gaming The problems with "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time"

[Forlong 1,725]

"Ocarina of Time" is regarded as a classic and a great game. However, I feel that it's largely overrated. While it is certainly a good game, it isn't nearly as good as the fanboys make it out to be or as good as it should be. Here's what they did wrong:

 

1: Tutorials

Okay, not even the biggest fanboys will defend this. The tutorials in "Ocarina" are terrible. Navi is one of the most annoying characters in any video game. And don't get me started on that big, stupid owl. The problem is that both of these characters were meant to give tutorials where none were needed. Thanks to the well designed HUD of the game, players could easily figure out the rules of the game themselves. I did notice one or two times when Navi actually gave you an idea you might not come up with yourself. If they used her that way more often, less people would complain.

2: Difficulty curve

There is no nice way to say this: "Ocarina of Time" is way to easy. The first half of the game has a good difficulty arc, but the last few dungeons feel phoned in and half-assed. Ganon's Tower is particularly guilty of this, being no more challenging than walking down a paved road while being attacked by de-clawed kittens. The last part of the game is supposed to be hard, not a walk in the park!

3: Recycle plots, if you care about the planet

This was what really got under my skin. Okay, you have to sneak into the castle...wait, that sounds familiar...then you have to collect three mcguffins...um...it might just be a coincidence. After you collect all three, you get the Master Sword--wait what!? Then you are transported to the future, which is a dark mirror of the past. A "dark world", if you will. Wait, let me guess: now I have to get seven sages? Oh, what do you know, I do!

This is the exact same plot as "Link to the Past". It is such a cop-out. Each Zelda game that came before this took the series to new and interesting places. Not so much the second one, but shut up--I'm trying to make a point here. Recycling the plot points of a previous game is just cheap.

4: Dumbass NPCs

"Ocarina" was during that transition phase in video games. It was doing the 3D stuff well. The believable characters? Not so much. The NPCs come off as dumb and lazy. They're always asking you to run errands for them. Wouldn't be to much of a problem if not for the evil overlord they know is out to kill them all. Why is no one trying to get rid of Ganondorf? Were are the King's loyal subjects? Probably the dumbest NPC ever is that one chick that asks Link to collect her chickens. Why didn't she just get them herself? Because she's allergic to them! Well, maybe you should look into a different profession!

 

Don't worry, what is good about "Ocarina" sure outweighs the bad; but I wouldn't call it the best Zelda game ever, let alone the best game ever. I just felt the need to say my peace on that game.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Forlong

[Why-Gnome-Ear-Fifty 400]

I would actually have to agree with all those points (I'm a TP fan myself) but what I thought was really the main pro for Oot was how much of a revolutionary change it was to the LoZ series (especially for the 3D, even if it was sub-par). Just based on that alone, the fact that it was so much of a new thing is still a big deal.

[Keypassion 232]

I would probably take this more seriously were it not for the grammatical and spelling errors.

Also, if you paid any attention to the small details you would remember that there are only six sages in Ocarina of Time.

[Discordian 6,013]

I've certainly always believed TP was a better Zelda game than OoT.

 

The one thing TP has over OoT without a doubt is it's story. I don't care how many people say TP is just a "OoT clone" it's not really. The only things it shares are the template for dungeons: Forest to Fire to Water to a Desert level. Beyond that the levels are completely different, the boss fights themselves are epic, particularly the dragon in the City in the Sky.

 

It's story is absolutely amazing though, they put a lot of life into each of the characters. Link isn't just some no-name running about saving the world, he is known by the people around him and they interact with him on a personal level. Having to save the kids from his own village gives Link an actual purpose for a lot of the game and Midna's constant teasing motivated him.

[Ashbad 969]

Okay, not even the biggest fanboys will defend this. The tutorials in "Ocarina" are terrible. Navi is one of the most annoying characters in any video game.

Heartily agreed.

 

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sZ0Yn16Dgg

 

My favorite Zelda game was ALTTP, since it was the first real semi-modern one in the series that provided very little help to the gamer. It was hard the first time through figuring out all of the riddles that were supposed to help guide you, but extremely rewarding. And, no stupid fairy followed you around!

