>it was a revolutionary game, but it hasn't aged well.
Midwit. Do you ever stop to think about what you are saying. How does its age negate its greatness? Historical context matters.
It was great to play back then because it did things no other games did.
Nowdays, it's no longer revolutionary - the things OOT introduced into the gaming world have been refined and implemented better in other games.
So the only reasons to play it, in my opinion, are nostalgia and historic curiosity.
It caused a revolution. The revolution it caused is not undone because of the passing of time. Point out a game that caused a bigger revolution or stfu.
you're too autistic to understand but he's completely right
if you played it when it released it was mind blowing, but now there are much better games so, being objective without the nostalgia bias, it has aged poorly
it's like a landline phone, back then it was revolutionary to call people from your house, but now everyone has smartphones which can do so much more, making landline phones look incredibly poor
It caused a revolution. The revolution it caused is not undone because of the passing of time. Point out a game that caused a bigger revolution or stfu.
thougheverbeit that OoT's innovations like Z-targeting are now standard shit that people take for granted, the game holds up really well and deserves all its GOATYAY praise >gameplay that holds up >great dungeons >great pacing >great OST >great story >graphics are serviceable, and PChads have options here
if any game deserves a modern 3d remake, with the best graphics that Nintendo is legally allowed to use, it will always be LTTP
>gameplay that holds up
Agree with everything but this
No, in 2017 AAA kicked it up a notch, building huge teams and expensive games with exponentially more resources than the games before. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn’t but the games became so much smoother and playable. A lot of these amazing classics that were still the best games in 2016 have hard to ignore interface issues.
No, and I'm saying this as a hardcore Zelda 64 fan. And no, neither BoTK or TotK deserve the title either.
The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes, but seeing the current sorry state Modern Nintendo and their Zelda team is in, they will absolutely frick it up.
>I've always been at odds with the jerking of Zelda as a franchise that just does a lot of things to a middling degree and blends them together.
Hit the nail on the head. This is why no Zelda game will ever succeed the relevancy and revolutionary legacy of the N64 titles. Nintendo's inherent game philosophy (of catering to the lowest common denominator with half-baked ideas and middling/low/"safe" effort) is ultimately antithetical to what the Zelda franchise should (and needs) to be. It works for the platformer genre and their platforming games like Mario, Yoshi, Kirby, etc - but is terrible for adventure games, RPGs and games that offer a greater focus on immersion, worldbuilding, exploration and storytelling.
It peaked with the N64 titles, those were they last games where they actually, truly tried and were willing to take huge risks on multiple fronts.
True but making a hit game isn’t that easy or they would all do it. OoT wasn’t a risk, it was just going 2d to 3d. BotW and WW was dropping everything they knew and going a almost completely different direction.
OoT was the better game and WW one of the worst, I just don’t think risk was the reason.
I personally think it’s that pic of a Beethoven bust that shows going from 30-300 polygons is a big deal, going from 300-3000 polygons isn’t.
4 months ago
Anonymous
i'd argue it was a HUGE risk. Early 3D games were hit or miss. Nintendo could've easily fricked up the process of game design considering it was their first time their developers worked so heavily in that dimension, though arguably Super Mario 64 was a bigger risk than OoT
4 months ago
Anonymous
That’s true, though I still stand by WW and TotK being huge risks too and the polygon thing being the biggest factor.
No, and I'm saying this as a hardcore Zelda 64 fan. And no, neither BoTK or TotK deserve the title either.
The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes, but seeing the current sorry state Modern Nintendo and their Zelda team is in, they will absolutely frick it up.
>but seeing the current sorry state Modern Nintendo and their Zelda team is in, they will absolutely frick it up.
Yeah I can just see it >Hmmm what does Ocarina of Time need? >I know! >find the Koroks: 0/9810151 collected >cooking mini game >weapon durability
Done, it is now "modern"
It does, if it wants to retain its cultural relevance like this anon already suggested.
