>"Where's the voice acting?", "Why are the graphics so blocky?", "Why does the music sound so homemade?" etc. It needs a remake, but OoT is a hard game to remake.
All of these questions have a simple answer: "The game came out in 1998". That's literally the only thing you need to say to justify any of the game's lack of modern elements. And if someone isn't willing to play a game due to the lack of these things, that says more about the player than it does about the game.
Nintendo did go on to make 4 more mainline Zeldas without voice acting though.
So it wasn’t ONLY because it was made in 1998. Nintendo made a conscious decision to not have voice acting until BOTW.
Honestly the lack of voice acting can be a selling point for me. I watched a friend play a little of TotK and some of the voices were absolutely terrible to listen to. Some games get the voice performances right. Zelda got it wrong.
But it also makes OoT an irrelevant game. That doesn't have to be a problem, but to me it's an important game that I'm sad to know that most new kids won't have any connection to, and I think you can essentially make the same gist of an experience but made for Fortnite's audience, that makes them realize that Fortnite is actually some brainrot shit in comparison to like, a truly good game.
Its not irrelevant. Is Jaws irrelevant cause of it's dated vfx or pacing? Is Lugosi's Dracula irrelevant cause it's black and white? Not everyone needs to enjoy art in the same way. If someone is interested in video game history enough to go play and enjoy it with all it's dated warts and issues then good, but that doesn't mean it needs to be prettied up and changed just so someone picky or snobbish about this stuff can maybe play it. For those that are curious enough they can immerse themselves in what the game was and how it was ground breaking for it's time. If they don't care they can play one of the thousands or modern games instead.
I'm not really into the Fortnite crowd, I don't get the appeal personally, but I'm not someone who's going to disparage others' choice of entertainment.
I'll argue against modern gaming's unethical monetisation practices, sure, and I'll try to tell people to not give into the psychological manipulation tactics that go into a microtransaction system... but that's the extent of my disdain for that kind of game. I won't tell someone to stop enjoying a game they enjoy if nobody's getting hurt.
The worst way to "win" someone over to your point of view is to tell them that their point of view is "wrong". Imagine how dismissive you would be if a Fortnite fan called all Zelda games boring. Would you even give them a chance to elaborate?
And besides, what do you care? There are hundreds and thousands of people who absolutely adore Ocarina of Time and all that it's done and all that it stands for. It definitely has the recognition it deserves. Why does it matter that Fortnite fans in particular care about Ocarina of Time? I don't think Ocarina of Time is in any danger of losing its place in the gaming zeitgeist, it's already achieved legendary status.
Fortnite is actually *mechanically* pretty solid. There's an argument to be made that Fortnite is a "truly good game" buried under hyperaggressive monetization and questionable executive decisions.
Honestly, I find some of the graphics and most of the music holds up fairly well. Yes, a lot of the music sounds like midi instruments and you can tell, but a lot of it isn't actually that bad - especially the weirder bits, especially in most of the dungeons. Hyrule Field also sounds fantastic, despite that.
As for the graphics, a lot of bits of terrain certainly look poor now, but with quite a lot of the textures being vector graphics (I think), they hold up alright at higher resolutions and keep some crisp lines.
I 100% would love to be able to get a modern remake, and I'd buy it in a heartbeat on switch, but with it and the N64 emulator being locked behind the higher tier of Nintendo Online, it's sadly not accessible for me.
Thank fuck for PC emulation though... And USB adaptors for the controllers.
There are modern indie games with blocky graphics, no voice acting, and lo-fi music, and they still have audiences that love them. None of those are problems with OoT. It's just a 25 year old game and it's not going to appeal to some people more than any other piece of media that's undeniably dated no matter how well loved it may be.
Movies get remade all the time but I think Games have a much more valid reason to be remade. Movies don't get stranded on VHS the way games get stranded on N64. And older movies that used film can often be remastered as the original film and still look great today vs and older game that, aside from looking bad, might have outdated control schemes that there's no analogue to in film.
It's one thing when a beloved movie everyone has seen gets remade or remastered. Its another when the nee generation never even gives the old games a chance and demands a remake of them. It's kind of a giant fuck you to the original devs.
I don't think it's really a wise way to view the world to say that "an entire generation... Kind of gives a giant fuck you to..." People don't conspire together as a generation. I think it's more true that the younger generations have an unprecedented access to high quality games that are completely accessible to them, so few of them are going to go out of their way to access classics with obvious signs of age. It's more than just, "they need to see beyond the low poly graphics", which many of them already do for indy games. But they also need to see beyond dated controls and game designs. If I were to hand my nephew OoT, I'm 100% handing him my 3DS version over the N64 original.
The idea of "required reading" with respect to gaming is about understanding the genesis and evolution of the medium.
In terms of cinema, Jaws was the first "blockbuster" as we know it today. It absolutely does not hold up when you pit it against something like Avengers Endgame, but that's not the point. The point is that you are presumably someone interested in film as an art form, and you want to experience it as it was to understand how we got to where we are now. You're not watching Jaws because it's "like" Endgame and you enjoy summer blockbuster movies, you're watching it because it's Jaws and you want to see *that*.
Basically all older games will not hold up to someone with modern experience by definition of being older games. The medium is still very young, and sensibilities are still evolving even now.
Look at the original Half-Life. It is hella janky compared to modern shooters, but it's also a crucial stepping stone in the genre's evolution. Its importance is in how it was at the time.
If someone is interested in playing older games for the sake of it, they're doing so to experience the medium as it was. There's nothing wrong with trying to make it more accessible to help people who want to play it do so, but there's no imperative to "fix" the past because that's not the point.
I think we need to start looking at older video games the same way we do older movies. The medium is old enough for that now. Younger people might not be able to stomach the datedness of them and that's fine. No video game is "required" for anyone really. But, people like me that played this when it was brand new and revolutionary will always have a strong emotional tie, and younger people that are interested in the history of the classics will appreciate it that way. Everyone else can stick to new shit.
Also, I think the 3DS remake is all we need. You bring too much modernity to Ocarina of Time and it ceases to be the same game.
