Space Spoons:
Except the Water Temple. It's nearly as bad as Turtle Rock was in "A Link to the Past", and that's just inexcusable.

The funny thing is, in the Master Quest remake, the water temple's easier. And shorter.

Demir23:
Something about this thread reminds me of a line from the Slackers comic. Paraphrased, it stated that judging an older game based on graphics was retarded and anyone who decided on the quality of a game retrospectively based upon its graphics needed to mature a bit. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

I agree entirely. My previous post however reflects my opinion at the time of the games release. Not my feelings about it retrospectively. I thought the graphics were bad when I played it back in '98.

LucanDesmond:

Demir23:
Something about this thread reminds me of a line from the Slackers comic. Paraphrased, it stated that judging an older game based on graphics was retarded and anyone who decided on the quality of a game retrospectively based upon its graphics needed to mature a bit. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

I agree entirely. My previous post however reflects my opinion at the time of the games release. Not my feelings about it retrospectively. I thought the graphics were bad when I played it back in '98.

Well, I was referring to Spaz with the retrospective argument, not you. But as for thinking the graphics were bad at the time, that's kind of an odd way to look at it. They were top notch at the time the game came out. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that the game shouldn't have switched to a 3-D interface until the graphics had become more refined, that I can respect. I'd actually be kind of curious to see how OoT would look with updated graphics. But either way, the gameplay and story were more than good enough to make up for any graphical deficiencies in my case. :D

Demir23:

LucanDesmond:

Demir23:
Something about this thread reminds me of a line from the Slackers comic. Paraphrased, it stated that judging an older game based on graphics was retarded and anyone who decided on the quality of a game retrospectively based upon its graphics needed to mature a bit. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

I agree entirely. My previous post however reflects my opinion at the time of the games release. Not my feelings about it retrospectively. I thought the graphics were bad when I played it back in '98.

Well, I was referring to Spaz with the retrospective argument, not you. But as for thinking the graphics were bad at the time, that's kind of an odd way to look at it. They were top notch at the time the game came out. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that the game shouldn't have switched to a 3-D interface until the graphics had become more refined, that I can respect. I'd actually be kind of curious to see how OoT would look with updated graphics. But either way, the gameplay and story were more than good enough to make up for any graphical deficiencies in my case. :D

I would also really like to see how the game would play out if it were "updated" to today standards. As for the gameplay and story I thought they were both... shaky. The gameplay felt like it was only half tested. Combat wasn't very intuitive and controlled kinda clunky I think. And the story... well if you've followed the story from the very beginning of the series than you know that they kinda changed what had already been established as backround story. They "George Lucas'd" it. They took something great and then tried to make a prequel story that didn't entirely lock into what came after. Not as bad as George Lucas, but a few small things that just didn't fit right. Maybe its just me though...

LucanDesmond:
I would also really like to see how the game would play out if it were "updated" to today standards. As for the gameplay and story I thought they were both... shaky. The gameplay felt like it was only half tested. Combat wasn't very intuitive and controlled kinda clunky I think. And the story... well if you've followed the story from the very beginning of the series than you know that they kinda changed what had already been established as backround story. They "George Lucas'd" it. They took something great and then tried to make a prequel story that didn't entirely lock into what came after. Not as bad as George Lucas, but a few small things that just didn't fit right. Maybe its just me though...

Having played the other Zelda games as well, I can kind of understand where you're coming from on the story front, but overall I thought it was a solid prequel to the series even if it didn't quite fit right, as you said. And yes, the controls weren't perfect, but there's more to game play than just controls and over all I found combat and maneuvering through the world to be quite enjoyable. But, once again, it is simply a matter of opinion. I'm not going to get upset that you didn't enjoy a game as much as I did. Well, I might, but I'd be being facetious. XP

I never really understood where OoT fit in with Link to the past and the rest.

