I'm not a huge fan of this game, I find it oddly generic and overly stretched out.

I'm not a huge fan of this game, I find it oddly generic and overly stretched out.

@OllyOxenFree: I had more fun with Runescape than I did with Ocarina of Time..

@SexyToad said:

So yesterday I got my friend to play a Zelda game. I chose Ocarina of time because it's one of the best Zelda's game. He didn't even beat the first boss since he quit. How can anyone dislike this game? It's one of the best game of all time. Does anyone else actually dislike this game?

I bought it last summer for my 3ds. I stopped at the lens of truth part. I had it when I was a kid, but right now, I really don't like it. I highly prefer Wind Waker and Skyward Sword. I think Ocarina of Time was amazing for what it did back in the days. I remember drooling over its screenshots in my Nintendo Power issues and couldn't wait for Christmas. I loved the game as a kid, but nowadays, it's really not my favourite Zelda, and I don't consider it being the best game of all time.

My history of Zelda games:

Legend of Zelda: At a friends house, seemed cool but hard.

Link to the Past: Fantastic, one of of the few SNES games I owned and finished. (More of a PC gamer at this point).

Wind Waker: Amazing, I bought a Gamecube for this. One of my all time favorite games.

Twilight Princess: Not as good was WW, but still great, I finished it. (Played on Wii, like the motion control).

Ocarina of Time on 3DS: Liked initially, played though the first dungeon, but like many, just couldn't keep myself interested.

Maybe I was just Zelda'd out, or maybe it was the portable format, I don't know. Or maybe it's just that old games rarely stay relevant. I can't think of any other games from 1998 I want to play either.

In this thread we can see the "Ocarina of Time was a product of it's time" echo chamber.

Of course OoT seems generic and boring and looks bad now - these are all things that should have been argued about In 1998. Turns out, in 1998 most people couldn't get enough of it. If you missed the boat then I don't think there's much point arguing about it now as you'll never be able to see it through those 1998 specs. Nostalgia is what allows me to see past it's flaws now. If you didn't like it at the time then fair do's but it's always going to be a masterpiece for a lot of people.

The camera.

As many have said, it's mostly very, very simple and boring. Later Zelda titles have far more story and aesthetic identity while managing to add depth to the simple combat, while earlier and contemporary Zelda titles have stronger dungeon design and puzzles. Its open world is mostly empty as well.

As a kid, I loved Ocarina because it was my first Zelda. Going back now, I'm baffled as to why it received quite so much critical acclaim against Half-Life, StarCraft, Banjo Kazooie, and Metal Gear Solid.

I don't think gamers today (myself included) are patient enough to appreciate what used to pass as exploration in a game. All Zelda games, but especially the older ones, drop you into a world and expect you to run around and figure out where everything is on your own. That takes time. Time that most gamers these days would rather spend making actual progress.

I loved Ocarina of Time in 1998 and I still love it now. However, when I go back and try to play LttP for the first time (I never had a SNES), I spend hours just walking around trying to figure out where things are and what I'm supposed to do next. That feels boring. In Ocarina, however, I know exactly what to do to progress that game because I played it so much as a kid. I think most people feel the same way but with the games reversed because they played LttP more than Ocarina growing up. That's my theory anyway.

I really don't buy into the arguments that either game has better combat or dungeon design. I have watched someone who actually knows what they are doing play LttP and I would say the games are on equal footing there.

Because you friend didn't play it in 1998.

hey hey hey hey hey hey hey what if i followed you around for your whole life saying that in your ear, game is unplayably annoying

I didn't like it when it first came out. All that running back and forth gets tiring.

@McGhee said:

All that running back and forth gets tiring.

You were supposed to run in the game, not in real life!

@Zithe said:

@McGhee said:

All that running back and forth gets tiring.

You were supposed to run in the game, not in real life!

Running in real life is far less tiring.

i also found myself not being able to get into OOT, I played the gamecube version to about a part where you have to move chickens around, I thought the game was good but I have never been too fond of the series as a whole

I dont dislike it but i have zero interest in playing. It came out when i was more interested in my pc games like Baulders Gate, Starcraft, Half Life and Fallout. I still think those titles alone are far more entertaining than anything Nintendo has done. Just my opinion of course.