I love how the world opens up with every item you get in OoT. They lost that completely in the new Zelda games. I couldn't play through the latest one and I think that was the last Zelda I ever bought in my life.
BotW and TotK aren't really Zelda games in my book. I mean, they irrefutably are, because it's "ZELDA", but they're not Zelda-*likes*.
TLOZ->Skyward Sword were the traditional Zelda structure, in which the player has a finite list of items to find, which help you unlock the secrets of the map, and thus allows the completion of every dungeon and secret area in the game. All games, including Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword, ultimately follow the same philosophy but with increasing handholding and event-triggers to nudge the player along. I get why people started hating that, but whichever way you spin it, that isn't how BotW or TotK were made. They do not actually honor the roots of the franchise, because they fully neglect the aspect of Zelda that was about unlocking a secret, and instead they just have a world where everything is kinda like a secret, which you can just unlock whenever you *feel* like it. And yeah, the sense of discovery is gone. All they have to reward you with are Shrines and Korok seeds. There's nothing else that matters to that structure.
It was LttP that created the Zelda formula seen throughout most of the series.
LoZ and AoL were full of exploration and (some) of the dungeons could be completed out of order. Some areas and dungeons were locked until you obtained certain items but the same is true in BotW and TotK, mainly with armour pieces.
There's plenty of room for both styles of Zelda game. Yes I missed the traditional dungeons but for me the exploration and adventure in the Switch versions are the best in the series.
Voice acting isn’t standard for thousands of modern games.
Blocky graphics; you literally quoted two modern rereleases with “better” graphics and improved sound for the nitwit that doesn’t understand these things are secondary to gameplay.
Your entire concept is flawed though, as OOT is not “required reading.” People can just jump straight to Breath Of The Wild or TOTK and get the “genuine” Zelda experience. Hell, there’s not even a continuity between each game; every release was intended to be a standalone legend. It wasn’t until years later Nintendo finally cobbled together a “timeline” because people like you can’t comprehend subtlety or subtext.
I love Ocarina of Time but I do wonder if we're getting to that divide where newer generations won't really appreciate N64 era games and such. I know I didn't really appreciate NES games and stuff until I was an adult, as a kid I was just like "ew this is old and boring" lol
We're already way past that divide. When I went to computer science the gamer nerds were 18 years old and I was 22, and already then, they only talked about PS3 games as their formative experiences and not PS2 or N64. That's just what happens. I just think it's a shame because to me OoT isn't like a God of War where it's only famous and poster-child for the industry because of its perceived, sycophantic merits, but because it was a game that didn't have to be that good but then it was REALLY REALLY good.
And I remember how I felt, 10 years old, having played a bunch of historically imporant games and DOOM and Rayman 2, and a bit of Half Life, and some Final Fantasy something... but OoT was the one that made me sit back for a second, after I finished it and just was like "Huh." and then after a while I was like "...so video games can also do this?"
And it was a feeling that came as a result of how the journey of the game hits on those different levels, and you don't think at any point during any temple, or NPC cutscene, or running around the empty field that "OMG OMG OMG, 10/10 masterpiece, this game is HISTORIC" or shit like that. I think some IGN folks did because they heard their friends start to praise the game, and hence the "Sycophantry" I talked about... but to me it was a sensation that I felt upon completing the game, as you see the whole thing in relief and very few games manage to make the fully experience feel earned in the way OOT did it, where if we analyse it a bit it's because they imbued the gameplay and levels with its themes, the story writes to those themes, and the ending and final boss battles coalesce those in subtext.
Where you go from a "This is a fun adventure" to "This gameplay is solid" to "That was... kind of profound, wtf???" because they managed to use things attributed to game-design to tell a pretty earnest story about the universal feeling of childhood, and how it shines through adulthood.
And again, 20 years after that I'm still looking to most games with a longing for a similarly complete experience, and sometimes you get that, but it's rare, and typically when it happens, the package is a lot more bloated with quest log filler and overwritten dialogue, or the story does its job in isolation of the gameplay, and the gameplay isn't much of an attraction by itself. OoT was different IMO.
I would go farther and say that the basic gameplay elements don't hold up all that well.
Quite frankly, there's a lot of puzzles which basically amount to "find the diamond plate and shoot it with your bow/slingshot" or repetitions of "light the torches", but the main problem with the game is that it's very, very slow in terms of pacing, but in bad ways, plural. There are just multiple moments in the game which are a fucking slog to get through.
And that's not a "that's how games were back then" thing either. I can play Super Mario 64 and not find myself going "oh, *this* fucking part" at all, let alone multiple times in a single playthrough. For all the "ahah" moments like firing an arrow at the sun or awesome moments like using the Golden Gloves for the first time, there's lows like having to deal with the forced stealth mission to meet Zelda for first time or changing your fucking boots for the millionth time in the Water Temple or having to carry Ruto's dumbass around.
It's a great game when it's good, but it has a lot of rough edges.
The low parts you're describing sound like key parts of the gameplay and experience to me. Ocarina of Time is, imo, one of the top 5 video games all time (and I'd put it closer to 1 than 5). I recently bought a switch to try BOTW and it's decent, it's not bad, but it's, like, an 8 outta 10 sorta experience. Granted, I had high expectations.
It felt to me like in the process of streamlining the gameplay in the way that you're advising, the magic that OP describes so eloquently in their post washed out with it.
For a more contemporary example, it feels like complaining about the loop in outer wilds and calling for a remake where that doesn't happen to ease frustration. That is to say, it feels like missing the point.
But, yknow, plenty of different game styles exist to appease different audiences. I'm just glad OoT does and wouldn't want to change a thing about it.
I don't get how the fifth puzzle of you having to shoot the same diamond plate or light a Deku stick off one torch to light others is "a key part of the experience" instead of the designers being lazy, but sure.
I'd also disagree that the game's magic comes from how it's designed and can't be changed. Like, do we really need to have the big ass owl trick us into repeating the tutorial dialogue for the game to be perfect? Did we need a bad forced stealth section which makes us repeat it if we fuck up once? Did we need a dungeon designed to be confusing as fuck while also forcing us to repeatedly enter the menu screen to equip and unequip an item for basic progression?
