different one was already in the first NES Zelda, but OoT introduced the one long and boring Tradeathon sidequest and almost every Zelda game after that does it as well. I also know that boss fights in Zelda were not the greatest point of these games, but at least I like most of the bosses in TP and even in BotW I like the first part of the final one, but OoT feels (well, except for like two bosses) like a letdown there (at least for me). People may have found it cool to keep switching between adult and child link, but for me it kind of wasn't as good as others said it would be. The first time it's great, but because you have to do that multiple times (at least for 100%), you need to go back the citadel, you need to rewatch the cutscene again, you need to exit it again, exit the city and finally go from there where you need to go.

These are a few points that pop directly into my head. I know these because I watched my brother playing the game (even he didn't liked it as much as others and a 100/100 he said is crazy for this game).

Sonic 2 has different reasons. I don't know but its level design is not really my thing, as it felt a whole more "trolly" here. I mean Chemical Plant as the second level? This level was infamous for his water trap area, which can easily take the lives away from unexperienced players (not to mention all the passages were you can fall down back into the flooded segments, in which you will most likely die, if you fall down there. The 2P addition was nice (and thank god they kept it in Sonic 3 and the Knuckles extension). The recycled stages came off kinda lazy (Hill Top - Emerald Hill, Chemical Plant - Death Egg, Sky Chase - Wing Fortress). If I have to choose between S3 (alone or with K) or S2, I probably would always pick S3 (let alone I like S3 music more than S2 and one of the only tracks and stages that I liked went unused in the final release, but thanks Taxman to add it back in on the IOS version).

but your post comes off as more angry at fans of the game for liking the game.

Sorry if that my post came off as I was attacking everybody. Didn't want to do so.

With that I actually meant the really hardcore nintendo fan-boys, who are going mad just if you didn't like the next big game Nintendo made. This type of fans is not only at Nintendo or SEGA games present (look at Undertale or FNAF). There is basically a group of people, which I encountered, who basically wanted to defend Nintendo, their business practices and their games, even with their lives (I meet a bunch here and there of them like years ago, they did say that like that). I know that the people here are better and don't take a "I don't like it" as a serious danger as one of the hardcore fans (sorry if you guys think I mean you with that, don't know how I should call this type of people otherwise). The discussions which I had with these people actually made me sick. Dealing with hardcore fans can be hard at times. I just wanted to talk with them about the games, but don't you dare to say something negative about their games. I was talking to these people and asked them about why that is and why they said that "I have to play it". They became pissed after a few minutes where I said, that the graphics are not as good as in the newer games. They said that the flaws or edges of the games I listed were "lies" and I would have no idea about games in general, I'm not a true gamer for not liking this game and I being a Nintendo traitor and so on.

I know OoT, M64 and even Sonic 2 are great titles for the majority of people, but I'm me and not "the majority".

I don't want to attack anybody here. My post wasn't directed against people or someone on this forum or topic. I don't want to attack any normal Zelda, Mario or Sonic fan here. I meant a specific group of fans, who can be disgusting to deal with at times.

It's just that I saw and meet people who were like that and I was again reminded of that and it slipped off my tongue again.
Sorry again if this came off as a global rant about the members of this forum. I didn't mean to do that. I hope I didn't forget anything out this time.

[Kritter]

So you're saying a game that came BEFORE other games in the series has a worse control, camera and mechanics? Fancy that. Next you'll say the graphics are worse too.

Really, it sounds like you never actually played them in their day. When I played Ocarina, it had just came out and it was the first game of its kind for me. In fact it may have been the first Zelda game I'd ever played, and was definitely my first N64 game. It introduced so many mechanics that I had never seen in games before, or that simply didn't exist before that point, in much the same way that Mario 64 pioneered a lot of things. Yes the story was similar to AlttP but it was done in a cinematic way that hadn't really been seen that much before its time.

It's like saying Mario 64 is bad because the controls and level designs aren't as good as Sunshine or Galaxy. Today it's true, but at the time it was groundbreaking and you can't just fail to recognise that fact. You can't look at games from that era with the eyes of someone today and expect it to live up to the 20+ year hype, but there's plenty of reasons why people still look at it fondly after so long and that's because at the time it left a tremendous impact not just on gamers, but on the games industry as a whole.

I remember Ocarina fondly because of how it made ME feel in the day, I just loved being in a huge open world and exploring, questing and delving into dungeons because it was the first game I'd ever played that allowed me to do that. I got invested in the story because it was the first game I'd played that really had one worth getting invested in. It has aged poorly, and what game hasn't, but it has a legacy that'll live on and that's why it's one of the greatest games of all time for many people.

[Minerador Slime]

So you're saying a game that came BEFORE other games in the series has a worse control, camera and mechanics? Fancy that. Next you'll say the graphics are worse too.

He probably said that since this thread was asking if OOT was the best game of all time, not best game of 1998, so it probably makes sense to compare it with new games.

