OOT really is the perfect game. Combat, exploration and music are top notch and the pacing is fantastic...

lmao nice try zoom zoom

>This is what people thought at the time because of the insane hype and marketing
You CLEARLY weren't alive in 1998 if you think any game had "insane hype and marketing" at that time.

all nintendo shit had tv adds. they dominated because of marketing money

mario 64 literally made the news

This.
Even TV ads for games weren't as big as you're thinking. I went out of my way back then to watch channels showing the FFVII commercials and that was a big campaign.
For being amazing, yeah.

Nigger nig a nigger to the nig nig nigger nig niggy to a nig nig nigger

yeah, because videogames in general were seen as this weird new niche in entertainment. It was literally new that these things even existed.

Why is it so ugly? It looks like it came out in the 90's or something. Is the Switch really this bad?

For that time it was amazing. Recently I booted up Witcher2 and that game basically has worse combat than OoT despite being 13 years later

Attached: 1634253537701.jpg (300x450, 34.2K)

The combat and exploration are abysmal, the only good thing about the game is the music

combat in games needs to be no simpler than dodge and attack, where the type of enemy you fight is the interesting concept. Everything else is fluff to delay the inevitable. The only thing "bad" per say is how some bosses fail with rigid x3 repeat patterns with no in between. Think Fyrus from TP, you can constantly down him without him being able to attack since his weakspot is always vulnerable

The combat and exploration especially is great in OoT. Combat isn't super deep, but it feels good.

The problem with Twilight Princess is everything outside of its dungeons.
The whole game when not in a dungeon is fucking garbage.

>And the game holds up great (games aging is largely a meme)
First, this game is unplayable in its original state, by today's standards. But okay, there are many good old games that become even better when you modernize the controls and make the graphics more acceptable. This is not the case with Ocarina, however. The game is terrible.

I was alive and everyone was just talking about this game, how amazing and revolutionary it was going to be, before the release. The fact that it was the highest rated in a rigorous Japanese magazine was almost a mythical thing that came up in every conversation about video games. Basically before it was released people already had the same opinion that they parrot on the forums today.

>by today's standards
Today's standards suck, major releases have gotten worse on average, not better

Insanely rudimentary and the most random bullshit puzzles (go collect enough skulltulas to buy fire tunic? Sorry, I don't sell fire tunics to kids. Clearly the solution is to bomb baby goron in the future).
If the overworked didn't exist and the game was all dungeons, it'd probably be the best.

How come WW and TP Hyrule Fields get shit for being big and empty but OoT Hyrule Field doesn't?

I didn't start hearing about videogames through marketing until around 2000, before that everything, including Ocarina of Time hype was spread by word of mouth.

Link to the past is just better.

The game world feels like baby's first rpg. Like I remember making a minecraft custom map when the game was in beta, and it felt pretty much the same. Towns with two houses and a bunch of signs saying "okay go here now" with 3 minutes of travel in between.

Because TP is bigger and emptier. WW I don't hear people complaining about much.

>combat in games needs to be no simpler than dodge and attack
play more games and never post here again

ITT: zoomers who didnt play OoT when it first came out.
You faggots are judging the game by comparing it to games of your childhood that came out 10 years later. For that time, OoT was a masterpiece. And its one of the only games aside from MM and Mario 64 that aged very well. If you take any playstation 1 game from that same time period you will see that theyre borderline unplayable these days because they aged like shit.
I recently tried to play Silent Hill with a friend on his old playstation 1. What a shitshow. Nintendo was way further ahead of its time.

because OoT is the game I played as a 6 year old and I am unable to look critically at things I liked as a young child

OoT threads are so comfy

What are you smoking? It gets shit on in every single OoT thread I see but it's arguably the least shit of the three by its way smaller scale.

Symphony of the Night absolutely blows OoT out the water by every metric

camera's shite. dropped it after there was some dumb puzzle I had no way of guessing. very overrated game.

If a game is bad now it was bad back then too.
Games don't "age", a copy of OoT today is the exact same it was when released.