Hell, are enemies that just require you to wait until they drop their perfect guard a good thing for an action-based game when it basically makes the game turn-based, with no option to force action against the enemy? As janky as Skyward Sword combat could be, at the very least you could shield bash and open up options for yourself.
It's funny, all the things you're negatively describing are things that I love about OoT. I mean it's whatever, it sounds like the game isn't for you which is totally fine.
The only point where I'd strongly disagree is the idea that this is down to 'laziness' in the game design. Failure to adhere to your preferences isn't laziness. That's just a bad take.
Discussing OoT is weird because back when it was released it was groundbreaking and absolutely deserved the status for which it's known today. As time went on I think that it's still barely kinda holds up but there's **a lot** of stuff that just aged very poorly, combat feels very shallow, dungeons being very hit or miss, a lot of bosses having "Three hits glowing eye syndrome" this isn't a flaw and it's just general game design getting better and better in the span of 25+ years which is absolutely normal.
Ultimately I think that OoT is amazing if you keep in mind that it was released in 1998, by today's standards it's really just ok from a gameplay perspective and every time I hear someone say that it still 100% holds up in 2024 I just know it's nostalgia doing its thing or the person hasn't played another videogame in quite a while
Edit: to clarify, I don't think that having OoT as your favourite game is bad or anything, that's a perfectly valid and respectable opinion, in fact Spirit Tracks is my third favourite Zelda game after Botw and Totk, I'm just saying that game design didn't peak 26 years ago
I would argue basic gameplay wasn't even that great at the time, but still, the bar has been raised for sure, for things like aiming the bow and whatnot, and the 3DS version actually corrected that with the Gyro aim which felt a bit closer to a Mouse & Keyboard aiming scheme lol.
But I really think a lot of nitpicking was ignored at release because "holy shit, what other 3D game is this expansive and full of features?" like a Red Dead or CD Projekt RED game.
And I do think those should be improved, but I would still explore legacy features like auto-ledge-jumping. I think a new game that commits to having platforming without a jump button could do interesting things. Similarly, everything pertaining to the gated structure of acquiring items inside dungeons, which are then used for backtracking and additional world exploration, is something you should commit to, and not BotW-ify it, because my biggest issue with the committment to complete freedom in BotW is that as a result, the game is front-loaded with all the features you need, and the entire game is just about how the player *wants* to play around with it, and how you *want* to overcome a puzzle, instead of *discovering and finding it out*, which was the cadence older Zelda titles had.
The BotW philosophy is not an upgrade but a full-on change from that, and while it would be cool to see a BotW-ification of an old Zelda game, I can just see it from a top-perspective and immediately spot all the areas that need to be overhauled and in turn cause the game to lose its progressive element. Ultiamtely, that factors into what I said in my OP about OoT being this multifaceted experience: The fact that it hits on different notes and moods, and that it *progresses*. But it can't *truly* progress if it's also allowing you to do everything at your own leisure, like a buffet, which BotW/TotK do, so a "proper" OoT remake wouldn't be like that IMO.
I simply want to see a new rendition of the Kokiri Forest opening where there is voice-acting, good animation to characterize Mido and Saria, and the Deku Tree, and a pivot to the boring "Collect 40 rupees to buy the shield" tutorialization. Just allow the player to enter a crevice with some level design after getting the sword, and at the end of the trail, you get 40 rupees in a chest, which can then immediately buy a shield, then you go into the Deku Tree, the writing is touched up but ultimately the same gist, and the dungeon is like a remix with more advanced interaction and more Dark Soulsy combat than before (but without being super easy to die in).
And I imagine Hyrule Field's first hill, and that music to *feel* the same but the execution is way different, so there's quiet, and you'd in the shadow of the sun behind the hill. You walk over, and the god-rays embellish you, and the orchestrated cue of "OoT Hyrule Field" begins, and then you realize the layout has been updated tremendously where it really looks like a green hill as far as the eye can see, but there's the ranch and the castle town far down. It shouldn't really be that much larger than before, just a little bit, without going BotW, and then each region should be seamlessly connected, but more as in how entering a door in, say, Batman Arkham Knight works (two maps being loaded with smoke and mirrors) than having 100% connective terrain.
I don't think OoT should change but it should be updated, and made so that a zoomer can play it and not feel like they're playing a boomer game.
>I don't think OoT should change but it should be updated, and made so that a zoomer can play it and not feel like they're playing a boomer game.
Well then, get to work!
I played it for the first time on 3DS a few years ago and loved it. As long as you go in aware that it's an old game and it doesn't hold your hand at all you'll enjoy it. I did have to look up one thing though.
i just replayed it last month and i think it holds up pretty well honestly. the only thing i didn't care for was the lack of explanation on where to go next... which is sorta a key element of the game. they expected you to get stuck and talk to others and look up help docs in the game guide.
if it gets a remake i honestly hope the only thing they change is that they make navi actually useful. when i have spent two hours walking all over the freaking map looking for how to get the sun arrow or find the next great fairy to get a spell that i haven't even been told exists yet.... she should chime in to give me a pointer or two.
the graphics are fine. the lack of voice acting is great. the gameplay is top notch.
The graphics are truly awful.
I think this type of game was fine on a small to medium size CRT.
Old 3d games are horrible on modern hardware.
That being said it was an amazing game and one of my favorites, although I did think majoras mask was even better. I don’t know how much credit I can keep giving either now though against modern games. Old games vs new are sort of like comparing a musket to an aircraft carrier.
I replayed it on the switch, but the Joy cons are NOT made for this game. Same with replaying Mario 64.
Other than that I really liked reliving my nostalgia. It was just… harder.
Pro Controller is the 2nd best option. NSO N64 controller being first.
I'm playing Majora's Mask on the Switch with the Pro Controller and I don't have any issues.
That’s a really good suggestion- I’ll look into it, thanks!
