ITT: Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

This, Zoomers larp as Majora's Mask fans to gain credibility points from boomers & kids who were privileged enough to experience this masterpiece when they were growing up.

Don't forget 15 fps

It needs a port to a modern system badly.
The chugginess is unreal and the controller is like performing your own dental work

Imagine playing this on a original N64 instead of on the computer with max graphics, Xbox One controller & 30fps

Define "Zoomers".

Even if you emulate it the game was designed to be played with only one analog

unless you are refering to the superior 3ds version, then you win

Nah, the atmosphere is pretty nice but the game behind it is pretty dull for me, especially compared to MM.

OoT does ambiance really fucking well sometimes. When it's dark and moody like bottom of the well, shadow temple and the final Ganon fight, I think it hopes up incredibly well, and I actually think that outside MM, Zelda never really reaches the same level of atmosphere ever again.

Some areas that are brightly lit like daylight Hyrule/etc aren't the best looking, and I think the analog aiming sensitivity is dogshit. But other than that it's more than playable

>only the remake version
>240p
>uncomfortable to hold with a small 3ds
>aspect ratio is fucked
>art style is fucked
No.

it was never good

Wind Waker had that atmosphere too.

Attached: 42611-the-legend-of-zelda-the-wind-waker-gamecube-screenshot-killer.jpg (640x480, 42K)

Closest it gets is the temple where you get the mirror shield but even that is not really that close imo

Just look at this

Attached: Kino.png (1348x632, 399K)

wow... damn...

Yeah it's good. I play it yearly.

The only times I can think of WW having really good atmosphere is when it's silent at night and your first visit to the castle.

What about the Forbidden Woods? I still get goosebumps playing through that dungeon.

Yeah, it's still pretty good.

>tfw installed texture mods and made oot 30 fps but deleted the whole thing from computer

Attached: 1542858300334.jpg (480x640, 158K)

Best Zelda game: Legend of Zelda (NES)
Almost as good: A Link to the Past (SNES)
Black Sheep game worth checking out: Adventure of Link (NES)

Ocarina of Time is a pretty good game especially compared to other 3D games at the time, which fans of Ocarina don't actually know anything about because they've never played anything not made for a Nintendo platform.

What about it? The atmosphere is weak and gets fucked even more by the day/night cycle since Forest Haven plays music regardless of time.

You're meant to do it at night though. The Forest Haven/Forbidden Woods atmosphere at night is beautiful.

The sound contrasts way too fucking much and I'm not even sure what they were going for with the Forbidden Woods.

On 3ds or citra, yes. Original version aged poorly, like most n64 games. It looks and runs like shit, 20 fps is unacceptable.

absolutely.

I think the music works perfectly at night. It has a slightly tribal/jungle feel to it that makes you feel like you're in the middle of a sacred grove during the darkest hour.

Play OOT3D instead

You are both wrong and gay.

EH RE EH RE EH RE EH RE
EH REEEEE
DU DU DU DU

To elaborate, what I mean by contrast is the fact that you'll be sailing with absolutely no sound but the waves and the moment you get there you're met with an upbeat jingle. The sense of night is completely shattered until you get to the dungeon, but the damage is already done by then.

The 3DS remakes are soulless

Yes much better game then TP

Good pacing
Great dungeons
over world full of secrets and fun to explore
great side characters
fun items

controls are a little stiff however

Wasnt good then sure isnt now.

Horrible game that forever ruined the future of an amazing topdown 2d franchise.

>Liking your games to be playable and not eyestrain inducing makes you gay.

what framerate does the wii u virtual console version run at?

20, like the original.

N64 > Wii VC > Emulated > GC > 3DS

They’re based on the concept art for OOT so they’re peak soul

This, the n64 games just look like origami.

Gameplay is a bit laborious at times but pretty much everything about the game is absolutely expertly crafted. My 6 year old just explores Kokiri Village and there's more atmosphere in that one area than in most whole games.

Very loosely to the point that they're very distinguishable. For example, Link's eyes are huge despite that not reflecting in the art.