I can't wait for this thread to enter the next logical phase of people proclaiming Majora's Mask to be the best game in the series. Because I totally hate Majora's Mask.

Either way, as a not-especially-huge fan of the franchise as a whole, Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker are the only ones I've ever actually finished and as such I feel like a lot of the problems people list are endemic to the ENTIRE SERIES.

Because Nintendo practically ignored my country so I spent my teenage years with the games that Sega filled the gap with.

Because if you have no nostalgia for the game or the series there isn't a whole lot to bring you in. The same can be said for almost every Nintendo franchise.

I don't know either Sexy Toad. Maybe we're just wrapped up in the nostalgia, but personally I think it's aged just fine.

Because it doesn't hold a candle to Link to the Past... and the music sucks. Navi too.

It takes awhile to get into it if you didn't play it until the 3DS release.  It really is great once you get into it but it isn't my favorite Zelda game.  Coincidentally it is A Link to the Past which I didn't play until it got a remake for the GBA. 

I got Ocarina when it first came out and thought it was pretty bad even back then. It was an alright game but compared to A Link to the Past it was terrible.

All of the 3D Zeldas have incredibly long and boring beginnings and treat you like you're a 5 year old with a learning disability. Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are at least fun and a little challenging once you get out into the world, Ocarina is just really easy and kind of bland throughout.

Give him A Link to the Past, that game was incredible.

HEY, LISTEN!

Wow no nintendo/zelda fanboys crying blasphemy and people being realistically logical? Am I on the correct version of the internet?

The moment you've convinced yourself that an entertainment product, no matter how widely beloved, is beyond reproach, then you've already fucked up.

@CL60 said:

BECAUSE THE SHADOW TEMPLE CAN GO FUCK ITSELF.

THIS 1000000x

I played this game just a couple of years ago, and I fail to see how it's dull, or dated to the point where it's unplayable.

Apologies for the slight necro. Lots of people seem to echo--or have similar views to--the comment below.

@Little_Socrates said:

As a kid, I loved Ocarina because it was my first Zelda. Going back now, I'm baffled as to why it received quite so much critical acclaim against Half-Life, StarCraft, Banjo Kazooie, and Metal Gear Solid.

Enormous open world, intriguing gameplay (ocarina, various gadgets/items [hookshot so much fun! Bombchu? hello!], good albeit simple story) with new targeting and camera mechanics, great music/soundtrack (although arguably it would've been better on the genesis). On top of that, it was the first 3D Zelda, a series that also had pretty high acclaim and background prior to Ocarina of Time's debut.

-- rant on --

This is one of the issues with the whole "Greatest Game of All Time" Title. Not only is it purely subjective, but someone in their mid-20s will have a much higher appreciation for Ocarina of Time then someone who is younger. Sure, we've reached all new levels of gameplay. However, the road to these later games has obviously been built on the shoulders of previous game experiences. The same ground can only be broken once. Someone could argue that Skyrim is the greatest game of all time because it is the latest critically acclaimed game, and it has the "best everything," so to speak. Some might argue OoT, or Doom, or Quake, or Deus Ex, or any other older game might be the greatest game of all time because of the new ground that it broke, or because it is the rosiest color in their memory.

Personally, for how "amazing," Skyrim is, I couldn't even make it an hour before getting bored with the experience. On the other hand, I finished playing OoT again on my 3DS just a half-dozen months ago.

-- rant off --

They were born after 1998.

Because it is extremely boring.

@MAGZine said:

Apologies for the slight necro. Lots of people seem to echo--or have similar views to--the comment below.

@Little_Socrates said:

As a kid, I loved Ocarina because it was my first Zelda. Going back now, I'm baffled as to why it received quite so much critical acclaim against Half-Life, StarCraft, Banjo Kazooie, and Metal Gear Solid.