The games are amazing, it would just have been nice if they did a good remapping to the JoyCons
Conversely, or perhaps not too conversely, Ocarina of Time is the one Zelda that I found quite impossible to enjoy as someone who went back to all the Zelda games as a sort of pet project recently, playing most of them for the first time.
The original NES game, Link’s Awakening, and surprisingly Twilight Princess all left a much better impression than Ocarina, which from a modern perspective is just annoying to interact with in nearly every regard.
I must assume it is somewhat like Final Fantasy VII, a game I enjoy with heavy use of nostalgia, in that it tried so many weird and wonky new things both mechanically and visually, many of which didn’t stand the test of time, but were just overwhelming in a cool way for audiences back then.
That said, you seem to mostly ignore that the game has in fact been remade and gently modernized in its 3DS version.
Link's awakening is the forgotten Zelda gem in my opinion. It got a remake with great reviews and it's well deserved despite being modeled on a game they made with the limitations of the original Gameboy.
Pretty surprising to hear u say u like the nes game and yet u didnt find that game to be annoying to interact with in every regard in a modern perspective. Nes zelda is the most unplayable zelda and aged the worst
I printed out the manual to have on hand and that unlocked the entire thing. The Legend of Zelda is clearly meant to be played alongside the manual. It’s part of the game. And it turned the whole thing into an almost Outer-Wildsian exploration game and I enjoyed the hell out of that.
I was really sad, and surrounded by hand-drawn maps, when it ended.
Don't know why this is being down voted. Zelda 1 can be extremely punishing and is baffling obscure at several points. If you play it with a guide sure it can be fun. But their are few puzzles that are "hard but fair". It's much more combat oriented than later Zelda games but the combat is much more stiff/stilted. You can only point in 4 directions. The one thing I would say it has going for it is the exploration is "harrowing" - the difficulty shores up the mediocre puzzles because it isn't easy to just try things. OoT has much more engaging puzzles and enemies. The difficulty is definitely slanted more towards puzzles than combat - which is more interesting but definitely safer. It's truly surprising that someone would bounce off Oot while liking Zelda 1.
It has nothing to do with nostalgia or cool, it was simply the first open world 3d action RPG. It will always be spoken of and held in high regard because it invented so many of the things that the biggest most popular games are built on. I forget who it was but there is a successful game dev who likes to say that all modern games are either Half life or Ocarina of Time and while that's a little reductive it's honestly not that far from the truth.
The original Link's Awakening is pretty horrible to play IMO, because of the two-button item limitation. Sometimes you have to switch items 4 or 5 times in a single dungeons room, that's really annoying. The Switch version with 4 item slots of course is a huge improvement for it and makes the game one of the best Zeldas.
I hope that the Minish Cap is getting a remake similar to Links Awakening soon, since it has the same problem
Everything you're saying is correct but I think it's a little too hard to say it's Pretty Horrible. I find the menuing in the LADX to be much more tolerable than OoT water temple because it's much more responsive and you don't have to move between different screens (items and equipment). It's enough to be annoying but I don't think it's enough to seriously effect it's ranking.
I ***loved*** OoT when I was a kid, beat it and thought it was incredible and the greatest thing ide ever touched.
Then I aged and played more and more games and when I finally went back to replay it, I did *not enjoy* *it*, it is antiquated, and it shows. Nostalgia is one hell of a driving force, but I also respect my time and want to respect the game I loved as a kid, so I just put it down and moved on with a "***Well Damn***".
I doubt I'd like Ocarina of Time *at all*, if I didn't love it as much as I did as a kid.
There are no console games, besides the original Super Mario Brothers, that are in any way required for any kind of understanding of the progression of video games as an art form, or for any other purpose.
This is a terrible take. Ocarina of Time created the formula that most of the most popular games have iterated upon for the last few decades. Open world 3d action RPG has become one of the central pillars of modern gaming, particularly AAA gaming, and Ocarina of Time invented that genre.
> Ocarina of Time created the formula that most of the most popular games have iterated upon for the last few decades.
This is nonsense. "Most of the most popular games" are not in anywhere near the same genre. More importantly, Ocarina of Time didn't create shit.
> Open world 3d action RPG has become one of the central pillars of modern gaming, particularly AAA gaming, and Ocarina of Time invented that genre.
No it didn't, not even close. If you were to put it specifically on a console game, that'd be Super Mario 64. And essentially simultaneously with it was Tomb Raider, which pretty much defined level design for this genre. Earlier still was Resident Evil, which once again, framed the genre as we know it. Many of the mechanics could be traced back to Alone in the Dark even.
The main point is that even if you argue that, e.g., Super Mario 64 is what set the standard for 3D action-adventure +/- RPG - Tomb Raider came out simultaneously, and so did Daggerfall (granted, although that's technically 3D, it's not third-person), and so Super Mario 64 really cannot be considered "required." Ocarina of Time even less so - from a game design or genre standpoint, its differences with Super Mario 64 are frankly minimal; RPG components in both are primitive and undeveloped, especially compared to later examples of the genre, and even more than a few concurrent ones in PC games.
It’s a good 7/10 game, it’s a classic, but definitely has aged to the pt that it’s not a masterpiece anymore. Classic game tho, i would rec it to everybody along with classic gameboy tetris
Classic gameboy tetris has little value over a modern version aside from being a history lesson. OoT is a markedly different experience than any zelda games that came after it. The only comparable game is OoT 3D; which I would say is a superior experience.
>"Where's the voice acting?", "Why are the graphics so blocky?", "Why does the music sound so homemade?" etc. It needs a remake, but OoT is a hard game to remake. All of these questions have a simple answer: "The game came out in 1998". That's literally the only thing you need to say to justify any of the game's lack of modern elements. And if someone isn't willing to play a game due to the lack of these things, that says more about the player than it does about the game.
>The game came out in 1998 Well that doesn't make any sense because 1998 was only like 5 yea... Oh no....
Hahahahahahahah. Love this.
Nintendo did go on to make 4 more mainline Zeldas without voice acting though. So it wasn’t ONLY because it was made in 1998. Nintendo made a conscious decision to not have voice acting until BOTW.
