-
Saved!The Last of Us passed Ocarina of Time!
-
Saved!Retro WolfEditing … * Head explodes * -
Saved!UltyEditing … Aaaaaand there goes all credibility this list had left... -
Saved!AramondeEditing … just give time when this site gets out of beta and we get more users. -
Saved!Retro WolfEditing … I'm already quite dissapointed in the top 10 anyway, so I can't wait for more users. Half-life 2 and Red dead redemption? Bleh.
-
Saved!PuddingEditing … @Ulty, what credibility are you speaking of? As the name of this site suggests, as well as the name of this list, it's about ''favorite'' games of all time. Not the best, but favorite. Let's not pretend any of these lists hold any serious weight in giving us the answers as to what's the best in any given topic. This site is all about creating lists, having fun doing so and sharing it with others. What it's not about is imposing your own opinion as to what or who's ultimately ''better''. We all have opinions on each subject and it's fun to debate, but it's also important not to take all of this too seriously. SpoilerWHAT?! ME2 IS STILL AT THE TOP?! http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1871404/keyboard-face-smash-o.gif[/spoiler] -
Saved!UltyEditing … You completely missed the sarcastic remark, didn't ya? ;)
-
Saved!AramondeEditing … ^ i did, its really hard to detect sarcasm on the net unless you make it obvious.
-
Saved!UltyEditing … Of course I think TLOU being near the top is BS, but I can respect that because that's what this is: a gathering of every users favorite games! If I took lists seriously, i'd go freaking berzerk with you guys xD
-
Saved!CaffEditing … Thank God. -
Saved!AramondeEditing … So those comments you leave on other lists are sarcasm too?
-
Saved!UltyEditing … ...yes...
-
Saved!AramondeEditing … Oh! I thought you were being serious. Wait a minute! Then that means your FFX hated has just been sarcasm too!!! I knew someone couldn't hate something that much. ;)
-
Saved!PuddingEditing … http://31.media.tumblr.com/53a5ed6cb39ce0720490c735bbde9ac0/tumblr_mhdkq01OzW1rsh5ygo1_400.gif
-
Saved!UltyEditing … I hate FFX, but being serious here I don't really care. I like going berzerk over these insignificant things with you guys because I know you all, and I know we all take it for the laughs. It's funny to do it, but deep down I have a huge respect for each and everyone of you and your opinions/tastes. @Louis Bromilow adores FFX, it's probably his favorite work of fiction, and even though I don't like it I respect the fact he loves the game. He's very passionate about it, like many other people out there, and that's something I can relate to. Believe me, in real life I don't go s***ting on people for liking things I hate...I hope none of you guys thought I really did :(
-
Saved!DoubleagentEditing … Don't worry! Its all in good fun, we can all have a good laugh about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lfiTebewnc -
Saved!UltyEditing … AAHHH!! What are you, trying to kill me?!? :grr:
-
Saved!CaffEditing … We have proper emoticons now?! :D
-
Saved!NodleyEditing … Now the Wii U has failed the fanboys are jumping the Nintendo ship and moving onto Sony. -
Saved!Ameno OktanasEditing … Just as Last of us past Zelda strangely a new account has appeared and put a lot of zelda games in all time favorite list. A bit strange??? I hope no one is that sad to make fake accounts. -
Saved!NodleyEditing … Yeah, it happened a lot on UG too, myself and a couple of others pointed it out on more than one occasion. What can you do though? Maybe the mods can check ip.addresses and delete extra accounts, but who's to say it's not a family member on the same PC? My GF has an account here too.
-
Saved!Retro WolfEditing … The plot thickens...
-
Saved!Rich .Editing … I was surprised The Last of Us was that high as well until I finished it, great game. More top 20 than top 3 for me but still awesome. Glad it's popular! -
Saved!Ameno OktanasEditing … Hey look The Last of Us is back in #2 place. I wonder for how long.
-
Saved!Rich .Editing … Oh so it is, I prefer it to Ocarina so I'm cool with that. Wonder how Ulty'll take it :P
-
Saved!Firion HopeEditing … After looking through it after a long period of time this is the worst best games list Ive ever seen lol -
Saved!AramondeEditing … remember this is not a best list of all time. It an all time favorite game list.