[Jimmy Bronymian 140]

I agree with all of your points about OoT (especially Navi). However, that's not to say it still isn't widely regarded as one of the best games of its time, and within good reason. For how overrated it seems now, during the time period it was originally released it was a fantastic game and for most people (including me) a big part of childhood memories.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Jimmy Brohemian

[Discordian 6,013]

I will never understand how anyone ever lets Navi annoy them. lol

 

It just doesn't make any sense to me why she would be annoying, maybe I just have a way higher tolerance than other people but I think it's ridiculous how many people hate Navi.

[Legendary Emerald 622]

I have to wholeheartedly agree with the game's difficult curve being terrible.

 

To me, Ocarina of Time peaks at the forest temple. Those first four dungeons have a natural progression of difficulty and new mechanics being added. After that, the rest just felt like filler. Nothing was difficult after the forest tumble, only time consuming. And don't get me started on the final boss; possibly the most disappointing end-game encounter I've ever experienced.

 

The plot also isn't nearly as good as people like to say it is. Most elements were taken directly from past Zelda games. This practice continues today, with only recent Zelda games like Skyward Sword not giving us the same tired storyline over and over again.

 

Ocarina is still an enjoyable game, but it's not a game that engaged me personally. It wasn't until the 3DS remake that I even bothered to beat the game. I'd always grown tired of the N64 version after, you guessed it, defeating the forest temple.

 

Honestly, Ocarina is one of my least favorite games in the Zelda franchise.

[Radiance64 7,051]

It's no coincedence that OoT is similar to aLttP, in fact I remember reading somewhere that the developers wanted to make something like aLttP with OoT in 3D(can't remember where though). But yeah, OoT isn't my favorite either(SS and aLttP are! ), and agree it is a bit overrated sometimes.

[LunaShy 167]

You know that your whining about a 14 year old game right?

[Yellow Diamond 7,564]

You know that your whining about a 14 year old game right?

 

Oh, you have yet to be bitten by the nostalgia bug. I, too, love whining about things which have long since been completed and are ripe for scrutiny.

 

Here's the thing about Ocarina: every Zelda game, save for perhaps Wind Waker, is effectively a recycling of Ocarina. Zelda games have been following the same pattern for years now. It's similar to how Mario games subsequent to Mario 64 were rehashing similar dynamics.

 

Then again, it's hard to really change the basic premises of these games. It comes down to altering the presentation.

[Forlong 1,725]

You know that your whining about a 14 year old game right?

 

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u299-o66wo

 

I wasn't aware there was a cut off date for what you complain about.

[LunaShy 167]

http-~~-//www.youtube.c...h?v=6u299-o66wo

 

I wasn't aware there was a cut off date for what you complain about.

 

There is because you who have experienced modern day gaming are now wheighing a game that is 14 years old over games that are much newer

[Forlong 1,725]

There is because you who have experienced modern day gaming are now wheighing a game that is 14 years old over games that are much newer

 

Not really. I felt that way while playing the game 14 years ago. I didn't mention any recent games, just a few of the previous ones. And that was relevant to the lack of creativity in the plot. The first four games all had plots that were unique to each game, but "Ocarina" just copy-pasted elements from the plot of "Link to the Past", which is cheep.

[Crispy 5,563]

Time to keep my fanboy-ism's in check and try to go through this objectively.

 

1: Tutorials

Okay, not even the biggest fanboys will defend this. The tutorials in "Ocarina" are terrible.

 

Not really. Great Deku Tree is a good way to get acquainted with the mechanics. Nice, simple first dungeon. Navi isn't a tutorial, she's an annoying sidekick. Distinctions.

 

Navi is one of the most annoying characters in any video game. And don't get me started on that big, stupid owl.

 

I'll give you Navi. She didn't need to be a constant "HEY, LISTEN" up in the corner, but the owl only appears three times or so, and isn't annoying until you accidentally choose to hear his lecture more than once.

 

The problem is that both of these characters were meant to give tutorials where none were needed. Thanks to the well designed HUD of the game, players could easily figure out the rules of the game themselves. I did notice one or two times when Navi actually gave you an idea you might not come up with yourself. If they used her that way more often, less people would complain.