Attached: soul soulless.jpg (1280x720, 93K)

The 3DS version looks great, while the N64 version looks like garbage

yes emulate it on n64 with a higher resolution and widescreen. the 3ds one is soulless crap.

Attached: 27.jpg (1920x1080, 310K)

I just beat it for the first time last month. By today's standards, it was good...but not great. I would've been much more impressed had I played it 20 years ago, obviously. Of the other Zelda games I've played (Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Link to the Past, Minish Cap), I'd honestly rank Ocarina last. I still gotta play the rest of the series though.

OOT3D is a soulful remake because it actually tries to keep the art style intact, the only things I don't like are the removal of some dark lighting and blood. I think MM3D ruined the mood of cutscenes more but OOT3D does the game justice.

They even kept his goofy teeth expression that he does whenever he learns a song, that's attention to detail. The Mario remakes always change cute expressions like that to be more "marketable"

Attached: link-ocarina-oot-3d.jpg (400x240, 83K)

The mechanics and dungeons hold up, everything else doesn't

>emulate
I don't know if it's worth visual upgrade to hardware because of the vast amount of visual bugs.

>superior to any other game from it's Era
You revealed yourself, zoomyfag. The game's graphics were always average for its era, and games like Glover have aged way better despite coming out at right around the same time. "It was good for its era" is the excuse people use NOW because they want to deflect criticism of its dim, bland graphics with no color. Even Majora's Mask, the one everyone praises for being "dark", had more vibrant and pleasing visuals in it.

played first time in my life like year ago. It was ok but nothing special, nostalgia fags will tell you otherwise. I don't think i finished it, it was okay tho

>"I haven't played the entire game, but that doesn't mean my opinion is any less valid than someone else's!"

I mean, you can take my opinion as less valid retard.
I think i was near the end of the game but i just didn't gave any fucks to finish it. It's not like finishing the game would make me like other 90% of it

If you can't even remember where you were, your opinion is even less valid retard.

Yes but its age starts to show when you compare it to some of the newer games.

Games dont age.

I grew up with every Nintendo console since nes but never got into Zelda games until twilight princess came out. Would it be worth playing OOT now?

yes but only because it was bad back then too

Yes. Ocarina of time is amazing. In fact, almost every zelda game is. You should play 2D games too like LA and Oracles games.

Yes. Best 3D Zelda to this day. Both 64 games are top of the class.

Based and kokiripilled.

Honestly no. I used to really like it but it hasnt aged well.

wish BotW2 was coming out on wii u. Sad.

Attached: YungEggzy.png (922x681, 919K)

I think it's a solid adaptation of Link to the Past made 3D. I don't know that it ever personally gets out of LTTP's shadow, but, man, OoT is great at what it does. There's a reason this was the formula for a long time.

It has problems, and it's not my favorite, but it's good.

And what is wrong with the 3ds version?

I want to say no but I also haven't played it in at least a decade. Maybe it's time to give it a try again.

The lighting is fucked to hell and back.

The remake is soulless, doesn't even try to retain the art style or atmosphere.

Attached: 1523488147150.webm (1920x1080, 2.98M)

3ds looks soulless. N64 just looks awful.

>WW
>not MM
did you even play it

If you thinks from the mindset of "for its time," Ocarina remains a very well-done videogame. It does not hold up to modern standards whatsoever, and nothing anybody does, be it remake or remaster will ever make everybody happy. It's best to just keep the game as a happy memory and not try to push it as some kind or modern marvel.

That said, Link's Awakening and Link To The Past are my favorite Zelda games.

The thing is that Alttp while it created the formula that almost everyone Zelda uses, it still "barebones".
It just doesn't have the atmosphere, story, NPC, sidequest, etc that OoT had, or even other Zeldas after OoT.

My problem with the remake is how it looks too bright. Shit the Ganon fight had top tier visuals on the 64. Nice and dark. Also blood.

>zoomers will never know the feeling of being suprised gannon puked blood in a e rated game

Attached: censorship1.jpg (360x270, 8K)

it's still the best 3D Zelda

Don't forget that also the Mirror shield had a better cresent moon design. And Ruto had no clothes in the original version.