Not really.
it was a revolutionary game, but it hasn't aged well.
Future generation won't play it much after the people with nostalgia for it die out.
But knowing nu-Nintendo, they'll frick it up, so the title for best game should go (and deserves to go) to something else these days. OoT just doesn't stand the test of time to hold the title anymore, ALTTP is honestly a better pick in this regard; still holds well to this day with a lot of people. Though that's generally the case for many 2D classics from the SNES era.
It's cultural relevance is felt in every game after it. The game does not have to be popular in mainstream culture for its impact to be felt. Nor does it cultural popularity delete or in any way diminish the revolution that it caused in gaming. Meds now.
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes
Why do you want to ruin it? It's already a 10/10.
Literally the only thing I would change is the camera.
It aged horribly in many ways, and I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that.
However, numerous aspects from the game still hold up, such as the atmosphere, pacing, dungeon design, environmental storytelling, music, sound design, so on and so forth.
No, definitionally dated and belonging to a franchise that has never aspired beyond mediocre combat and puzzles presented well in congruence with one another but still individually mediocre. There has never been a good 3D Zelda I'm afraid and Link is a rape victim much like Nash.
Pretty much this, unfortunately. The franchise peaked with the N64 titles and its just been a gradually-downward spiral of mediocrity and Nintendo sitting on their nostalgia-laurels ever since. Combat? Fromsoft's Miyazaki took advantage of the scenario and did it better with his Soulslikes. Story and evironmental storytelling? Countless other fantasy games do it better. Open world design? WW was the last time they actually tried; BoTW and ToTK are just desperate (yet still lazy) attempts at the tired Ubislop trend. Difficulty and challenge? Utterly laughable, WW (once again) marked the death of challenging Zeldas with uncomfortable, eerie atmosphere.
game is not great by todays standards =/= game not great
game is not great by todays standards =/= game not revolutionary
game is not great by todays standards =/= its impact is smaller than a new games impact
>Difficulty and challenge? Utterly laughable, WW (once again) marked the death of challenging Zeldas with uncomfortable, eerie atmosphere.
This one bugs me. While I’ll never blame a corporation looking to make money I just don’t understand why a Indy never tried to fill the gap.
The world design is bland and empty (Epona is basically useless,) the combat is dated and janky and could always use room for improvement, the difficulty is low and relatively easy (by today's standards.)
Granted, mods and hacks could fix it, so you win there, I guess.
>what is historical context? >how did the game compare to the games before it? >how did the games compare to other games at the time? >what other game in history compared to the impact of this game?
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes
IT'S GONNA BLOW, IT WAS NA' DESIGNED TAH HANDLE THIS LEVEL AH homosexualRY, CAP'N!!!
Who cares, it's a meaningless title. It'll be the Citizen Kane of video games, once enough time has passed people will still hear about it but the percentage of people who have actually experience it will keep going down.
No, definitionally dated and belonging to a franchise that has never aspired beyond mediocre combat and puzzles presented well in congruence with one another but still individually mediocre. There has never been a good 3D Zelda I'm afraid and Link is a rape victim much like Nash.
Yeah, it's definitely one of the greats. Kids today can still sit down and enjoy the game no problem. That's pretty good, considering what time it came out in.
That zoomers still get into it and stuff like Mario 64 speaks to how good they are, yeah. Strong design can and will overcome age. I don't think anyone will still be playing nu-Zelda in 20 years, just like nobody cares about shit like Skyward Sword now.
Mario 64 was better because it fully committed to being a movement-centric platformer. I've always been at odds with the jerking of Zelda as a franchise that just does a lot of things to a middling degree and blends them together. Looking at something like how a Zelda game incorporates puzzles into a broader game vs something like Resident Evil, I just don't get it. To me it's a clear blowout and Zelda's made for a different audience with less concern for quality, but it has this reputation as being Nintendo's never-miss soul franchise. I say this as someone who relatively enjoyed BoTW for what it was too, so I have no particular hatred for Zelda, just the level of acclaim it gets for juggling many dented balls is odd.