-
Saved!Rich .Editing … Really, there is no best game of all time because that's all subjective and down to opinion. There's just favourites from people who've played a lot with various tastes,from people who haven't played so much with various tastes and then there's an awesome project like this that tries to bring that together and figure out what people as a whole liked the most. To be honest that's about as close to objectively best as we're ever going to get.
-
Saved!Jon Paul CuellarEditing … Ocarina is pretty overrated anyway. Though, that does bring up an interesting topic: Do we judge a game as it was in its proper context, or as it is now? Because if we judge it in its proper context, Ocarina beats Last of Us no question, but if we judge them as they are now, Last of Us beats Ocarina no question. -
Saved!UltyEditing … I think everything should be judged as it was in it's proper context, simply because the other way would be hugely unfair to the videogames that defined the standards in which games like TLOU so desperately hang on to. TLOU is a good game, but for f***'s sake people...
-
Saved!CaffEditing … ^I disagree. It's one thing if you were good then. It's another if the game can stand the test of time.
-
Saved!UltyEditing … But OOT does stand the test of time. The only thing that doesn't stand is the awe factor of the innovative and revolutionary mechanics, the game is still very fun to play today AND alot more than TLOU might I add.
-
Saved!CaffEditing … ^"very fun" Right...
-
Saved!Rich .Editing … Ocarina hasn't aged too badly compared to a lot of early 3d games but that's beside the point. Today there are more epic adventures (RDR, SotC), games with tighter more refined gameplay (Dark Souls, Arkham), storytelling wasn't Ocarina's strongpoint to begin with but even so gaming storytelling's come on leaps and bounds since 98 (Mass Effect, The Walking Dead) and even if you have the kind of taste in games that makes Ocarina right up your street games like Twilight Princess, Beyond Good & Evil and Wind Waker have learned from everything Ocarina did well and made refinements and improvements so you're better off playing those. What was good for its time - going off all the nostalgia I'm guessing Ocarina was very good for 16 years ago but it was more than a decade old when I played it so I don't have that nostalgia - doesn't really come into it when I think about what the best games are, to me it's about what's best to play today and so Ocarina doesn't come close to being one of the best games of all time in my book whereas The Last of Us is up there.
-
Saved!Firion HopeEditing … I think Ocarina is still really fun to play even today and that's really what it all comes down to. You can say nostalgia all you want (that's not directed at anyone in particular) but plenty of people have played it for the first time much after the fact and still enjoyed it. And besides there's just as many people that like things just because they're the new hot flavor of the month/year/whatever. Anyway I like both though I'd much sooner replay Ocarina again, take that for what it's worth.
-
Saved!UltyEditing … When in doubt, just throw the "blinded by nostalgia" card...*sigh*
-
Saved!NodleyEditing … Excellent post Richard Pale. I agree that the newer Zelda games are all better, it seems to me nostalgia plays a huge part when people rank it so highly.
-
Saved!Jon Paul CuellarEditing … It's because you're judging Ocarina by the experience you had with it back when it first came out. In its proper context. I didn't play Ocarina when it first came out, and I really didn't like it when I did finally get around to playing it. Of course, you can play it a million times and still look at it the same way you did several years ago, because you had that experience. I guess that's nostalgia, but when I look at it this way, I don't think it's an invalid criterion for judging a game. Of course, since tLoU come out just recently, pretty much everyone who has played it has that "nostalgia" for it.
-
Saved!UltyEditing … I have so many arguments to disprove all this crap that's usually used to drag OOT down more than any other game, but i'm finding it difficult to translate it into writing xD I cannot WAIT to finish my Favslist review/analysis of Ocarina of Time once and for all, so I can put an end this "blinded by nostalgia" and "itz cuz you played it when it came out" bullshit.
-
Saved!Rich .Editing … Not sure how you're going to disprove my/nod/jon's perspectives @Ulty, it'll be interesting to see you try to prove opinion. Personally I think my opinion of Ocarina's been affected by playing it two console generations after it came out and after I'd played games like Twilight Princess that took what it did well and made improvements and I imagine if I'd played it when it was new I'd have found it a lot more impressive in that context and today I'd feel some nostalgia for it the way I do for games I did play back then (Time Crisis, Spyro, Tekken etc). I would have guessed vice versa would be true for you if you'd played Ocarina for the first time in the 2010 context I did Ulty. I think that's what @Jon Paul Cuellar was getting at as well, I don't think anyone's called anyone else blinded. I'm just saying we experience things in different contexts and that plays a part in colouring our opinion of them, not that your perspective on Ocarina isn't valid because you played it when it was new.