[Kritter]

The legacy it left is part of what makes it great NOW though. Remembering a game fondly for so many years definitely makes it one of the best games of all time. Do you think people will remember games like Sonic Forces or even GOOD games like the new Doom compared to Sonic 1 or Doom 1? And yet we have people who still love the original Sonic games and want to put Doom on their calculators and smart watches because those are the games that defined gaming in their time and left behind a legacy that shaped games today. They might be old and worn but they're special and that's what makes them great.

[Hiro-sofT]

He probably said that since this thread was asking if OOT was the best game of all time, not best game of 1998, so it probably makes sense to compare it with new games.

^This

Really, it sounds like you never actually played them in their day.

Well... I said this:

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...

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).

The legacy it left is part of what makes it great NOW though.

So, what are you saying is basically, because it was good years ago, it stayed to be good, because it was the first one and made the others that way good? Yeah... Megaman 1 should be also better than 4, 5, 6 and so on, because it was the first... and still people hate that one a whole lot compared to the second one. But if the game is loved like Megaman 2, then it's okay to use its age as an excuse for every flaw it has ("sorry guys, Quick Mans level sucked because we didn't know yet how to design levels yet. Not that almost every robotmaster level from the first game is better designed than this one").

Even games I liked a lot before are being beaten by newer games, like Sonic 3 is no longer my favorite Sonic game, because Sonic Mania now takes its place. Despite the fact that Mania is in many ways like Sonic 3, it mostly improved on the spots where Sonic 3&K had his flaws.

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?

I will now leave this here and let it be. I know my taste in videogames is bad in the eyes of the majority, but as I said, I'm not the majority. I have my own opinions about games and that is how I see OoT. I just gave my two cents about it, if OoT is the best game ever. I think it's not, said why I think that is and that's it for me.

[Kritter]

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.

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.

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?"

[Mariotroid]

If we get rid of the idea of "Best Game of All Time" for Video Games, some things may happen. Games that were out of the box, innovative and ground breaking should stay and be remembered that way. We need to praise games like Ocarina of Time. We need to because we need to remember their impact and what influences they have that can help developers learn from masterpieces. If Video Games didn't praise old games, how would we remember our past? What made the games we play today, the games that we play today? If film didn't do this we would be lost. If music didn't do this, we would be lost. If visual arts like painting didn't do this, we'd be lost. Games are art. Respect the source material before you use it. And from what I've played, Ocarina is great source material.

[VinnyVideo]

@Hiro-sofT Were you playing the Master Quest version of the game? The Master Quest version is a bit tougher than the original, and it kind of assumes that you've already played the original. I actually played the Master Quest version first, and the Deku Tree design is a bit funky in the Master Quest version.

Regardless of the version you're playing, the game gets a lot more interesting once you leave Kokiri Forest - at that point, you gain access to a big chunk of the world map and many of the game's sidequests. I can totally understand if you think later Zelda games improved on certain aspects of OoT, but I'd highly recommend playing farther into the game before deciding on whether you like OoT.

Also, the "Trading Game" actually originated in Link's Awakening.

@Mariotroid OoT's legacy is an important part of why it consistently appears at or near the top of "Greatest Games of All Time" lists. Newer Zeldas may have fancier graphics or a smoother camera system, but OoT was the first game to implement (or at least implement successfully) a lot of features that have since been used in many other 3-D games. It's the same way with the original Super Mario Bros. game. Newer Mario games have smoother mechanics and greater variety of enemies, power-ups, and gimmicks, but SMB1 was the first game to do a lot of things that other people have since copied. Just as SMB1 was tremendously influential on future 2-D platformers, OoT had a big effect on future 3-D games.

Course clear! You got a card.

[Andy Journey]

Wheter something has "aged badly" may also depend on why it has "aged badly".

For example: try to play Doom 2 without a mouse, at 320x240 resolution and 30 fps or lower. You'll probably despise it. Now try it with keyboard and mouse controls (without mouse acceleration), 1080p resolution or higher with 60fps or higher (not to mention mods). You're going to have a notably better experience to the former.

One of the biggest reasons why people hate the Water Temple (my favorite dungeon) is due to the game's UI. Every time you had switch between normal boots and irons boots (you had to do this A LOT) you had to pause and probably even scroll to the right submenu. Wanted to check the map? Do the same thing! The 3DS remake remedied these wonderfully (it even quides you to the places where you change the water level).

[Catonator]

No game is the best game of all time, objectively. Advances in hardware and design simply create better games which will eventually surpass older games.

As for OOT, I think it has aged poorly much like a lot of early 3D titles. There are very few games which I still think are great without any modifications from that era. Older 2D games still hold up, but the step to 3D era meant relearning a lot of older conventions, much larger scopes for projects and generally reinventing the wheel. These factors meant that the games from that era are generally really janky.

That doesn't mean that the games themselves are literally unplayable nowadays. Practically all of them just were surpassed by their sequels and spiritual successors when it came time for the new console generation. By that time devs had learned a lot about 3D game development and designs.

I think Wind Waker is a better Zelda game than OOT is.

and sunshine is better than mario64

Catonator.net | Twitter | YouTube | Soundcloud | Bandcamp

 
signatures are hard pls listen to music thxbye