You know what other game is terrible? Super Mario Bros. Man, the graphics are ass, and the dialog is just terrible. "Your princess is in another castle"? What the hell is up with that?

Spaz91:

gibboss28:
...You were expecting the graphics of a game for the N64 to spontaneously improve over time?

Not at all, I'm just saying they're terrible. And you can't deny that.

Depends what they're being compared to.

Baby Tea:

I don't expect you to 'get it'. You weren't there.

A lot of people weren't at the Holocaust, but they hate it.

A lot of people never met Jesus, but they love him.

...Contrary to the above, I agree with your point.

Spaz91:
So what you're saying is that all the people who love OoT simply love it cos it was awesome when it came out and they played it when it first came out? I think I understand now.

I personally think that since you're already so biased against it that it will never live up to your expectations. I think you should play the entire game before you judge it. With only 2 hours of gameplay you saw maybe 2% of what the game had to offer.

The first time I played the game was also when it was released. True by today's comparisons the game isn't very good looking but you are also failing to take into account the limited ability of the hardware at the time. It should tell you something if you had to buy an 'Expansion Pack' with an additional 8 megs of RAM to play later 64 games on higher settings.

For me, what really set this game apart from any other zelda was the entire experience. The first time I set foot on Hyrule field I couldn't see the edge of the playable area. Unheard of during that time. The excitement of wielding a sword in 3D with accurate controls; unheard of. The feeling that you were a part of this world and not an observer; something that developers are still reaching for. But most of all it had a story and a good story. For the games I played at the time, that was unheard of.

Sure Twilight Princess took most of those elements and reproduced them and with better graphics, but in the end the story is what did it for me. Don't get me wrong, I liked the game, but Ocarina will always hold a special place in my video game heart

Yeah its overrated as all hell but its still good. Oh and your comment about the graphics, of course they look crap it was made about 10 years ago.

Jak The Great:
Yeah its overrated as all hell but its still good. Oh and your comment about the graphics, of course they look crap it was made about 10 years ago.

So? That doesnt stop them from being crap!

Jak The Great:
I personally think that since you're already so biased against it that it will never live up to your expectations. I think you should play the entire game before you judge it. With only 2 hours of gameplay you saw maybe 2% of what the game had to offer.

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

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

Oh, the instant gratification argument. Well forget that.

I wouldn't necessarily say it was the best game of all time, but it was easily one of the best games ever when it came out. Since then we have had plenty of better games, but back then it was one of the greatest. Of course, it is still good now.

Spaz91:
The graphics are shit

The graphics are functional, you can see what you need to and nothing vanishes into thin air unless it's supposed to. Which is more than can be said for most current gen games.

The game plays well, has a large (if sparse) game world even by current standards, masses of play time, masses of things to do, real time combat, a decent plot, workable controls and it's well made.

The pace might be a bit slow for someone who's grown up in the Counter Strike era of 3minutes or less gaming, but I love it, it's an adventure game that actually has a decent amount of adventure in it.

Cheesus333:

Baby Tea:

I don't expect you to 'get it'. You weren't there.

A lot of people weren't at the Holocaust, but they hate it.

A lot of people never met Jesus, but they love him.

...Contrary to the above, I agree with your point.

Well I would say there is a distinct difference between the Holocaust, Jesus, and whether or not people like older video games.

Although I WOULD say that the Holocaust and Jesus had a MUCH more profound impact on those who were there then those who weren't, but that's neither here nor there.

I'll also end that here since I don't want to derail the thread and/or get myself in trouble with ye olde MODs. (Sorry MODs, you aren't old...or olde)

If I try to play the game now, I cant. BUT it remains the top game of all time for me because of how revolutionary the storytelling was for its time. Jumbled amongst other platform games such as Crash Bandicoot, and Tomb Raider, or even Mario, this one stood out for simply making the character of Link three dimensional. You (for what i can remember for being the first) can travel through time (7 Years) and see how an environment that you grew up in has changed (meeting people who had died within the 7 years and the burning of a childhood town). Also i must mention the fact of day and night in the game, which was taken up afterwards by the popular GTA and Pokemon series. The controls (on the N64 only) were Solid, and for its time, so were the graphics. Many will argue the score with an extremely versatile ocarina brought you even deeper into the experience. Boss fights were generally fun because they were usually a puzzle within themselves you had to figure out, and then its easy (mostly using the weapon you got from the dungeon).

Now I feel as if i have defended it on a revolutionary game basis, but why has OOT stood the test of time? It goes along with a view in psychology called the nostalgia principle. This is where the human brain tends to look at the past in a better light then when it actually was. My middle school years were the toughest part of my life so far, and thoroughly sucked, but I still find myself pondering those days like everything was perfect. OOT was a revolutionarily fun game that broke records for selling to a mass audience. This means that every person who got that game and liked it, most likely likes it even more now, because of the nostalgia principle. As I mentioned earlier, I can no longer play the game, even though I own 2 copies of it. That doesn't mean I know what it WAS at one time and can compare it to the impact on these newer games to this day.