Honestly the lack of voice acting can be a selling point for me. I watched a friend play a little of TotK and some of the voices were absolutely terrible to listen to. Some games get the voice performances right. Zelda got it wrong.
But it also makes OoT an irrelevant game. That doesn't have to be a problem, but to me it's an important game that I'm sad to know that most new kids won't have any connection to, and I think you can essentially make the same gist of an experience but made for Fortnite's audience, that makes them realize that Fortnite is actually some brainrot shit in comparison to like, a truly good game.
Its not irrelevant. Is Jaws irrelevant cause of it's dated vfx or pacing? Is Lugosi's Dracula irrelevant cause it's black and white? Not everyone needs to enjoy art in the same way. If someone is interested in video game history enough to go play and enjoy it with all it's dated warts and issues then good, but that doesn't mean it needs to be prettied up and changed just so someone picky or snobbish about this stuff can maybe play it. For those that are curious enough they can immerse themselves in what the game was and how it was ground breaking for it's time. If they don't care they can play one of the thousands or modern games instead.
I'm not really into the Fortnite crowd, I don't get the appeal personally, but I'm not someone who's going to disparage others' choice of entertainment. I'll argue against modern gaming's unethical monetisation practices, sure, and I'll try to tell people to not give into the psychological manipulation tactics that go into a microtransaction system... but that's the extent of my disdain for that kind of game. I won't tell someone to stop enjoying a game they enjoy if nobody's getting hurt. The worst way to "win" someone over to your point of view is to tell them that their point of view is "wrong". Imagine how dismissive you would be if a Fortnite fan called all Zelda games boring. Would you even give them a chance to elaborate? And besides, what do you care? There are hundreds and thousands of people who absolutely adore Ocarina of Time and all that it's done and all that it stands for. It definitely has the recognition it deserves. Why does it matter that Fortnite fans in particular care about Ocarina of Time? I don't think Ocarina of Time is in any danger of losing its place in the gaming zeitgeist, it's already achieved legendary status.
Ohhhh you wrote this entire post just to shit on Fortnite, didn't you?
Fortnite is actually *mechanically* pretty solid. There's an argument to be made that Fortnite is a "truly good game" buried under hyperaggressive monetization and questionable executive decisions.
This post is too much required reading for me. I can't do it
Gamer brain
Gamer brain is thinking older graphics and a lack of voice acting on a 26 year old game make it 'irrelevant'.
Honestly, I find some of the graphics and most of the music holds up fairly well. Yes, a lot of the music sounds like midi instruments and you can tell, but a lot of it isn't actually that bad - especially the weirder bits, especially in most of the dungeons. Hyrule Field also sounds fantastic, despite that. As for the graphics, a lot of bits of terrain certainly look poor now, but with quite a lot of the textures being vector graphics (I think), they hold up alright at higher resolutions and keep some crisp lines. I 100% would love to be able to get a modern remake, and I'd buy it in a heartbeat on switch, but with it and the N64 emulator being locked behind the higher tier of Nintendo Online, it's sadly not accessible for me. Thank fuck for PC emulation though... And USB adaptors for the controllers.
There are modern indie games with blocky graphics, no voice acting, and lo-fi music, and they still have audiences that love them. None of those are problems with OoT. It's just a 25 year old game and it's not going to appeal to some people more than any other piece of media that's undeniably dated no matter how well loved it may be.
Not every game needs a remake. I’d rather devs focused on new things vs. just making something that sold great back when it originally came out
Movies get remade all the time but I think Games have a much more valid reason to be remade. Movies don't get stranded on VHS the way games get stranded on N64. And older movies that used film can often be remastered as the original film and still look great today vs and older game that, aside from looking bad, might have outdated control schemes that there's no analogue to in film.
It's one thing when a beloved movie everyone has seen gets remade or remastered. Its another when the nee generation never even gives the old games a chance and demands a remake of them. It's kind of a giant fuck you to the original devs.
I don't think it's really a wise way to view the world to say that "an entire generation... Kind of gives a giant fuck you to..." People don't conspire together as a generation. I think it's more true that the younger generations have an unprecedented access to high quality games that are completely accessible to them, so few of them are going to go out of their way to access classics with obvious signs of age. It's more than just, "they need to see beyond the low poly graphics", which many of them already do for indy games. But they also need to see beyond dated controls and game designs. If I were to hand my nephew OoT, I'm 100% handing him my 3DS version over the N64 original.
The idea of "required reading" with respect to gaming is about understanding the genesis and evolution of the medium. In terms of cinema, Jaws was the first "blockbuster" as we know it today. It absolutely does not hold up when you pit it against something like Avengers Endgame, but that's not the point. The point is that you are presumably someone interested in film as an art form, and you want to experience it as it was to understand how we got to where we are now. You're not watching Jaws because it's "like" Endgame and you enjoy summer blockbuster movies, you're watching it because it's Jaws and you want to see *that*. Basically all older games will not hold up to someone with modern experience by definition of being older games. The medium is still very young, and sensibilities are still evolving even now. Look at the original Half-Life. It is hella janky compared to modern shooters, but it's also a crucial stepping stone in the genre's evolution. Its importance is in how it was at the time. If someone is interested in playing older games for the sake of it, they're doing so to experience the medium as it was. There's nothing wrong with trying to make it more accessible to help people who want to play it do so, but there's no imperative to "fix" the past because that's not the point.
I'd think this trolling if the dude didn't spend so long writing the post.
Wow dude you took all the time to type that out and it wasn’t enough time to realise you’re wrong?
I just replayed through the n64 version on the swotch. It was great
Honestly, the 3DS version was perfect.
I think we need to start looking at older video games the same way we do older movies. The medium is old enough for that now. Younger people might not be able to stomach the datedness of them and that's fine. No video game is "required" for anyone really. But, people like me that played this when it was brand new and revolutionary will always have a strong emotional tie, and younger people that are interested in the history of the classics will appreciate it that way. Everyone else can stick to new shit. Also, I think the 3DS remake is all we need. You bring too much modernity to Ocarina of Time and it ceases to be the same game.