Demir23:

Having played the other Zelda games as well, I can kind of understand where you're coming from on the story front, but overall I thought it was a solid prequel to the series even if it didn't quite fit right, as you said. And yes, the controls weren't perfect, but there's more to game play than just controls and over all I found combat and maneuvering through the world to be quite enjoyable. But, once again, it is simply a matter of opinion. I'm not going to get upset that you didn't enjoy a game as much as I did. Well, I might, but I'd be being facetious. XP

Indeed. I never said that you shouldn't like it ;P. I was just stating what I didn't like about it. I don't actually think it was bad, but I hold the Zelda series to VERY HIGH standards, so anything less than perfect kinda gets on my nerves. Just like FF games... I haven't cared about them for almost 10 years because Squenix knows they can shovel horsesh*t on us with a big fancy FF logo on it and it will sell millions of copies. But not to me.

gamebrain89:
I never really understood where OoT fit in with Link to the past and the rest.

OoT is supposed to be the very first one. Link and Ganon and Zelda and all the rest didn't exist before OoT. As for the rest, they aren't exactly put into any kind of order. Link to the Past happens BEFORE the 2 on the NES, but aside from that no order has really been established.

LucanDesmond:

Demir23:

Having played the other Zelda games as well, I can kind of understand where you're coming from on the story front, but overall I thought it was a solid prequel to the series even if it didn't quite fit right, as you said. And yes, the controls weren't perfect, but there's more to game play than just controls and over all I found combat and maneuvering through the world to be quite enjoyable. But, once again, it is simply a matter of opinion. I'm not going to get upset that you didn't enjoy a game as much as I did. Well, I might, but I'd be being facetious. XP

Indeed. I never said that you shouldn't like it ;P. I was just stating what I didn't like about it. I don't actually think it was bad, but I hold the Zelda series to VERY HIGH standards, so anything less than perfect kinda gets on my nerves. Just like FF games... I haven't cared about them for almost 10 years because Squenix knows they can shovel horsesh*t on us with a big fancy FF logo on it and it will sell millions of copies. But not to me.

gamebrain89:
I never really understood where OoT fit in with Link to the past and the rest.

OoT is supposed to be the very first one. Link and Ganon and Zelda and all the rest didn't exist before OoT. As for the rest, they aren't exactly put into any kind of order. Link to the Past happens BEFORE the 2 on the NES, but aside from that no order has really been established.

Ok that helps. I did know that Majora's Mask was after OoT but before Twilight princess which was after OoT but before Wind Waker, But I never really understood where all the NES and gameboy games and every thing fell.

LucanDesmond:
Indeed. I never said that you shouldn't like it ;P. I was just stating what I didn't like about it. I don't actually think it was bad, but I hold the Zelda series to VERY HIGH standards, so anything less than perfect kinda gets on my nerves. Just like FF games... I haven't cared about them for almost 10 years because Squenix knows they can shovel horsesh*t on us with a big fancy FF logo on it and it will sell millions of copies. But not to me.

Aw, I actually like FFX too. XD Though I will admit, FFI was probably my favorite of the series, if only because of how it portrayed the classes and let you pick how you built your party. [/tangent]

<Zelda FanBoy>

ZOMG HOW COOD U H8 OoT?? ITS LIKE TEH BESTERIST GAME EVAR!!!!!!1!111!!!1!!!!!11one

</Zelda Fanboy>

Ahem, that aside, I'll present a more serious case. The game is one of my all time favorites, but you have to be a fan of Zelda to begin with to appreciate the revolution to Zelda that OoT brought. You no longer had this top view map that encompassed all of Hyrule, but now a fully rendered 3D world, and sure the Graphics are shit now, but for fuck sake man it's on a damn N64! and before they came out with that graphic expansion cartridge thing you could throw in there (which makes MM look worlds better by the by). To top it off, it gave you a new intriguing story line, while echoing themes from past Zelda games. Is the game without it's flaws? No, of course not. The difficulty curve at times is spastic, most of the items are completely useless after their introductory uses, the overall length of the story is kinda short, and the dialogue makes me sick sometimes, but for heaven's sake... IT'S ZELDA!

As for the timeline of the games...Well that's tricky...very, very tricky...