So far it is my number one game of all time. The closest storyline platformer that I can say gave it a run for its money would be the first Prince of Persia (insane ending). I would like some suggestions these days for those who have games they think can compete. Please dont just say the name, explain why (without ruining story~ I understand it may be hard). Other games I have played that were Great, but just didnt pull that empathetic connection were Assassin's Creed, Indigo Prophecy, and Resident Evil 4 (consider it more action anyways, but still AMAZING).

Spaz91:
I've played it and it bored the hell out of me!

Well, how far did you get? The begining can be a little boring, but after awhile you won't want to put it down.

I played through it a couple of months ago and thought it was awesome. Sure, the graphics are outdated, no argument there, but the gameplay is still top-notch and can easily compete with most of modern games. Also the game has a strange kind of charme that captures you after some time.

So yeah, the game is pretty awesome. One of the best? Maybe. Enjoyable? Definetly.

Legend of Zelda:OoT one of my fav N64 games! It is one of the best I remember playing as a young lad.

The reason that most of us like it is because for its moment in the sun it was a great game, with a good story and fun gameplay, yes by today's standards it isn't that special but those of us that played it back in the day loved it, so stop whining about how shit isn't as great as it is made out to be. wanna know a secret? most video games don't age well. know why? Beacause to today's gamers the shit is well... old.

Spaz91:

gibboss28:
...You were expecting the graphics of a game for the N64 to spontaneously improve over time?

Not at all, I'm just saying they're terrible. And you can't deny that.

Yeah I concur thats why I stopped playing pong look at that! only like 2 freaking colors! The physics suck and where is the freaking controller vibration when I hit the ball, it completley lacks immersion.

That game made me a gamer (I was 7 years old, scared shitless all the time).

Beat that.

Please read the thread before shouting at me.
Its not just the graphics that are bad I find the gameplay just boring.

I always use current standards in my opinion of games because theres not point using past stadards is there now?

If a game doesnt have a good start then it isnt a good game IMO. I dont see why I should have hours of slog before getting to the good bits. I've already worked to get the game why should I do more?

You play a game of tennis with an energy ball of death with the end boss and you wear a skirt!!!

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT IN A GAME?!

I love OoT, it's my favourite game. The presentation is great, the music is great, and most importantly, the combat is great.

If there was a flaw to this game, it's that the Water Temple is infuriatingly annoying.

Spaz91:
Please read the thread before shouting at me.
Its not just the graphics that are bad I find the gameplay just boring.

I always use current standards in my opinion of games because theres not point using past stadards is there now?

If a game doesnt have a good start then it isnt a good game IMO. I dont see why I should have hours of slog before getting to the good bits. I've already worked to get the game why should I do more?

The graphics are exactly as good as they needed to be for the art style they chose.

The game was kinda forgettable for me. I rented it once and never really played it again. So I was really confused when I constantly saw it on people's "Greatest Game EVAR!?!" lists.

You must judge a game by the standards of its time. Not doing so and judging 10 year old games by modern standards is like saying that the Roman legions were shit because a single squad of SAS could pretty much have wiped them out, given enough time and ammunition. The Romans were still the strongest military force of their time.

As for my stance on OoT, played it when I was like 8, fanboied it, still say it's one of the best games made so far. It had solid gameplay, combat, story, and graphics. Compared to some other games from that time, like say for example Half-Life or Starcraft, the graphics were great. And while the combat isn't as good as modern dedicated action games like say for example God of War, it's still good enough to keep you intrested. And nowhere near as repetitive as GoW. Also, most of the puzzles were good, altho there were some truly retardedly annoying ones. *cough*watertemple*cough* The game's greatest virtue, however, has to be the boss fights. Each is challenging without being frustrating, and unique enough to be intresting.

But anyway, my measure of a good game has always been a game that's not frustrating. I have heard, from unreliable sources, that someone apparently once said that "Something is not finished when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to remove", or something along those lines. That's extremely true for video games. The game is almost completely bug free, and coming from someone who's spend half his childhood in it, that's saying a bit.

Now, after a somewhat incoherent post which I honestly can't care enough to prune, I'll just end with repeating that you can't judge an old game by today's standards. I will admit that OoT doesn't even compare to modern titles like Portal or Call of Duty 4, but it was still great when it was released, and that's what matters. Incidentally, I did play OoT through again some time last year, and it still held up. I suppose I wasn't expecting an awful lot, but the combat was still enough to keep me intrested to the end. (Altho it only really picks up after the kid part of the game)

Spaz91:

Jak The Great:
Yeah its overrated as all hell but its still good. Oh and your comment about the graphics, of course they look crap it was made about 10 years ago.

Spaz91:
So? That doesnt stop them from being crap!