 

This is the hardest point to argue, because of how subjective it is. Navi helped me in more than a few spots because when the game first came out, I was 11, and "HEY LOOK UP THERE'S SWITCHES ON THE CEILING" and "HEY YOU CAN JUMP THROUGH SPIDERWEBS FROM HEIGHT" and "HEY RETARD TALK TO THE FROGS IN ORDER" weren't things that occured to me immediately.

 

You take out her noise and just let the Up C icon appear when it does, no one would have ever complained, but many people probably wouldn't have noticed she had hints until they went to equip a new item.

 

2: Difficulty curve

There is no nice way to say this: "Ocarina of Time" is way to easy. The first half of the game has a good difficulty arc, but the last few dungeons feel phoned in and half-assed. Ganon's Tower is particularly guilty of this, being no more challenging than walking down a paved road while being attacked by de-clawed kittens. The last part of the game is supposed to be hard, not a walk in the park!

 

Of course it's easier. You have five or six and a half times your starting health by then (double that if you got the Golden Gauntlets to get the half damage from the final Great Fairy), a bajillion items, and you've mastered the game's mechanics.

 

And again, subjective opinions on difficulty, I always hated fighting Morphia in the Water Temple. Even with Z-targeting, you had better get your Longshot angle right or you only hit water tenticle and not the body.

 

3: Recycle plots, if you care about the planet

This was what really got under my skin. Okay, you have to sneak into the castle...wait, that sounds familiar...then you have to collect three mcguffins...um...it might just be a coincidence. After you collect all three, you get the Master Sword--wait what!? Then you are transported to the future, which is a dark mirror of the past. A "dark world", if you will. Wait, let me guess: now I have to get seven sages? Oh, what do you know, I do!

This is the exact same plot as "Link to the Past". It is such a cop-out. Each Zelda game that came before this took the series to new and interesting places. Not so much the second one, but shut up--I'm trying to make a point here. Recycling the plot points of a previous game is just cheap.

 

This is a running theme with all successful franchises. All those new and interesting places? I bet they have a Map, Compass, Boss Key, and Item in them. I bet you use that item to solve puzzles and beat the dungeon boss, and I bet that in the end, you save a princess. Yep, you're playing a Zelda game.

 

With older games like this, the plot doesn't have to matter so much. Do you look for in depth plot in a Mario or Sonic game? Mega Man? Kirby? Nope. You're here to kill monsters and learn game mechanics to better kill monsters, and the game has that in spades.

 

4: Dumbass NPCs

"Ocarina" was during that transition phase in video games. It was doing the 3D stuff well. The believable characters? Not so much. The NPCs come off as dumb and lazy. They're always asking you to run errands for them. Wouldn't be to much of a problem if not for the evil overlord they know is out to kill them all. Why is no one trying to get rid of Ganondorf? Were are the King's loyal subjects?

 

This is actually more believeable than if everyone were willing to go up in arms against an evil wizard that could unleash an army of undead on them. People are always out for themselves. Ganondorf hadn't shown himself as bad to the world yet, and when he did, he took over the castle and presumably all the soldiers in Hyrule Castle/Town. Someone powerful enough to do that? Kakariko isn't going to touch it. The Kokiri don't leave the forest. The same is presumably true about the Gorons and the Zoras, they've all got their own shit to worry about. Flash forward to a future where Ganondorf rules, because Hyrule has always been a divided place.

 

Probably the dumbest NPC ever is that one chick that asks Link to collect her chickens. Why didn't she just get them herself? Because she's allergic to them! Well, maybe you should look into a different profession!

 

Yeah, that's just funny. I'll give you that.

 

Welp, that was probably my longest post on the forum, and it's about video games from 1998.

 

[Strafe 593]

This is why wind waker is my favorite zelda game. The characters were less annoying and the story wasn't really recycled, however, it did have it's fair share of problems like having to play a song to change the wind so you can sail your boat in a different direction was a very annoying concept.

[Forlong 1,725]

Of course it's easier. You have five or six and a half times your starting health by then (double that if you got the Golden Gauntlets to get the half damage from the final Great Fairy), a bajillion items, and you've mastered the game's mechanics.

You have all that halfway through "Link to the Past", but it only gets harder from there. I expected more from Zelda games.

 

This is a running theme with all successful franchises. All those new and interesting places? I bet they have a Map, Compass, Boss Key, and Item in them. I bet you use that item to solve puzzles and beat the dungeon boss, and I bet that in the end, you save a princess. Yep, you're playing a Zelda game.