Ok, the order of the story, as far as I can tell is like this:

Ocarina of Time
--Majora's Mask
Windwaker
--Phantom Hourglass
--Minish Cap
Twilight Princess
Link to the Past
The Legend of Zelda
The Legend of Zelda 2: Adventures of Link
... All the Game Boy ones... I never had a Gameboy till the Advance SP, so I don't really know where they fit in, but as far as I can tell they the farthest along in the timeline.

Majora's Mask is a direct sequel to OoT, as in its actually the exact same Link you're playing as. Same thing with Phantom Hourglass and Windwaker.

The order I posted above is mostly up to opinion, the only things I know for sure, 100% positive, is that OoT is first and LttP is before the original NES games.

I am pretty sure I read that Twilight princess is quite a ways ahead of OoT, but before Windwaker. Let me try and find it.

EDIT: I can't find it, it was too long ago. Oh well. Sorry.

I did find this, which makes some sense. basically says that from OoT, there are 2 different timelines, One for adult link from OoT, and one for child Link. http://zelda.wikia.com/wiki/Split_Timeline_Theory It is a theory, so I guess its a wildly debated point.

Never understood the hype with Ocarina of Time (or Zelda for that matter).

Had it been released on the PSX under a different name I doubt anyone would have cared.

Spaz91:
Why should I have to wade through hours of crap to get to the good bits?

If i want instant gratification, I eat a cookie.
If i want a lasting entertainment experience that offers twist's turn's and excitement that I control and get to experience in my own way one step at a time, I throw the cookie away and play video games. One of these just happens to be OoT.

And your whole argument on how the graphics look like crap on the n64.
They had limited resources as is with the console, so now, I have a challenge for you using your logic in this argument

I'm going to give you a calculator, in a week's time I expect you to build a time machine
Good Luck

I stoped playing any zelda game after OoT(haha..no)
terible aiming and grindy gameplay,then every game was the same only with worse aiming and even more grind that I need to invent a new word!
how about sanding, the game became sandy after every release with the same blasted wepon ENDSTOP(dont want to ofend the british)

It was the best game at the time and if it was released today with the improved graphics of TP it would still get the same praise. Back then I wasn't so keen on graphics but OoT is perfect, the only thing you could improve is the graphics and the water temple.

And then there are the other things like the atmosphere, music, gameplay, minigames, secrets, bosses, etc. All good, the only thing I would do to improve it is make it more difficult.

One more thing here, slightly off topic:

Did anybody else notice that The Master Sword in Twilight Princess is like 2 f***ing feet longer? Not a bad thing in my opinion, especially since they decided to keep that aesthetic in SSBB, giving his attacks longer reach. All I'm sayin' is DAMN! It's a two-hander now! Well hand and a half I guess. Bastard Sword... AWWESOME.... /rant

Majora's Mask was infinitely better. :D

I didn't play OoT as much as I probably should have, but I remember it being a great game. I agree and disagree with the modern approach to past game viewing.

To this day I still find Final Fantasy 7 to be an amazing game. Has anyone played that game lately? The graphics are pretty damn poor. I remember being blown away when it first came out! With that said it's still a great game to play. As is Final Fantasy 3, which is even crappier graphically than almost anything on the PS1 and N64.

So OoT may not be all that and a bag of chips, but it more than did it's job in the time it was released. And people can still play it and fall into a nostalgic coma because they remember how amazing certain features were when they were the "latest and greatest!"

I personally love OoT still play it today with new textures AA & AF to ease the eye for graphics praise be to the Project64 Emulator, I can't fault the game in anyway the no loading screen game play makes the world far more believable than oblivion although thats not particulary hard. Z-targeting still works fine as a game dynamic, music is still excellant, a main character whos strenght of heart is what is important rather than being a clone of conan because all ancient warriors did steroids!

Okay. Back in it's time, this game was one of the best games from Nintendo. You have to realize there wasn't so much variety in console games back then, and the N64 was miles ahead the old SNES.

But I have to agree with you, Hardly anyone plays this game anymore. If it were "The Best", you'd think it would still be popular. It seems only Nintendo veterans still play it.

I would consider it a great classic.