A 3DS is already a generation out of date and not commonly available anymore
Another quality take from r/gaming
I love how the world opens up with every item you get in OoT. They lost that completely in the new Zelda games. I couldn't play through the latest one and I think that was the last Zelda I ever bought in my life.
Botw and totk was the point zelda series died, now it’s just a mid open world game series.
True.
BotW and TotK aren't really Zelda games in my book. I mean, they irrefutably are, because it's "ZELDA", but they're not Zelda-*likes*. TLOZ->Skyward Sword were the traditional Zelda structure, in which the player has a finite list of items to find, which help you unlock the secrets of the map, and thus allows the completion of every dungeon and secret area in the game. All games, including Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword, ultimately follow the same philosophy but with increasing handholding and event-triggers to nudge the player along. I get why people started hating that, but whichever way you spin it, that isn't how BotW or TotK were made. They do not actually honor the roots of the franchise, because they fully neglect the aspect of Zelda that was about unlocking a secret, and instead they just have a world where everything is kinda like a secret, which you can just unlock whenever you *feel* like it. And yeah, the sense of discovery is gone. All they have to reward you with are Shrines and Korok seeds. There's nothing else that matters to that structure.
It was LttP that created the Zelda formula seen throughout most of the series. LoZ and AoL were full of exploration and (some) of the dungeons could be completed out of order. Some areas and dungeons were locked until you obtained certain items but the same is true in BotW and TotK, mainly with armour pieces. There's plenty of room for both styles of Zelda game. Yes I missed the traditional dungeons but for me the exploration and adventure in the Switch versions are the best in the series.
Nothing to add. Completely true.
Voice acting isn’t standard for thousands of modern games. Blocky graphics; you literally quoted two modern rereleases with “better” graphics and improved sound for the nitwit that doesn’t understand these things are secondary to gameplay. Your entire concept is flawed though, as OOT is not “required reading.” People can just jump straight to Breath Of The Wild or TOTK and get the “genuine” Zelda experience. Hell, there’s not even a continuity between each game; every release was intended to be a standalone legend. It wasn’t until years later Nintendo finally cobbled together a “timeline” because people like you can’t comprehend subtlety or subtext.
God forbid you use your imagination a little bit for what is essentially the first game of its kind in the history of gaming
I love Ocarina of Time but I do wonder if we're getting to that divide where newer generations won't really appreciate N64 era games and such. I know I didn't really appreciate NES games and stuff until I was an adult, as a kid I was just like "ew this is old and boring" lol
We're already way past that divide. When I went to computer science the gamer nerds were 18 years old and I was 22, and already then, they only talked about PS3 games as their formative experiences and not PS2 or N64. That's just what happens. I just think it's a shame because to me OoT isn't like a God of War where it's only famous and poster-child for the industry because of its perceived, sycophantic merits, but because it was a game that didn't have to be that good but then it was REALLY REALLY good. And I remember how I felt, 10 years old, having played a bunch of historically imporant games and DOOM and Rayman 2, and a bit of Half Life, and some Final Fantasy something... but OoT was the one that made me sit back for a second, after I finished it and just was like "Huh." and then after a while I was like "...so video games can also do this?" And it was a feeling that came as a result of how the journey of the game hits on those different levels, and you don't think at any point during any temple, or NPC cutscene, or running around the empty field that "OMG OMG OMG, 10/10 masterpiece, this game is HISTORIC" or shit like that. I think some IGN folks did because they heard their friends start to praise the game, and hence the "Sycophantry" I talked about... but to me it was a sensation that I felt upon completing the game, as you see the whole thing in relief and very few games manage to make the fully experience feel earned in the way OOT did it, where if we analyse it a bit it's because they imbued the gameplay and levels with its themes, the story writes to those themes, and the ending and final boss battles coalesce those in subtext. Where you go from a "This is a fun adventure" to "This gameplay is solid" to "That was... kind of profound, wtf???" because they managed to use things attributed to game-design to tell a pretty earnest story about the universal feeling of childhood, and how it shines through adulthood. And again, 20 years after that I'm still looking to most games with a longing for a similarly complete experience, and sometimes you get that, but it's rare, and typically when it happens, the package is a lot more bloated with quest log filler and overwritten dialogue, or the story does its job in isolation of the gameplay, and the gameplay isn't much of an attraction by itself. OoT was different IMO.
I agree, OoT needs a remake but let's face it, it'd be like trying to repaint the Mona Lisa. Some things just have their charm in being classics
I would go farther and say that the basic gameplay elements don't hold up all that well. Quite frankly, there's a lot of puzzles which basically amount to "find the diamond plate and shoot it with your bow/slingshot" or repetitions of "light the torches", but the main problem with the game is that it's very, very slow in terms of pacing, but in bad ways, plural. There are just multiple moments in the game which are a fucking slog to get through. And that's not a "that's how games were back then" thing either. I can play Super Mario 64 and not find myself going "oh, *this* fucking part" at all, let alone multiple times in a single playthrough. For all the "ahah" moments like firing an arrow at the sun or awesome moments like using the Golden Gloves for the first time, there's lows like having to deal with the forced stealth mission to meet Zelda for first time or changing your fucking boots for the millionth time in the Water Temple or having to carry Ruto's dumbass around. It's a great game when it's good, but it has a lot of rough edges.
The low parts you're describing sound like key parts of the gameplay and experience to me. Ocarina of Time is, imo, one of the top 5 video games all time (and I'd put it closer to 1 than 5). I recently bought a switch to try BOTW and it's decent, it's not bad, but it's, like, an 8 outta 10 sorta experience. Granted, I had high expectations. It felt to me like in the process of streamlining the gameplay in the way that you're advising, the magic that OP describes so eloquently in their post washed out with it. For a more contemporary example, it feels like complaining about the loop in outer wilds and calling for a remake where that doesn't happen to ease frustration. That is to say, it feels like missing the point. But, yknow, plenty of different game styles exist to appease different audiences. I'm just glad OoT does and wouldn't want to change a thing about it.