-
Saved!Rich .Editing … Deleted by himself
-
Saved!Rich .Editing … It's tricky comparing games from different eras, I'm not sure there is a fair way to do it. You can keep context in mind, say it's all relative and give credit for being innovative and kudos for being great for its time i.e. "Ocarina experienced in 1998 vs The Last of Us experienced in 2013" and depending on how much value you attach to a game being refined, polished and containing elements that have only been possible on modern tech compared to the value you attach to being innovative and being great back in the day you'll end up with your criteria for a great game skewed towards older/newer games. On the other hand you could forget about context, compare which game is outright better rather than better within the context they launched and just compare like for like with gameplay, storytelling, music, graphics etc regardless of age i.e. "Ocarina experienced in 2014 vs The Last of Us experienced in 2014" and that way tend to conclude that most of the best games are recent. I guess I tend to do the latter with a few exceptions for the games I'm nostalgic for.
-
Saved!NodleyEditing … When I rate old games I always first of all think about how good they were back in the day and give a score, then I think about how much fun they are compared to newer games and adjust that score. Occasionally I come across a legendary game that had so much influence on gaming it can't have anything but a 10 so I get what ulty is saying too. It's just that I don't think OoT was as important to gaming like mario/doom/tetris etc.
-
Saved!UltyEditing … Yes, there are games that had more influence on the industry than OOT like Super Mario Bros, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Pong, Tetris, etc.
-
Saved!Billy McKennaEditing … Interesting discussion. It's this thinking that made me question how I see retro games. After all, I really like 'Streets Of Rage 2' on the Mega Drive, but let's be fair. 'Dark Angel' on Xbox and 'Anarchy Reigns' on PS3/360 are better games. They have more to them, they have more complex gameplay, they have better graphics, and no-one remembers them at all because they're below average 3D beat-em up games. These are no 'Devil May Cry' or 'God Of War' contenders. The way I see it, 'Streets Of Rage 2' is a 4/10, maybe a 5/10... by todays contemporary standards. If you paid $60/£40 for it on PS3/360 today you'd be disappointed, but "adjust for inflation" and it's the early 90's 8/10, or maybe even 9/10 game we remember. 'Ocarina Of Time' has the same issues. It has sub-HD graphics, clunky controls, no real story to speak of, and drawn out repetitive gameplay. Sure, it's influential and remembered fondly, but so what? By contemporary standards, if 'Ocarina Of Time' was released today it'd be a 4/10 at best. It's really not aged well and it's formula has been improved on and done better by half a dozen other games at this point, including other Zelda games. Anyone who honestly thinks 'Ocarina Of Time' compares to modern games like 'The Last Of Us' is nostalgia blind. It's just like those teens/20-somethings who still insist that 'GoldenEye' is the best FPS ever made... it's self imposed delusions, and quite frankly it's rather sad that people in our generation are blinded by nostalgia already. Isn't nostalgia supposed to be the domain of the pensioner?
-
Saved!UltyEditing … Interesting post, which I respectfully disagree with. First of all, Streets of Rage 2 is a really good game and holds up today pretty well simply because there isn't any complicated stuff in the overall design. It's simple and just plain fun, even to this day. I haven't played "Dark Angel" or "Anarchy Reigns", but if we were to compare them we have to be fair - and the key word here being "fair". You can't say they have better graphics simply because they're on a newer console, you have to compare them with the standards of each game's respective time. You can't say one has better gameplay simply because it's more complex and elaborate, the Mega Drive wasn't powerful enough to implement 6th Gen mechanics. I believe in the philosophy "Judge it on it's own merits", even with sequels. As for Ocarina, no...just no. Where are the controls clunky? The game does have a story, just because it's not overly complicated does it mean it shouldn't be judged for what it is? Repetitive gameplay, what?! It was incredibly influential, and revolutionized 3D gaming, and all you say is so what? How many games do you know that change the form like OOT did? That alone is one hell of an achievement! The reason why it's formula has been improved is because it is thanks to OOT that we have a formula that we can improve to begin with! It's much, MUCH harder to create than it is to improve (although I do believe OOT aged impressively well, considering it was essentialy a pioneer). I think OOT completely obliterates TLOU as a video game, simply because of superior game design. I'm not even accounting the brilliant mechanics, fresh perspective on combat, better music. TLOU honestly is a pretty basic game, there's nothing really remarkable about it's design. It's a solid experience, with excellent storytelling - that's all it is. The reason why comparing OOT to TLOU is stupid is because they're not even in the same league! Give TLOU more time, to leave an everlasting impact...