Attached: Princess_Ruto_Artwork.png (1443x2413, 2.43M)

I don't know if it holds up today, but it did last year when I replayed it.

Attached: 1471890506065.jpg (976x1080, 88K)

it was good, consistent and didnt have "THAT PART", like every other game in it's generation had.
It had good execution in pretty much execution.

I've both played and beaten MM. I didn't say MM doesn't have a kino atmosphere.
All I said was that WW was a game after MM that also had a fantastic atmosphere. Granted, WW was my first Zelda game, so there's a lot of nostalgia attached, but WW is a fucking aesthetic masterpiece.

EH REHHH

Games don't "hold up". They were either good to begin with or they were always shit. The only exception to this rule is when you're examining the very earliest, most primitive games which at the time would have been fun for the sheer novelty factor alone, even if they are dogshit by modern standards. However, anything made in the 80s and onward should be judged on its own merits, so again, if it's shit now it was shit then.

The fact that these threads pop up literally every day is a testament to how good the game is. If it were shit, people would have moved on by now. Some people love it, some people hate that others love it. Me? It's not my favorite game ever. But, it's a legitimately good game, likely the best action-adventure game ever made, and it's easy to see why people like it. It's one of the only games of its kind to really nail what the genre is supposed to be: a perfect mixture of linearity and freedom, a world that is rich with detail and fun to explore but doesn't become tiring in its grandness like so many modern "open world" games do. It was innovative, yes, but the main reason it is so fondly remembered is because everything it did, it did so fucking well.

If you can play this game, even as a novice going into itbfor the first time in 2019, and you can't at least appreciate the atmosphere, mechanics and artistic approach, you are either extremely biased or you have a low IQ. The game is at the very least "good" by any objective measure and to say otherwise is just stupidity.

>The thing is that Alttp while it created the formula that almost everyone Zelda uses, it still "barebones".
This mentality is why Zeldas after ALTTP all suck. ALTTP actually trusts in the strength of its core gameplay, understands it and and designs around it. Unlike OoT, ALTTP doesn't feel the need to cram a bunch of superfluous crap like story, NPCs, and side quests as distractions.

The point of the story in Zelda games was never the story itself, it was there to give you a clear objective in an open world, a world that was inherently fun to play in without a plethora of NPCs and minigames and side quests.

>hold up
??
nigger

Attached: ocarina.png (611x478, 40K)

>Games don't "hold up". They were either good to begin with or they were always shit.
You are an idiot. Some games were great when they were released because there was nothing better. Some games had clear flaws that weren't noticeable at the time but become very noticeable as people see better ways of doing things.

In Ocarina, for example, the lack of a second analog stick is very noticeable. At the time, Ocarina felt amazing. No other system even had a single analog stick as a standard feature. The primitive camera controls in Ocarina didn't feel primitive at all in 1998, they felt absolutely fantastic compared to other games at the time.

But they were primitive. Being able to just use a second analog stick to look around as you move with the first is much smoother and more natural than having to switch to a mode to look or use the z button to just center the camera forward. When you play Ocarina now after playing modern 3D games, it just feels missing. This is an example of something that doesn't "hold up."

Another thing Ocarina does that doesn't really hold up is wasting so much time trying to teach and demonstrate 3D mechanics that are self-evident or intuitive for modern gamers. Sure a 6 year old kid might love just running around Kokiri forest so it's not like it's all bad, but in 2019 there's no reason you can't just get right into more interesting gameplay. In 1998 Nintendo thought that they couldn't just have the context-sensitive Z-targeting without some kind of physical excuse, so: Navi. Whether they were right or wrong about needing Navi to model Z-targeting in 1998 is anyone's guess, it's hard to question such a successful game, but in 2019 it's superfluous. Modern players don't need a fairy to fly over to someone to initiate dialog. You can just indicate they are the selected target with a cursor or something similarly simple and unobtrusive.

There was a time when first person shooters were played with joysticks or keyboard only. Now, they're played with mouse aiming. Joystick or keyboard controls would have been considered acceptable or even good before the prevalence of mouse aiming. Now that mouse aiming is the standard and people realize how comparatively shit keyboard and joystick controls are, classic FPSes without passable mouse aiming are considered to have not aged well.