Funny for you to say this, after I pointed out that none of the other Zelda games had copy-paste plots before. Obviously, "Adventure of Link", "Link to the Past", and "Link's Awakening" felt a need to differentiate themselves and have a unique plot. I love how you mentioned all the common Zelda elements that weren't in the second game. Even without that, the first one and "Skyward Sword" didn't follow that formula (the boss wasn't always connected to the treasure of that dungeon). "Skyward Sword", "Phantom Hourglass", and "Spirit Tracks" didn't have compasses either. They should always try to break form somehow, even if just a little.

 

With older games like this, the plot doesn't have to matter so much. Do you look for in depth plot in a Mario or Sonic game? Mega Man? Kirby? Nope. You're here to kill monsters and learn game mechanics to better kill monsters, and the game has that in spades.

Megaman X managed to have a plot worked into the gameplay perfectly 5 years before this came out. Also, "Link to the Past" and "Link's Awakening" had plot as their primary strength.

 

This is an excuse. If I said that the plot was great, you would be praising my keen insight. The plot to this game is "mah". It isn't exactly bad, but it isn't all that good. I expected far more from this game, because of the quality of previous Zelda games.

 

This is actually more believeable than if everyone were willing to go up in arms against an evil wizard that could unleash an army of undead on them. People are always out for themselves. Ganondorf hadn't shown himself as bad to the world yet, and when he did, he took over the castle and presumably all the soldiers in Hyrule Castle/Town. Someone powerful enough to do that? Kakariko isn't going to touch it. The Kokiri don't leave the forest. The same is presumably true about the Gorons and the Zoras, they've all got their own shit to worry about. Flash forward to a future where Ganondorf rules, because Hyrule has always been a divided place.

Well, you do have a point there.

[Crispy 5,563]

You have all that halfway through "Link to the Past", but it only gets harder from there. I expected more from Zelda games.

 

I wasn't saying that OoT wasn't easier than it's previous incarnations. You have to remember the difficulty curve for all games went down as time progressed. Can you name a popular N64 game that even came close in difficulty to NES titles?

 

Funny for you to say this, after I pointed out that none of the other Zelda games had copy-paste plots before. Obviously, "Adventure of Link", "Link to the Past", and "Link's Awakening" felt a need to differentiate themselves and have a unique plot.

 

If by "differentiate themselves" you mean "follow the same basic pattern throughout the series", then yeah. Collect things. Beat dungeon. Save [subject X]. Be it a sleeping Zelda, a captured Zelda, or a Wind Fish, you are still collecting six or seven dungeon items to do [function Y].

 

I love how you mentioned all the common Zelda elements that weren't in the second game. Even without that, the first one and "Skyward Sword" didn't follow that formula (the boss wasn't always connected to the treasure of that dungeon). "Skyward Sword", "Phantom Hourglass", and "Spirit Tracks" didn't have compasses either. They should always try to break form somehow, even if just a little

 

They aren't even breaking form. You are still defeating six to seven dungeons to find [subject Y]. Being essentially the same game is pretty inherent to being a sequel. There's a reason Zelda II was heralded as one of the worst Zelda games. It turned a top down perspective game into a side scroller with level ups. You could package that as a completely different game with palate swaps, and no one would know it was a Zelda game.

 

Megaman X managed to have a plot worked into the gameplay perfectly 5 years before this came out. Also, "Link to the Past" and "Link's Awakening" had plot as their primary strength.

 

Not really. It has the same basic plot as every other Mega Man game. Eight robots. Oh shit, Wily made them, beat Wily stages. Beat Wily. Oh man, it's a Mega Man game, be it MM, or MM3, or whatever. Yes, Sigma is the boss of the X series, but it's the same idea. Swap Sigma with Wily, and the sentence is the same.

 

 

This is an excuse. If I said that the plot was great, you would be praising my keen insight. The plot to this game is "mah". It isn't exactly bad, but it isn't all that good. I expected far more from this game, because of the quality of previous Zelda games.

 

I wouldn't be "praising your insight". I'd be saying "Oh hey, Zelda plot." or "Oh yeah, you're playing Megaman." I think the first example of true plot in a video game is Chrono Trigger.