-
Saved!UltyEditing … Oh and by the way, Goldeneye may not the the greatest of all time but it's definitely up there with the greatest simply for the reasons why OOT is too. Without it, console FPS wouldn't be the same and arguably the genre as a whole...
-
Saved!NodleyEditing … Excellent post Billy and I totally agree. I of course adjust my scores when I rate them because it's unfair to judge old games against the best available today, however some truly do stand up against modern games.
-
Saved!Billy McKennaEditing … Ulty, with all due respect, you're sounding like a damn fanboy. 'GoldenEye' is an ugly, boring, unbalanced FPS. The story is barebones and badly told, the difficulty curve is like running headlong into a brick wall, it's multiplayer is so unbalanced it's stupid (Oddjob anyone), and of course it looks like shite. It's not "up there", it's a fucking mess... you need to learn the difference between "influential" and "best". The fact is, if this exact game came out now would it compete with the likes of 'Call Of Duty' or 'Halo'. No, it'd be laughed out of the industry and compared to games of similar quality like 'Gary's Incident'. The fact is, old games age badly, especially games from the 5th Gen consoles. Everything has improved, graphics, sound, AI, physics engines, and even things like story telling, characterisation, and pacing. This industry gets better with each generation, and only the very best of previous generations even come close to the average games of today. Now, as for 'Ocarina Of Time', I have many criticisms but I don't think you'll actually take them on board; I may as well be insulting your first born child. You're already defensive and acting offended, so I'm expecting only the comments of yet another nostalgia blind Ocarina fanboy. If you feel you can critically and objectively discuss the game though; great, I'd welcome the opportunity but I'm expecting crying, moaning, variations on "how dare you", pleading about how influential it was, and when that doesn't work insisting that "video games are subjective" or just outright labelling me a "hater" so you can ignore any critical analysis I give. Those are the actions of a fanboy... so do you really want to hear my opinion on 'Ocarina Of Time'?
-
Saved!benace75Editing … To be fair, some of the games we rank are not the best, but are our favorites due to the experience we had playing them and memories we cherish surrounding the games. Goldeneye may be lackluster compared to modern day first-person shooters, but the memories you had playing multiplayer with your friends, and how the game blew your mind when it came out is enough to have it ranked above these modern games in your lists. I also think that Streets of Rage was a bad example because it is just as fun to play now as it ever was; even if the mechanics are not as advanced as modern games, it still is one of the most memorable and enjoyable beat-em ups out there. I dislike calling people who enjoy these games nostalgia-blind because insulting people based on their liking of games that have a special place in their hearts is wrong. Everyone has different tastes, and this is what makes this website great. It's always interesting to hear what people have to say about their favorite things, and seeing how important they are to them as shown in the lists that they make. -
Saved!Billy McKennaEditing … See, I don't disagree with that sentiment Ben. Hell, my number 1 game is 'Final Fantasy VIII' which is so flawed it's laughable. I have 'Dynasty Warriors 8' in my top 5 despite it's issues. My number 24, 'Spot Goes To Hollywood' is an isometric platformer for the Sega Saturn. I have very fond memories of it though, and I do genuinely still play it now. The thing is I know they're not "best". They're games I like but that's all. It takes great force of personality I feel to recognise your own subjectivity, and understand when it differs from the objective facts. Objectively almost every platformer made in the last 15+ years is "better" than Spot, but it means something to me. It's the difference between knowing what you like and recommending something to a stranger. I would recommend 'Mass Effect', 'Deus Ex: Human Revolution', or 'Super Mario 3D World' to almost anyone, even non-gamers. I'd not even consider recommending 'Final Fantasy VIII'; it's terribly made, badly paced, has a broken combat system, and the story requires far to much effort from the player to make sense... and I love it. I will always love it. It's the best game ever; but only because of nostalgia and personal investment. It'd do Ulty the world of good to admit the same thing, if only to himself, over 'Ocarina Of Time'. Unfortunately the internet is an echo chamber for N64 fanboys who don't want to take off the tinted nostalgia-goggles.