Within the context of that console generation when compared to it's at the time contemporaries? Sure.
Of all time? No, you guys are gonna see some crazy shit in 2025 which won't be met again until 2031.
I believe it cant be topped because there will never be another huge jump like that ever again
the 2d>3d jump was just fricking magical, a literal "you had to be there" moment and what's next? the gap between shit like Mario 64 and Mario Odyssey is like 25 years or so, and yet the only thing to change was the visuals
the only way ur gonna get that magic again, is 3D > 4D and lol, its never gonna happen
Agreed, Grezzo are complete hacks and got exposed hard with MM3D. It's one of those things where once the novelty of playing it on a handheld was gone it just has no upside at all. The one thing it had was instantly equipping clothing and there's a N64 patch for that now.
SM64 is the better 64 flagship title and while OoT's modern following & content is nothing to scoff at it pales in comparison to SM64's and generally speaks to which of the two holds more timeless value.
Unless you suck at the game the time limit is very forgiving. You can easily finish a dungeon or a side quest in that time, play Song of Time, then do another
No, you simply suck. You do the reverse song of time at the start of every cycle, you only start a dungeon at the start of a cycle and the only thing that even comes close is getting all the fairies.
No, in 2017 AAA kicked it up a notch, building huge teams and expensive games with exponentially more resources than the games before. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn’t but the games became so much smoother and playable. A lot of these amazing classics that were still the best games in 2016 have hard to ignore interface issues.
absolutely nobody copied mario 64s platforming, camera, structure, or collect-a-thon nature besides banjo-kazooie, which was a better game in every way.
It's insane that Nintendo released LttP and OoT, two absolute masterpieces in less than a decade, tackling the paradigm shift to 3D with finesse, and now the franchise is bland open world Ubisoft trash with most of its legacy mechanics thrown in the trash. It's just depressing.
Yes and no, it's not flawless but it's good enough for its time that it's literally a legendary status game at this point. They've still yet to top 3D dungeon design from the fricking N64.
>highest rated game of all time
It wasn't even the best 3D action-adventure of its era, I remember playing OoT and Outcast around the same time, and I did enjoy both a lot, but the superiority of properly designed PC games over console games (PS1 / N64) was noticeable.
Yes, partly because no game will make such an impact again. It came out at the perfect time when people were still getting amazed at well done 3d graphics, and did everything right on top of that. It helps that the game industry wasn't a behemoth like it is now.
I used to replay it once every five years or so but it's been a while now. Usually it's just been P64 playthroughs in the new millennium but now I'm debating dusting off the N64 and playing it there or going the exact opposite and play the PC port.
What does the PC port add really that emulation didn't? Can you toggle the iron boots for example?
never was
Worthy of the title of being the highest rated? Well if it is, it is. "Highest rated" is a question of methodology, not opinion.
Yes.
Always was
Not really.
it was a revolutionary game, but it hasn't aged well.
Future generation won't play it much after the people with nostalgia for it die out.
>it was a revolutionary game, but it hasn't aged well.
Midwit. Do you ever stop to think about what you are saying. How does its age negate its greatness? Historical context matters.
It was great to play back then because it did things no other games did.
Nowdays, it's no longer revolutionary - the things OOT introduced into the gaming world have been refined and implemented better in other games.
So the only reasons to play it, in my opinion, are nostalgia and historic curiosity.
>Nowdays, it's no longer revolutionary
Kek, only on Ganker
you're too autistic to understand but he's completely right
if you played it when it released it was mind blowing, but now there are much better games so, being objective without the nostalgia bias, it has aged poorly
it's like a landline phone, back then it was revolutionary to call people from your house, but now everyone has smartphones which can do so much more, making landline phones look incredibly poor
It caused a revolution. The revolution it caused is not undone because of the passing of time. Point out a game that caused a bigger revolution or stfu.