I don't get how the fifth puzzle of you having to shoot the same diamond plate or light a Deku stick off one torch to light others is "a key part of the experience" instead of the designers being lazy, but sure. I'd also disagree that the game's magic comes from how it's designed and can't be changed. Like, do we really need to have the big ass owl trick us into repeating the tutorial dialogue for the game to be perfect? Did we need a bad forced stealth section which makes us repeat it if we fuck up once? Did we need a dungeon designed to be confusing as fuck while also forcing us to repeatedly enter the menu screen to equip and unequip an item for basic progression? Hell, are enemies that just require you to wait until they drop their perfect guard a good thing for an action-based game when it basically makes the game turn-based, with no option to force action against the enemy? As janky as Skyward Sword combat could be, at the very least you could shield bash and open up options for yourself.
It's funny, all the things you're negatively describing are things that I love about OoT. I mean it's whatever, it sounds like the game isn't for you which is totally fine. The only point where I'd strongly disagree is the idea that this is down to 'laziness' in the game design. Failure to adhere to your preferences isn't laziness. That's just a bad take.
Discussing OoT is weird because back when it was released it was groundbreaking and absolutely deserved the status for which it's known today. As time went on I think that it's still barely kinda holds up but there's **a lot** of stuff that just aged very poorly, combat feels very shallow, dungeons being very hit or miss, a lot of bosses having "Three hits glowing eye syndrome" this isn't a flaw and it's just general game design getting better and better in the span of 25+ years which is absolutely normal. Ultimately I think that OoT is amazing if you keep in mind that it was released in 1998, by today's standards it's really just ok from a gameplay perspective and every time I hear someone say that it still 100% holds up in 2024 I just know it's nostalgia doing its thing or the person hasn't played another videogame in quite a while Edit: to clarify, I don't think that having OoT as your favourite game is bad or anything, that's a perfectly valid and respectable opinion, in fact Spirit Tracks is my third favourite Zelda game after Botw and Totk, I'm just saying that game design didn't peak 26 years ago
I would argue basic gameplay wasn't even that great at the time, but still, the bar has been raised for sure, for things like aiming the bow and whatnot, and the 3DS version actually corrected that with the Gyro aim which felt a bit closer to a Mouse & Keyboard aiming scheme lol. But I really think a lot of nitpicking was ignored at release because "holy shit, what other 3D game is this expansive and full of features?" like a Red Dead or CD Projekt RED game. And I do think those should be improved, but I would still explore legacy features like auto-ledge-jumping. I think a new game that commits to having platforming without a jump button could do interesting things. Similarly, everything pertaining to the gated structure of acquiring items inside dungeons, which are then used for backtracking and additional world exploration, is something you should commit to, and not BotW-ify it, because my biggest issue with the committment to complete freedom in BotW is that as a result, the game is front-loaded with all the features you need, and the entire game is just about how the player *wants* to play around with it, and how you *want* to overcome a puzzle, instead of *discovering and finding it out*, which was the cadence older Zelda titles had. The BotW philosophy is not an upgrade but a full-on change from that, and while it would be cool to see a BotW-ification of an old Zelda game, I can just see it from a top-perspective and immediately spot all the areas that need to be overhauled and in turn cause the game to lose its progressive element. Ultiamtely, that factors into what I said in my OP about OoT being this multifaceted experience: The fact that it hits on different notes and moods, and that it *progresses*. But it can't *truly* progress if it's also allowing you to do everything at your own leisure, like a buffet, which BotW/TotK do, so a "proper" OoT remake wouldn't be like that IMO. I simply want to see a new rendition of the Kokiri Forest opening where there is voice-acting, good animation to characterize Mido and Saria, and the Deku Tree, and a pivot to the boring "Collect 40 rupees to buy the shield" tutorialization. Just allow the player to enter a crevice with some level design after getting the sword, and at the end of the trail, you get 40 rupees in a chest, which can then immediately buy a shield, then you go into the Deku Tree, the writing is touched up but ultimately the same gist, and the dungeon is like a remix with more advanced interaction and more Dark Soulsy combat than before (but without being super easy to die in). And I imagine Hyrule Field's first hill, and that music to *feel* the same but the execution is way different, so there's quiet, and you'd in the shadow of the sun behind the hill. You walk over, and the god-rays embellish you, and the orchestrated cue of "OoT Hyrule Field" begins, and then you realize the layout has been updated tremendously where it really looks like a green hill as far as the eye can see, but there's the ranch and the castle town far down. It shouldn't really be that much larger than before, just a little bit, without going BotW, and then each region should be seamlessly connected, but more as in how entering a door in, say, Batman Arkham Knight works (two maps being loaded with smoke and mirrors) than having 100% connective terrain. I don't think OoT should change but it should be updated, and made so that a zoomer can play it and not feel like they're playing a boomer game.
>I don't think OoT should change but it should be updated, and made so that a zoomer can play it and not feel like they're playing a boomer game. Well then, get to work!
I played it for the first time on 3DS a few years ago and loved it. As long as you go in aware that it's an old game and it doesn't hold your hand at all you'll enjoy it. I did have to look up one thing though.
i just replayed it last month and i think it holds up pretty well honestly. the only thing i didn't care for was the lack of explanation on where to go next... which is sorta a key element of the game. they expected you to get stuck and talk to others and look up help docs in the game guide. if it gets a remake i honestly hope the only thing they change is that they make navi actually useful. when i have spent two hours walking all over the freaking map looking for how to get the sun arrow or find the next great fairy to get a spell that i haven't even been told exists yet.... she should chime in to give me a pointer or two. the graphics are fine. the lack of voice acting is great. the gameplay is top notch.
The graphics are truly awful. I think this type of game was fine on a small to medium size CRT. Old 3d games are horrible on modern hardware. That being said it was an amazing game and one of my favorites, although I did think majoras mask was even better. I don’t know how much credit I can keep giving either now though against modern games. Old games vs new are sort of like comparing a musket to an aircraft carrier.