-
Saved!UltyEditing … @Billy McKenna, it's interesting that you're criticizing me as being blinded by nostalgia, because I see you're a bit blinded yourself. I've made my points on why I think those are some of the greatest games ever made, being original in game design and ambitious with it's concepts while still being well crafted for it's time matters, you didn't counter either. I never said OOT or Goldeneye don't have flaws, and yes Halo is indeed better crafted and balanced...thanks to games like Gondeneye! You see how impact matters? You come here and tell me to admit my subjectivity...you don't even know me. It's one thing if were having a heated debate on if a game is good or not, i'm all for that, but don't you dare judge me as a person when this is the first time you're talking to me. And seriously, if your counter for anything I say defending these games is "damn fanboy" or "take off your nostalgia goggles" then i'm done here. I'll be waiting for the actual debate, though...
-
Saved!UltyEditing … Oh and by the way, I wasn't even offended by anything you said. I read your post, said it was interesting and I respectfully disagreed with it. If there's one acting all offended here is you, which if I did I apologize.
-
Saved!Rich .Editing … I'm on your side of the argument @Billy McKenna. I think there's a big difference between being great and being influential/good for the time and I do know that the games I've got nostalgia for and consider favourites have been surpassed in at least a few ways by newer games in the genre by now and that a modern gamer with no nostalgia would prefer the newer game because of that. I know that's exactly what happened when I played Ocarina for the first time a few years back, from that perspective it just felt like an older less polished version of Twilight Princess. @Ulty didn't say anything outrageously fanboyish though. I've had this argument with him before, usually it seems to boil down to that he attaches way more value to a game being good for its time and way way more value to a game being influential than I do. He can be way more outrageous this :p
-
Saved!Billy McKennaEditing … @richardpale I'll admit much of my post was pre-emptive rebuttles to comments yet to be made but I've been on here and UnikGamer for a while (although I wan't a very actice member on UG), and Ulty has a tendency towards fanboyism that I wanted to address because I think you can get a fair bit out of analysis of 'Ocarina Of Time', but it's pointless doing so around an N64-era fanboy, they just can't take it. If that's the direction this conversation takes, cool, but I don't want it to degenerate into a slanging match because I dare to speak against the mighty 'N64'.
-
Saved!Billy McKennaEditing … OK @Ulty, if you want a proper discussion I'll presume everyone will leave emotion aside and discuss properly. So, 'Ocarina Of Time'. Well much of my opinion can be summed up by the video Egoraptor did on YouTube. If you've not seen it I suggest you look it up, he makes some fantastic points, (and some that are little more than petty nitpicking but still). My biggest issues with Ocarina are controls, story, pacing, and theme. The controls are simple enough; the camera was limited, the lack of a jump button and use of auto-jump was a bad choice as it trivialised hazards, the bombs became inaccurate to use but still limited, and combat was a mess of wasted opportunity. Bats where a chore to fight and almost all other enemies where just the tedium of waiting for it to show it's weak point. Next story, there isn't one. Seriously, the same story in every Zelda game is getting pretty damn old. Especially when you consider it's also the same story used in Mario. Shigeru Miyamoto may be a visionary in game design but as a writer for narrative fiction he's hopeless. At least 'Majora's Mask' tried to shake things up a little. Next there's pacing, which is a big problem here. You're forever charging across Hyrule's open fields for no real reason, it's there to break up and artificially elongate gameplay but it just breaks immersion. Lastly there's theme, again this seems lacking. The game is so generic. The main theme I can see is the fantasy labyrinth theme. We're collecting artifacts from dungeons to stop a big evil. Done right this can be timeless, but it's just frustrating. There's no challenges, no enemies that really require any thought, and most of the puzzles are "scan the room and shoot the eye when you find it". That's not a puzzle, it's just busy-work. In short I was unimpressed by 'Ocarina Of Time' back then, and I find all the adulation it receives now to be rather distasteful. Was it as influential as people claim? No it wasn't. 