You're an idiot.

OoT didn't have the technology, resources and time to achieve everything that the developers wanted, and even with these restriction it became a fundamentally good game.
The same goes for Alttp, it focused in gameplay but that's not entirely a good thing, just "saving" the princess isn't a good objective, this isn't Mario where they didn't want to improve the story.

Third best game ever

Attached: 1563934597227.jpg (677x1024, 201K)

Yes...kinda. You will probabily find it bland if you are accostumed to modern action adventures or even more recent zeldas though.

Not him, but not being able to re-adjust to a game's controls is a result of you aging and becoming more picky. Also
>Sure a 6 year old kid might love just running around Kokiri forest so it's not like it's all bad, but in 2019 there's no reason you can't just get right into more interesting gameplay.
That's another result of you aging. A 6 year old kid would still need that tutorial to understand the mechanics because they don't have tons of experience.

>Not him, but not being able to re-adjust to a game's controls is a result of you aging and becoming more picky.
You didn't understand the point.
The fact that the controls need an adjustment period at all is a sign that it has aged. It's not AUTOMATICALLY bad. Sometimes the seemingly primitive control scheme is actually designed appropriately and is worth adjusting to. The first Castlevania game is a good example of both. People complain about the jump arc and the whip delay, but those are actually fine given the way the game's content is designed. The game's challenge is well-designed around those controls so there's a direct payoff to the adjustment. However, the need hold "d-pad up" to throw a sub-weapon is something that has definitely aged. The NES only had 2 buttons. One was the whip, the other was jump, and there were no buttons left for throwing your sub-weapon. So you had to hold "up+whip" to do it. In this case, there's only an indirect payoff to the adjustment. CV1 would be basically just as fun and challenging to play if you could throw your sub weapon using R1 like in CV4. It would just require less pointlessly awkward adjustment to the archaic control scheme.
>A 6 year old kid would still need that tutorial
Maybe, but probably not. I was 7 when I first played LoZ on NES and didn't need a tutorial. More importantly, though, unlike 1998 there are plenty of other 3D games that kids are likely to have played before. Also, I don't have time to write a detailed explanation but it's not like it's just kokiri forest that is slow-paced. Ocarina takes FOREVER to get going by franchise standards, and "it's a game for 6-year-olds isn't really a valid excuse."

>focused in gameplay but that's not entirely a good thing
Right so you like games that put story before gameplay. Ocarina and games that followed its lead did the same thing and it's why I don't like them as much as games like Dark Souls that followed the lead of ALTTP and kept the story simple and out of the way of gameplay.

>The fact that the controls need an adjustment period at all is a sign that it has aged. It's not AUTOMATICALLY bad.
I'm saying they don't need one, you just want one. The fact that people have improved on the system doesn't mean the old system is automatically shit, it fits its purposes just as well as it did 20 years ago.
I can't say for castlevania since I've never played any, but the fact that you have to go a more convoluted route to change weapons compared to newer entries doesn't mean the control scheme is any better or worse than it was before. If it started shit, it was always shit and you dealt with it because you had lower standards. If it started fine, it's fine now and you're whining about nothing.
>Maybe, but probably not. I was 7 when I first played LoZ on NES and didn't need a tutorial.
That's anecdotal evidence, your experiences don't speak for everyone.
>unlike 1998 there are plenty of other 3D games that kids are likely to have played before.
Someone can play their first game at any time. Someone who's older now and is annoyed going back to it would still be annoyed if they were that old if the game was new. It's not a case of "I already know this shit", it's one of having less tolerance for tedium.
>Ocarina takes FOREVER to get going by franchise standards, and "it's a game for 6-year-olds isn't really a valid excuse."
I'm not going to get into that because the quallity of the game alone isn't really my point, but in my opinion, there are plenty of worse paced Zelda games.

Already played A Link to the Past years before Ocarina of Time came out. The 3D gameplay was the only thing that felt new and interesting, content not so much as it's mostly the same formula as ALttP.