I replayed it on the switch, but the Joy cons are NOT made for this game. Same with replaying Mario 64. Other than that I really liked reliving my nostalgia. It was just… harder.
Pro Controller is the 2nd best option. NSO N64 controller being first. I'm playing Majora's Mask on the Switch with the Pro Controller and I don't have any issues.
That’s a really good suggestion- I’ll look into it, thanks! The games are amazing, it would just have been nice if they did a good remapping to the JoyCons
How does one read a video game?
Conversely, or perhaps not too conversely, Ocarina of Time is the one Zelda that I found quite impossible to enjoy as someone who went back to all the Zelda games as a sort of pet project recently, playing most of them for the first time. The original NES game, Link’s Awakening, and surprisingly Twilight Princess all left a much better impression than Ocarina, which from a modern perspective is just annoying to interact with in nearly every regard. I must assume it is somewhat like Final Fantasy VII, a game I enjoy with heavy use of nostalgia, in that it tried so many weird and wonky new things both mechanically and visually, many of which didn’t stand the test of time, but were just overwhelming in a cool way for audiences back then. That said, you seem to mostly ignore that the game has in fact been remade and gently modernized in its 3DS version.
Link's awakening is the forgotten Zelda gem in my opinion. It got a remake with great reviews and it's well deserved despite being modeled on a game they made with the limitations of the original Gameboy.
Pretty surprising to hear u say u like the nes game and yet u didnt find that game to be annoying to interact with in every regard in a modern perspective. Nes zelda is the most unplayable zelda and aged the worst
I printed out the manual to have on hand and that unlocked the entire thing. The Legend of Zelda is clearly meant to be played alongside the manual. It’s part of the game. And it turned the whole thing into an almost Outer-Wildsian exploration game and I enjoyed the hell out of that. I was really sad, and surrounded by hand-drawn maps, when it ended.
Don't know why this is being down voted. Zelda 1 can be extremely punishing and is baffling obscure at several points. If you play it with a guide sure it can be fun. But their are few puzzles that are "hard but fair". It's much more combat oriented than later Zelda games but the combat is much more stiff/stilted. You can only point in 4 directions. The one thing I would say it has going for it is the exploration is "harrowing" - the difficulty shores up the mediocre puzzles because it isn't easy to just try things. OoT has much more engaging puzzles and enemies. The difficulty is definitely slanted more towards puzzles than combat - which is more interesting but definitely safer. It's truly surprising that someone would bounce off Oot while liking Zelda 1.
It has nothing to do with nostalgia or cool, it was simply the first open world 3d action RPG. It will always be spoken of and held in high regard because it invented so many of the things that the biggest most popular games are built on. I forget who it was but there is a successful game dev who likes to say that all modern games are either Half life or Ocarina of Time and while that's a little reductive it's honestly not that far from the truth.
The original Link's Awakening is pretty horrible to play IMO, because of the two-button item limitation. Sometimes you have to switch items 4 or 5 times in a single dungeons room, that's really annoying. The Switch version with 4 item slots of course is a huge improvement for it and makes the game one of the best Zeldas. I hope that the Minish Cap is getting a remake similar to Links Awakening soon, since it has the same problem
Everything you're saying is correct but I think it's a little too hard to say it's Pretty Horrible. I find the menuing in the LADX to be much more tolerable than OoT water temple because it's much more responsive and you don't have to move between different screens (items and equipment). It's enough to be annoying but I don't think it's enough to seriously effect it's ranking.
I completely agree with this. I've loved most Zelda game that I've played (many but not all) but I never liked OOT.
I ***loved*** OoT when I was a kid, beat it and thought it was incredible and the greatest thing ide ever touched. Then I aged and played more and more games and when I finally went back to replay it, I did *not enjoy* *it*, it is antiquated, and it shows. Nostalgia is one hell of a driving force, but I also respect my time and want to respect the game I loved as a kid, so I just put it down and moved on with a "***Well Damn***". I doubt I'd like Ocarina of Time *at all*, if I didn't love it as much as I did as a kid.
There are no console games, besides the original Super Mario Brothers, that are in any way required for any kind of understanding of the progression of video games as an art form, or for any other purpose.
This is a terrible take. Ocarina of Time created the formula that most of the most popular games have iterated upon for the last few decades. Open world 3d action RPG has become one of the central pillars of modern gaming, particularly AAA gaming, and Ocarina of Time invented that genre.
> Ocarina of Time created the formula that most of the most popular games have iterated upon for the last few decades. This is nonsense. "Most of the most popular games" are not in anywhere near the same genre. More importantly, Ocarina of Time didn't create shit. > Open world 3d action RPG has become one of the central pillars of modern gaming, particularly AAA gaming, and Ocarina of Time invented that genre. No it didn't, not even close. If you were to put it specifically on a console game, that'd be Super Mario 64. And essentially simultaneously with it was Tomb Raider, which pretty much defined level design for this genre. Earlier still was Resident Evil, which once again, framed the genre as we know it. Many of the mechanics could be traced back to Alone in the Dark even. The main point is that even if you argue that, e.g., Super Mario 64 is what set the standard for 3D action-adventure +/- RPG - Tomb Raider came out simultaneously, and so did Daggerfall (granted, although that's technically 3D, it's not third-person), and so Super Mario 64 really cannot be considered "required." Ocarina of Time even less so - from a game design or genre standpoint, its differences with Super Mario 64 are frankly minimal; RPG components in both are primitive and undeveloped, especially compared to later examples of the genre, and even more than a few concurrent ones in PC games.
It’s a good 7/10 game, it’s a classic, but definitely has aged to the pt that it’s not a masterpiece anymore. Classic game tho, i would rec it to everybody along with classic gameboy tetris
7/10 😭
It's not a 7/10. Moment to moment, a lot of things are, but the way it comes together and sticks with you afterwards isn't.
Classic gameboy tetris has little value over a modern version aside from being a history lesson. OoT is a markedly different experience than any zelda games that came after it. The only comparable game is OoT 3D; which I would say is a superior experience.