Street Fighter II, DOOM, SM64, Minecraft, Fortnite,GTAIII
half life 1 had more effect on gaming and that came out two days before OoT did
thougheverbeit that OoT's innovations like Z-targeting are now standard shit that people take for granted, the game holds up really well and deserves all its GOATYAY praise
>gameplay that holds up
>great dungeons
>great pacing
>great OST
>great story
>graphics are serviceable, and PChads have options here
if any game deserves a modern 3d remake, with the best graphics that Nintendo is legally allowed to use, it will always be LTTP
>gameplay that holds up
Agree with everything but this
name the game that deserves the spot then
Unironically Elder Ring
undertale
Left 4 Dead
dark souls
>I've always been at odds with the jerking of Zelda as a franchise that just does a lot of things to a middling degree and blends them together.
Hit the nail on the head. This is why no Zelda game will ever succeed the relevancy and revolutionary legacy of the N64 titles. Nintendo's inherent game philosophy (of catering to the lowest common denominator with half-baked ideas and middling/low/"safe" effort) is ultimately antithetical to what the Zelda franchise should (and needs) to be. It works for the platformer genre and their platforming games like Mario, Yoshi, Kirby, etc - but is terrible for adventure games, RPGs and games that offer a greater focus on immersion, worldbuilding, exploration and storytelling.
It peaked with the N64 titles, those were they last games where they actually, truly tried and were willing to take huge risks on multiple fronts.
BotW was a big risk.
No it wasn't, it was just Zelda Skyrim, which was a massively popular game. It worked out for them of course but it was always gonna make money.
True but making a hit game isn’t that easy or they would all do it. OoT wasn’t a risk, it was just going 2d to 3d. BotW and WW was dropping everything they knew and going a almost completely different direction.
OoT was the better game and WW one of the worst, I just don’t think risk was the reason.
I personally think it’s that pic of a Beethoven bust that shows going from 30-300 polygons is a big deal, going from 300-3000 polygons isn’t.
i'd argue it was a HUGE risk. Early 3D games were hit or miss. Nintendo could've easily fricked up the process of game design considering it was their first time their developers worked so heavily in that dimension, though arguably Super Mario 64 was a bigger risk than OoT
That’s true, though I still stand by WW and TotK being huge risks too and the polygon thing being the biggest factor.
yeah i think so
i hate to sound like a urinalist but it was an actual "groundbreaking" game.
Further proof that games peaked over 20 years ago.
No, and I'm saying this as a hardcore Zelda 64 fan.
And no, neither BoTK or TotK deserve the title either.
The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes, but seeing the current sorry state Modern Nintendo and their Zelda team is in, they will absolutely frick it up.
>but seeing the current sorry state Modern Nintendo and their Zelda team is in, they will absolutely frick it up.
Yeah I can just see it
>Hmmm what does Ocarina of Time need?
>I know!
>find the Koroks: 0/9810151 collected
>cooking mini game
>weapon durability
Done, it is now "modern"
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes
It does, if it wants to retain its cultural relevance like this anon already suggested.
But knowing nu-Nintendo, they'll frick it up, so the title for best game should go (and deserves to go) to something else these days. OoT just doesn't stand the test of time to hold the title anymore, ALTTP is honestly a better pick in this regard; still holds well to this day with a lot of people. Though that's generally the case for many 2D classics from the SNES era.
It's cultural relevance is felt in every game after it. The game does not have to be popular in mainstream culture for its impact to be felt. Nor does it cultural popularity delete or in any way diminish the revolution that it caused in gaming. Meds now.
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes
Why do you want to ruin it? It's already a 10/10.
Literally the only thing I would change is the camera.
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes
Pleas have a nice day
It aged horribly in many ways, and I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that.
However, numerous aspects from the game still hold up, such as the atmosphere, pacing, dungeon design, environmental storytelling, music, sound design, so on and so forth.