Boom zoom boom zoom zoom zoom boom boom for fucking fuck's sake
To answer your question, not much really. The gameplay is still good but the visuals look unpolished just like with every other n64 game, also there are some frustrating sections (let's not pretend water temple isn't shit).

>let's not pretend water temple isn't shit

It's not shit.

>I'm saying they don't need one, you just want one.
This makes no sense.
>The fact that people have improved on the system doesn't mean the old system is automatically shit
Yes it does, otherwise it's not an unqualified improvement and at the moment I'm only talking about unqualified improvements. Although you will note I am not using lazy Yea Forums retard hyperbole and never called Ocarina's controls "shit." Some (but not all) elements of Ocarina of Time have aged. One of those elements is the outdated camera control mechanism. Get defensive all you want, it doesn't change this.
>If it started shit, it was always shit and you dealt with it because you had lower standards. If it started fine, it's fine now and you're whining about nothing.
Since binary hyperbole is all you seem to understand I'll put it in your terms: Ocarina's camera controls are shit. They were shit then and they are shit now. If you didn't notice then it means you had lower standards, and if you still don't notice it means you still have low standards. But most people found the controls fine at the time, but after seeing examples of it done better in subsequent games (specifically games that have a second analog stick), they can recognize Ocarina's as falling short.

They are both 240p

Alttp starts with a 20 minutes set piece, what the fuck are you talking about user? Not to mention tons of exposition, like finding Sahasrala for no fucling reason.
Blame Koizumi, not the actual games.

>This makes no sense.
The improvements would make the game better, but their existence doesn't make the game retroactively worse.
>unqualified improvements
What exactly do you mean by that?
>They were shit then and they are shit now. But most people found the controls fine at the time, but after seeing examples of it done better in subsequent games (specifically games that have a second analog stick), they can recognize Ocarina's as falling short.
That's fine, all I'm trying to say is that saying "the game aged" to describe that is fundamentally wrong because whats aged is you. Then again, I guess the whole argument just comes down to semantics if you put it that way.

>but their existence doesn't make the game retroactively worse.
The concept of things being "dated" despite not "actually changing" is not new. This is a silly objection.

>>unqualified improvements
>What exactly do you mean by that?
A qualified improvement in this sense is something where there are (usually gameplay) tradeoffs when you move past a primitive limitation. For example in Zelda 1, rooms all being the same size and shape and every one having the same number of possible exits means you can use it to build mazes. Players can reason about the game in discrete components and can make educated guesses using simple logic and observation (see pic-related for an example).

Most people would say that ALTTP was an improvement over Legend of Zelda since it could have rooms of different sizes and shapes, with different exits. This is true, but a consequence of this is that ALTTP has to give you clues about where to try bombs (eg wall cracks), because trying to methodically bomb every pixel of a wall doesn't make good gameplay when a door could be anywhere along the wall.

Another LoZ->ALTTP example might be the movement scheme. In LoZ, Link can only move cardinally, and the entire game is balanced around this. Link moves faster than most (but not all) enemies, and some enemies can move or shoot diagonally. In ALTTP, Link can move 8 directions, but usually moves slower than enemies except when using the pegasus boots which have a charge time and can only be used in cardinal directions. ALTTP is a more advanced game on more advanced hardware, but ultimately both games are well-balanced around Link's movement limitations for that game. So you can't say that ALTTP's movement is an unqualified improvement over LoZ (well, unless you are an idiot. It's fairly common to see idiots claim that ALTTP is better in every way than LoZ).

Attached: zelda-level-1-surpluskeys.png (1536x1056, 102K)

(cont.)
meanwhile an "unqualified improvement" is something that is just flat-out better in basically every way. Now it's often possible to find very nitpicky little tradeoffs to anything, but sometimes advances are really just that: improvements without any real downside.

Okay, I get what you're saying about qualified and unqualified improvements now so in that case, what have other games done that are unqualified improvements over OoT? You said use of the right stick earlier, but I always found it to be completely useless in Zelda games because the default camera and Z/L targeting covered everything I needed to see.
I'm sorry for being a retard earlier.

slav tastes

>slav
more like slav(e)