Jak The Great:
I personally think that since you're already so biased against it that it will never live up to your expectations. I think you should play the entire game before you judge it. With only 2 hours of gameplay you saw maybe 2% of what the game had to offer.

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

Ok, to the first quote: if you're going to respond, make sure you respond to the right person.

You keep mentioning TP as your ideal game, yet the first couple hours of that weren't very exciting either. What kind of games do you normally play by the way? Because Zelda doesn't sound like your type of game at all.

EDIT

"You must judge a game by the standards of its time. Not doing so and judging 10 year old games by modern standards is like saying that the Roman legions were shit because a single squad of SAS could pretty much have wiped them out, given enough time and ammunition. The Romans were still the strongest military force of their time."

Thank you Mymla. Couldn't have said it better myself

I haven't played that game in.. oh about 8 years I guess. I can't really comment but I remember it being excellent, only surpassed on the n64 by Majora's Mask.

I'm thinking of playing through both of them again this winter break, assuming I can find my old controllers.

Jak The Great:

You keep mentioning TP as your ideal game, yet the first couple hours of that weren't very exciting either. What kind of games do you normally play by the way? Because Zelda doesn't sound like your type of game at all.

EDIT

"You must judge a game by the standards of its time. Not doing so and judging 10 year old games by modern standards is like saying that the Roman legions were shit because a single squad of SAS could pretty much have wiped them out, given enough time and ammunition. The Romans were still the strongest military force of their time."

Thank you Mymla. Couldn't have said it better myself

Twilight Princess isn't my ideal game I just see it as a hell of a lot better than OoT.
As for the type of games I play: shooter and puzzlers mainly. The only genre I blankly avoid is sports games.

And yes the Roman Army is shit, theyre dead! I can, will and do judge by current standards, age doesnt mean crapiness isnt crapiness. A turd is a turd no matter how old it is (disregarding other biological proccesses but moving on...)

Your shallowness knows no bounds.

Spaz91:

Twilight Princess isn't my ideal game I just see it as a hell of a lot better than OoT.
As for the type of games I play: shooter and puzzlers mainly. The only genre I blankly avoid is sports games.

And yes the Roman Army is shit, theyre dead! I can, will and do judge by current standards, age doesnt mean crapiness isnt crapiness. A turd is a turd no matter how old it is (disregarding other biological proccesses but moving on...)

so going with your logic any army that has or ever existed is shit because someone better is always around the corner... if that's the case why do we bother if something will always overpower you. Oh wait, it's because those super armies of the future CAN'T EXIST without the armies of the past or the present. It's called progress for a reason. Hell I'm just waiting for the army from the 29th century to wipe us out because we're shit compared to them. oh wait, they haven't because they don't yet exist.

Were you even gaming when the SNES / 64 platform jump was occurring? If you were then you should know what wonderments gamers were getting to experience for the first time. Remember there were no true 3D games until around this time.

It's no wonder you don't have any appreciation for older games. Why do you play games now? There's going to be a better one in 10 years. But why play that one when another 10 years can pass and an even better game can come out. Hell why play games at all, virtual reality is coming in the next century. But why play that when virtual reality 2.0 is going to come out 20 years after that?

See a pattern? Time frame makes a hell of a difference.

Echoing everyone else here but graphics were sweet at the time, great story, characters, plenty to do, awesome score and let's not forget the ocarina-factor hehe.

Personally I was never a huge fan of it. It wasn't a bad game by any means, but I've never felt that Zelda handled the transition to 3D as well as it could have. I've been a Zelda fan my entire life. The first video game I ever played was The Legend of Zelda on the NES and I've loved the series ever since.

In my opinion the best game in the series is still The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past for the SNES. Good story, perfectly crafted Hyrule, simply amazing. Ocarina of Time suffered from one really big problem for me: graphics. I know this has already been a hot debate in this thread, but heres my $.02.

Some games on the N64 could hide the systems poor graphical capabilities. Games like Starfox 64. Through the games speed, action and distant, zoomed-out camera angles, you never really noticed the fact that the N64 could barely handle rendering a few painted polygons. In a game as detailed as The Ocarina of Time, that kind of graphical weakness REALLY shone through. I don't care if the graphics were GOOD AT THE TIME, they should have waited to move a world as beautiful Hyrule into 3D. Waited until they had hardware that could handle it. If you want a perfect example of what I'm talking about, look at artwork depicting The Master Sword, then look at the pointy gray stick you pull out of The Temple of Time.

Other small things that I can get over, but still kinda bugged me: The Master Sword was useless once you get the Biggorons Sword. It's supposed to be SILVER arrows, not Light arrows. Ganon should be a giant pig, I know the OoT was supposed to be the original Ganon before he was transformed by evil magic, so its excusable in that one, but they kept him in human form for the gamecube and wii zelda games.

/fanboy moment

I religously complete the game once a year, from start to finish. I downloaded it to my wii so my hard copy could be stored and hopefully survive a few more years.

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.