'Tomb Raider' and 'Super Mario 64', that was what influenced modern 3D gaming. By the time 'Ocarina Of Time' was out we had our big influencers. I also think it's disingenuous to give 'GoldenEye' the credit for 'Halo' too... It's very easy to trace games back and give undue credit and this I feel is happening here. So, that's my opinion. I played these games in the late 90s and was underwhelmed, though admittedly I never had an N64 myself; my cousin did, (I was a Sega kid). I have few memories with the console and for that reason I have no real nostalgia for it. I can say though, even at only 12 years old, I prefered 'Donkey Kong Country', 'A Link To The Past', 'Super Mario All Stars'. I always felt that Nintendo made some of the best 2D games around, but there move to 3D was terrible and their quality dropped dramatically. I recently re-played 'Ocarina Of Time' on the 3DS, with some improvements they managed to make a 17 year old game playable by todays standards. Even for new players it's decent. It's still flawed in the ways I said before, but it's a solid 5/10 in my book, which back then would likely translate out to an 8 or 9/10. I still feel 'A Link To The Past' is better as it's not plagued with many of the flaws 'Ocarina Of Time' is, and by todays standards 'Beyond Good & Evil', 'Darksiders', 'Wind Waker', 'Okami' and 'Alice: Madness Returns' are all games that took the formula of 'Ocarina Of Time' and improved on it dramatically; 'Twilight Princess' effectively re-did the entire concept and improved on it in almost every way. In short I consider 'Ocarina Of Time' to be a game that was a little overrated in it's time, much like 'Batman: Arkham Asylum' is today; but it's left some influence and was by no means a bad game. By todays standards though it's barely average and insisting we judge it based on how it was "for it's time", is just a way of not admitting to yourself that it doesn't hold up as a contemporary game any more; which is sad in a way, but relevant if it's getting rereleases on the 3DS. Don't let this spoil your love for it, I don't let the same truths spoil my love for 'Final Fantasy VIII' but I hope you have the personal integrity to accept the flaws in this game...
-
Saved!UltyEditing … A WILD BARRAGE OF TEXT APPEARS - Yes i've seen egoraptor's sequelitis on it (i've made a topic about it too, post there so we can discuss it :D http://www.favslist.com/forums/Sequelitis-A-Comedic-Look-at-Game-Design-489), and like almost every fan of his and the series I think it's by far his weakest in terms of analysis. He clings way too much on personal gripes rather than design flaws, and the flaws he pointed out were already called as total bulls*** on his comment section with factual arguments, like the spiky enemies and the aesthetics. This is the best comment i've found, going through every one of his points: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=119324417&postcount=806 But anyway... CONTROLS: I can't really argue with you here, since I have never ran into any issue whatsoever with OOT's controls. Z-Targetting was a revolutionary mechanic, which pretty much defined a type of control that is still used to this day. Ego points out it shatters the link between combat and world, but I disagree because you essentially don't have to use it in any situation which lets you freely explore and combat simultaneously. Auto-Jump was a design choice, and it pretty much serves the exact same purpose as a jump button so I really don't see the problem here. The whole game is designed around it, Zelda is not a platformer so a jump button isn't really missed in my opinion. It's just a different way of doing platforming. As for the waiting aspect, it was to add atmosphere and a defensive element to combat. Enemies weren't just walking around aimlessly like every other game before it, OOT's enemy AI did things that contributed to the whole emphasis on combat. When an enemy is defending itself, you can always slam it or look for a weak point to end the fight right there. If you stand there, the AI basically waits for you to do your move. Yes it has wasted potential, but you say that now! Back then this s*** was mindblowing, so many possibilities were made because of it. You might say the controls are not as fluid as next-gen Zeldas and Adventure games, because of better hardware, controllers and game engines, but many of those improvements were made possible because of OOT. And even putting that aside, like I said I never ran into any problem (and I mean the N64 version, and i've played it more times than I can count) but I will respect your opinion here because control is a very personal thing and I can't really defend my statement with other than "never happened to me". I know this because I have alot of issues with other games' controls that are widely praised (e.g. Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze). STORY: Zelda is not about story. Never has, never will be. It's a simple plot of you saving the world from some evil entity, and it works because in a game like Zelda that's all you need. Why does every videogame story need to have some level of complexity, with rich narratives, overlong cutscenes and character development? I know i'm alone on this, and this isn't really a counter argument, but I couldn't care less about stories in videogames. If I wanted to watch a movie, i'd watch a damn movie. This is a game, it's about the gameplay. Context to your actions, establishing a setting, developing a basic plot and events and giving a main goal to the player is all that's needed. But back to the point, OOT's story is simple but it's well told. Its 3D cutscenes were an inspiration for games that followed and improved on it, and also made much more use of it (like Majora's Mask, as you pointed out and well). It's standard stuff, but it worked and complemented the game well in my opinion. I do agree on the fact that it gets in the way of the gameplay, by putting roadblocks all over the place, which is indeed a gripe I admitedly always had with it but many others actually prefer the more strict and streamlined experience because then they see the ending open-nes as a reward for beating most of the game. I don't agree with it though. I always prefered the open nature of the original Zelda, with barely anything established or even goals to achieve: it's all gameplay...AND I LOVE IT :D PACING: This is an obvious one, since every Zelda game has a slow one by nature because of it's design. I love it that way, but I can see where you find a problem with it. Hyrule Field does indeed show it's age, it's probably the only aspect where i'll agree with you though. Back then it was awesome though, navigating in 3D space was new and exciting so having this sense of exploring around in infinite directions was very cool. The reason why there isn't much to be found there is because of hardware limitations, the N64 wasn't all that good at processing power and the cartridges had REALLY limited space. Majora's Mask has alot more because it made use of the Expansion Pack, here I cut some slack on OOT because there's literally nothing the developers could do and what they came up with was cool back then. THEME: If those are your complaints, then the Zelda seires isn't for you. It's supposed to be a collecting artifacts, weapons and magic stones kind of theme, that's what Zelda is! Every Zelda has scanning room puzzles, I don't see why OOT is the target for that one. Usually Zeldas implement some scanning puzzles, then later on a more elaborate and complex puzzle. If every room in every dungeon had a complex puzzle, then THAT would break the pacing (not to mention the whole special moment of solving that one really cool puzzle in that dungeon). Although I do agree that the game could've been way harder, enemies do take some kind of thought. It's not so much the "collect item in dungeon, beat everything with item", but almost every enemy has more than 2 ways to be beaten and exploited. This added a whole new level of dynamic to the player's interaction with enemies and use of the arsenal that, again, back then was mindblowing. ---------- Yes, it was. Super Mario 64 was indeed more revolutionary and influential, but Tomb Raider was not. It had a certain impact, but OOT was the one that gave the blueprint that every developer at the time worshipped and improved upon (some of them :P). It's control scheme, design, mechanics and use of 3D inspired countless games, this is a fact. And Goldeneye was indeed a game changer, and proof of that is the dramatic turnpoint console FPS's took after it was released. ---------- Overall, I do respect your opinion. You backed it up in a reasonable and rational way, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it though. I feel nostalgia is used as a cop-out many times, there were many old games i've played after my 20's that I consider to be great and that aged well. Yes i'm very nostalgic for OOT, I think everyone here knows that by now, but whenever I debate it I always back up what I say about it. I really hate when people ignore my arguments with the simple "fanboy!" or "nostalgia goggles", but you didn't cling on it and actually expanded your opinion and I respect that. In conclusion, I value original game design, revolutionary mechanics and the setting of standards alot. That's what separates the really good from the really great, in my opinion (I also value craft and polish, of course). I do understand where you're coming from though, @richardpale also thinks like that, so I guess this is just two different perspectives clashing with one another. I'm not asking you to agree with this, or even respect it, but I hope I made you see where i'm coming from.