Pretty much this, unfortunately. The franchise peaked with the N64 titles and its just been a gradually-downward spiral of mediocrity and Nintendo sitting on their nostalgia-laurels ever since. Combat? Fromsoft's Miyazaki took advantage of the scenario and did it better with his Soulslikes. Story and evironmental storytelling? Countless other fantasy games do it better. Open world design? WW was the last time they actually tried; BoTW and ToTK are just desperate (yet still lazy) attempts at the tired Ubislop trend. Difficulty and challenge? Utterly laughable, WW (once again) marked the death of challenging Zeldas with uncomfortable, eerie atmosphere.
No lies detected
game is not great by todays standards =/= game not great
game is not great by todays standards =/= game not revolutionary
game is not great by todays standards =/= its impact is smaller than a new games impact
>Difficulty and challenge? Utterly laughable, WW (once again) marked the death of challenging Zeldas with uncomfortable, eerie atmosphere.
This one bugs me. While I’ll never blame a corporation looking to make money I just don’t understand why a Indy never tried to fill the gap.
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7
What exactly about it doesn't hold up that couldn't be fixed by Nintendo just tweaking the existing game or people making hacks for it?
The world design is bland and empty (Epona is basically useless,) the combat is dated and janky and could always use room for improvement, the difficulty is low and relatively easy (by today's standards.)
Granted, mods and hacks could fix it, so you win there, I guess.
>what is historical context?
>how did the game compare to the games before it?
>how did the games compare to other games at the time?
>what other game in history compared to the impact of this game?
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes
>The game definitely needs the remake/reimagining treatment ala FF7 or the recent RE remakes
IT'S GONNA BLOW, IT WAS NA' DESIGNED TAH HANDLE THIS LEVEL AH homosexualRY, CAP'N!!!
It's mid, no cap
Who cares, it's a meaningless title. It'll be the Citizen Kane of video games, once enough time has passed people will still hear about it but the percentage of people who have actually experience it will keep going down.
Yes, it's the best game ever made.
No because Soul Calibur came out the next year and was robbed of a 99 because critics claimed it wasn't enough like Mortal Kombat.
No, definitionally dated and belonging to a franchise that has never aspired beyond mediocre combat and puzzles presented well in congruence with one another but still individually mediocre. There has never been a good 3D Zelda I'm afraid and Link is a rape victim much like Nash.
Played on my 3ds, its mid at best.
Yeah, it's definitely one of the greats. Kids today can still sit down and enjoy the game no problem. That's pretty good, considering what time it came out in.
That zoomers still get into it and stuff like Mario 64 speaks to how good they are, yeah. Strong design can and will overcome age. I don't think anyone will still be playing nu-Zelda in 20 years, just like nobody cares about shit like Skyward Sword now.
Elden ring clears
>literally all the reviews are from sites owned by nintendo
wtf lol how is this normal?
Always was, and it still makes people seethe
Mario 64 was better because it fully committed to being a movement-centric platformer. I've always been at odds with the jerking of Zelda as a franchise that just does a lot of things to a middling degree and blends them together. Looking at something like how a Zelda game incorporates puzzles into a broader game vs something like Resident Evil, I just don't get it. To me it's a clear blowout and Zelda's made for a different audience with less concern for quality, but it has this reputation as being Nintendo's never-miss soul franchise. I say this as someone who relatively enjoyed BoTW for what it was too, so I have no particular hatred for Zelda, just the level of acclaim it gets for juggling many dented balls is odd.
>Mario 64 was better because it fully committed to being a movement-centric platformer.
thats like just your opinion man
Within the context of that console generation when compared to it's at the time contemporaries? Sure.
Of all time? No, you guys are gonna see some crazy shit in 2025 which won't be met again until 2031.
name a game with comparable impact on the gaming industry?
kill.switch, believe it or not.
It's literally as close to a 10/10 a game has ever been.
I genuinely feel bad for anyone who hasn't played it.