OoT is:
1. Not as big as those games.
2. Demonstrated horse riding and justified Epona in 1998.

WW and TP came out in 2003 and 2006 respectively, nothing presented in those games worlds was novel.

What an absolute dogshit comparison. 2d games were already mastered around that time because they have been doing 2d games for a decade, but 3d games were a whole new ballgame that nobody had touched on before.

You cant compare a 3d game from that time with a 2d game. Name 1 playstation 1 game thats 3d that aged as well as OoT, MM and Mario 64.

Sailing felt pretty novel

>immediately moves the goalposts and starts coping
lmao

Can someone explain to me why symphony of the night is so loved? I actually quite disliked it, but even if I liked it, I don't see how it is better than all of the other metroidvania sequels? I liked circle of the moon, dawn of sorrow, order of ecclesia, and I have a hard time saying something that symphony did way better. I guess inverted castle was cool in concept but not particularly fun to retread

The hell do you mean ps1 games didn't age well? Metal gear solid is still rated one of the best of all time, and the amount of incredible rpgs on the system is insane. Nintendo 64's problem isn't that it's less fun than the gamecube, or has worse graphics and worse sound, it's that it's less fun than the super Nintendo, and has worse graphics and worse sound then the super Nintendo.

nah I've played plenty of action games and for a adventure game like OOT. It does not need deeper combat. The reason zelda combat is so simple is for control and being able to design levels for link that aren't simple ARPG corridors. With more focus on action, you lose more level design potential. That new kirby game is a perfect example of how an action adventure game should be made, plenty of focus on level design, while having great boss fights and simple movesets. When you focus on action, you get a turd like Reddit Ring where all of the shoulder buttons are dedicated to "attack, but in a different way" and all of the level design is simple slop flat plains, stairs and ladders. Enemies you fight should always control whats new in a battle, because that is more interesting and exciting.

Metal Gear Solid.

I also liked the later games better but if you liked them you should be able to at least understand why people like SotN, it's prototypical to everything good about the later games

>Moves the goalpost
No nigger, if you have any idea of gamedesign you should know you cant compare a 2d game to a 3d game. Especially around that time when 3d games were very new.
Every design choice in 3d game is different. Combat, controls, camera, world design, etc.

For me at least it more fun moving around and fighting in it. I think the better sound and music goes a long way. The later games have better balance generally but otherwise I prefer SotN in almost every way. They're all great though.

lol keep em coming buddy

>Metal gear solid
90% of the game is top-down, thats not 3d on the same level as OoT. Try again.

>Has no real arguments
>Starts spewing buzzwords
COPE SNEED LOL LMAO

Midwit

Not really, it was just a horse by a different design.

oh no he's losing it

So, 3d games from that Era can't be compared to 2d games because they suck ass and are less fun to play, which is the entire point of the argument being made?

Bruh

>And its one of the only games aside from MM and Mario 64 that aged very well.
The moment you revealed yourself as a nintentard

Spyro.

I played this when I was 8 years old, as was intended, and it was perfectly challenging at the time and a massive gateway drug to adventure games.

I had to restart twice on the Water Temple - it took my friends and I weeks of theorycrafting and exchanging extremely primitive notes. One or two fags definitely had to strategy guide but lied to us saying they were geniuses. Is this "good design"? Not really - but it was our Everest and it was all we knew.

People today play this when they're in their 20s and get some kind of superiority context (congrats bro). Try to view it in the context of the target audience and the technical limitations of the time - it's still a rewarding experience.

They cant be compared to 2d games because creating 2d games is 100x easier, and at that time even more so, because 3d games were such a new concept nobody had experience with, and there were no easy to use engines like unreal engine etc.. Which is also the reason why all indie devs these days make 2d games.

If you're objectively (so not subjectively, just trying to rate it based on what you think is more "fun") trying to rate a videogame you have to take into consideration how much skill and work it costs to turn it into a good game.

>Name 1 playstation 1 game thats 3d that aged as well as OoT, MM and Mario 64
Spyro