-
Saved!Billy McKennaEditing … I doubt either of us will be convincing the other here Ulty, particularly as you put far more stock in "back then". I'm more interesting in what's good full stop, not what's good for the time when you take into account hardware limitations. That tells me nothing useful about how good the game actually is. If I thought like that 'Planescape: Torment' would be far higher in my list and 'Ultima IV' and 'Ultima V' would be in first and second place by a wide margin; such expansive player driven, open-ended, storys that are introspective and not based around fighting a "big bad", in the early 80's on the Commodore 64/Apple II Computers... computers that at best played 'Space Invaders', 'Asteroids', and 'Pac-Man'. If we base game quality on the relative quality of their contemporaries and the limitations of their system; the Ultima series makes every other game look like absolute junk. This is why I don't agree with your reasoning, it's too steeped in reverence for the past rather than acknowledgement of the present, and it downplays the great advancement our hobby has made. We've come far since 'Pong', and calling games like 'Ocarina Of Time' the "BEST EVAR!!1!!" pisses me off because it's clearly not true and denegrates and trivialises the hard work two decades of designers, programmers, and writers have put into improving video games. "It's my favourite", is fine, but "it's the best" is a cruel lie that makes the industry question why it even tries to innovate; and it's one the collective internet needs to outgrow and stop perpetuating. While your post is fine, one thing I do find disingenuous is your dismissal of 'Tomb Raider'. It pre-dates 'Ocarina Of Time', and was noticeably more influential in modern 3D action, with far more of it's conventions being adopted and carried through to influence amost every action series from 'Prince Of Persia' to 'Uncharted'. Conversely, 'GoldenEye' was behind the times in the realms of FPSs and influenced almost nothing, with 'Quake', 'Unreal Tournament', 'System Shock' and 'Half-Life' being far more important to the genre and the industry. Really, all 'GoldenEye' did was show that the FPS could be successful on consoles, but even then 'Perfect Dark' didn't especially sell well and with it died the mechanics those games adopted. People may remember them, but developers aren't using them for inspiration. They where so ignored in fact that there where no major FPS console releases for 2 years after 'Perfect Dark' while the PC FPS flourished. 'Halo' was far more influential in console FPS legitimacy, in fact it's pretty much single-handedly responsible for it, and it borrows far more from 'Unreal Tournament' than it ever did from 'GoldenEye'; with a far more PC gamer influence in control, weapon types, setting, and art direction. If you truly care about learning about revolutionary design, influence, and trends in gaming you need to let you emotions rule far less. The fact is the N64 lost, it wasn't very influential, it wasn't if we're honest very good... it had some good games and it's remembered far more than it deserves, but really, it was a sideline in gaming. The same is also true of my most fondly remembered consoles, the Dreamcast. Interestingly both N64 and Dreamcast fanboys are extremely fanatical, that's the nature of underdogs I guess. Here's hoping the same isn't true for the Wii U, I'm loving my Wii U, I'd hate to be surrounded by mindless Nintendo fanboys. Anyway, perhaps this is better discussed in the forum, we can at least use paragraphs there.
-
Saved!Billy McKennaEditing … I made a thread for this discussion if you want to continue. http://www.favslist.com/forums/Contemporary-Gaming-Ocarina-Of-Time-and-Fanboyism-526
-
Saved!UltyEditing … I'm not here to try and convince you to think differently about this, were you? I just wanted you to understand where i'm coming from. Let me be perfectly clear on one thing though: I never once devalued evolution. I just mean that if you're going to criticize a game 20 years old, with brand new concepts, for missed potential and stuff related to technical limitations then you're simply being unfair in my opinion. But since you think differently, it's no use to keep going with this. You're saying Tomb Raider was incredibly influential and OOT had 0 influence, that is just plain wrong considering the adventure games that came after OOT and what a multitude of gaming critics, enthusiasts, historians and even developers said. I can't really argue with you because that's your opinion and your establishing it as fact. Whenever someone does that in a discussion I cringe, because you're basically saying that you'll never respect or even consider my side of the argument so this whole thing is pointless. And why would you ever get pissed off for someone liking a game? Seriously, who gives a s***? My most hated game of all time is FFX, do I get legitimely pissed off everytime @Doubleagent Louis praises it and loves it? Maybe for on the s***s and giggles, but I honestly couldn't care less. He loves the game because he finds it legitimely great and is very special to him, I have a world of respect for that. But anyway, onto the forum :P
-
Deleted!