I believe it cant be topped because there will never be another huge jump like that ever again
the 2d>3d jump was just fricking magical, a literal "you had to be there" moment and what's next? the gap between shit like Mario 64 and Mario Odyssey is like 25 years or so, and yet the only thing to change was the visuals
the only way ur gonna get that magic again, is 3D > 4D and lol, its never gonna happen
>I believe it cant be topped because there will never be another huge jump like that ever again
basically this is the most reasonable position to take
No matter how many times you make this thread the answer will still be yes.
Overrated as shit just like every zelda.
It only has 22 reviews and the re-release scored lower.
The re-release was a classic example of soul vs soulless. Frick that game, the PC port is the best way to play OoT of Time.
Agreed, Grezzo are complete hacks and got exposed hard with MM3D. It's one of those things where once the novelty of playing it on a handheld was gone it just has no upside at all. The one thing it had was instantly equipping clothing and there's a N64 patch for that now.
Elden Ring
Elden Ring
it wasn't when it came out, and it isn't now. it was bad then, and it's bad now.
SM64 is the better 64 flagship title and while OoT's modern following & content is nothing to scoff at it pales in comparison to SM64's and generally speaks to which of the two holds more timeless value.
please just have a nice day contrarian homosexual c**t
He’s right though? At the time I’d give OoT the edge but it hasn’t aged as well.
Majora's >>>>>>
the time limit is still cancer though
Unless you suck at the game the time limit is very forgiving. You can easily finish a dungeon or a side quest in that time, play Song of Time, then do another
No, you simply suck. You do the reverse song of time at the start of every cycle, you only start a dungeon at the start of a cycle and the only thing that even comes close is getting all the fairies.
It's crazy that these """""people""""" still exist.
You were given decades of proof and still choose to be wrong.
>22 reviews
No, in 2017 AAA kicked it up a notch, building huge teams and expensive games with exponentially more resources than the games before. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn’t but the games became so much smoother and playable. A lot of these amazing classics that were still the best games in 2016 have hard to ignore interface issues.
If the story was better I'd probably agree.
for better or worse, ocarina of time essentially "invented" video games. not literally, but it became the basis for literally everything afterwards.
That would be super mario 64.
absolutely nobody copied mario 64s platforming, camera, structure, or collect-a-thon nature besides banjo-kazooie, which was a better game in every way.
I’m curios what the story was with the 64 gamer
engines. Was Mario, OoT, Banjo All the same or different?
It's insane that Nintendo released LttP and OoT, two absolute masterpieces in less than a decade, tackling the paradigm shift to 3D with finesse, and now the franchise is bland open world Ubisoft trash with most of its legacy mechanics thrown in the trash. It's just depressing.
Imagine putting everything on the line to make what became probably the best game of all time just to scrape the barrel for the next 30 years.
It wasn't even impressive for 1998
>22 reviews from nintendo fansites
Yep, just like today.
Yes and no, it's not flawless but it's good enough for its time that it's literally a legendary status game at this point. They've still yet to top 3D dungeon design from the fricking N64.
>highest rated game of all time
It wasn't even the best 3D action-adventure of its era, I remember playing OoT and Outcast around the same time, and I did enjoy both a lot, but the superiority of properly designed PC games over console games (PS1 / N64) was noticeable.
Is this actually a good and interesting game? Every time I see someone talk about it, it's because of how technologically impressive it was.
Yes, partly because no game will make such an impact again. It came out at the perfect time when people were still getting amazed at well done 3d graphics, and did everything right on top of that. It helps that the game industry wasn't a behemoth like it is now.
>20 reviews
>all cherrypicked from like 30 years ago
I used to replay it once every five years or so but it's been a while now. Usually it's just been P64 playthroughs in the new millennium but now I'm debating dusting off the N64 and playing it there or going the exact opposite and play the PC port.
What does the PC port add really that emulation didn't? Can you toggle the iron boots for example?
Always will be.
Yes especially these days