Enormous open world, intriguing gameplay (ocarina, various gadgets/items [hookshot so much fun! Bombchu? hello!], good albeit simple story) with new targeting and camera mechanics, great music/soundtrack (although arguably it would've been better on the genesis). On top of that, it was the first 3D Zelda, a series that also had pretty high acclaim and background prior to Ocarina of Time's debut.

-- rant on --

This is one of the issues with the whole "Greatest Game of All Time" Title. Not only is it purely subjective, but someone in their mid-20s will have a much higher appreciation for Ocarina of Time then someone who is younger. Sure, we've reached all new levels of gameplay. However, the road to these later games has obviously been built on the shoulders of previous game experiences. The same ground can only be broken once. Someone could argue that Skyrim is the greatest game of all time because it is the latest critically acclaimed game, and it has the "best everything," so to speak. Some might argue OoT, or Doom, or Quake, or Deus Ex, or any other older game might be the greatest game of all time because of the new ground that it broke, or because it is the rosiest color in their memory.

Personally, for how "amazing," Skyrim is, I couldn't even make it an hour before getting bored with the experience. On the other hand, I finished playing OoT again on my 3DS just a half-dozen months ago.

-- rant off --

Eh, it's a problem you see in all mediums. People don't always understand what made Citizen Kane so revolutionary at the time precisely because so much of what it did was echoed and improved upon elsewhere. And that's great! That's exactly what the medium should be doing, but you've got to be aware enough to judge the game in its historical and competitive context. The issue is compounded with video games, though, by the addition of the gameplay factor. As video games evolve and change, certain play styles and mechanics are inevitably going to be dated, and you'll have a portion of the audience decrying them as boring and clunky--which they probably are but we've gotta remember the time frame they were made in and not go comparing the mechanics of Zelda to, say, Skyrim.

And lets be clear that I'm not comparing Ocarina of Time to Citizen Kane in terms of quality but more so in terms of how quality ages. One of the best summaries of what made OoT feel so immersive at the time, to me, is summed up really well in the following quote by Peer Schneider from IGN (I know, I know but it was from ages ago):

I don't know how many games I have played in my life where you see some cool scenery in the background and you're thinking "wow, wouldn't it be great if you could actually go there?" That's what Zelda is all about. You see something and you're thinking "wouldn't it be cool if you could..." -- and you can.

That feeling is now par for the course in most video games, and its certainly been performed much better in the years since OoT. It should be remembered for helping usher that feeling into gaming, though. At the same time, as with anything, it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, and that's okay too. People become too hyperbolic with the "Greatest Game of All Time" argument from time to time and fail to realize that what holds up for one might not for another.

I cry whenever I see someone hate on this game.

Whatever, haters gonna hate.

There's nothing wrong about disliking a game-- different people have different tastes. I for one will still take the original top-down Zelda games over Ocarina of Time or any other third person Zelda game out there. If that makes me a bad person or whatever, then so be it ^^

@MAGZine: @CrossTheAtlantic: I'm not confused about how anyone could like Ocarina. Hell, there was a time when I liked Ocarina, though I followed a guide through it at seven years old and never looked back until I was a grown-ass man.

I'm just baffled as to why it is considered so revolutionary. Am I crazy for thinking it's smaller and more barren than the original The Legend of Zelda, or A Link To The Past, or Banjo-Kazooie, or Daggerfall? The gameplay is clunky and simplistic compared to all of those games (excluding Daggerfall, which is extremely clunky;) until the Water Temple, the dungeon design and puzzles are extremely boring. And the story is incomparable to many of the JRPGs before it, to A Link To The Past, and to the one-month earlier Metal Gear Solid.

The idea that it was a singular experience that is important in gaming history has obviously not escaped me; otherwise, I wouldn't ever feel the need to discuss it. I'm just confused as to how anyone things it was an acceptable sequel to the much more engaging Zelda games before it, let alone a hallmark in comparison to some of the best games of '98. Part of me thinks it's just an ongoing hype-wave, another part of me thinks it was just in the right place at the right time a la Resident Evil 4 (a game I do love, but will admit is probably not one of the best games ever.) And part of me does think it was the quality of the spectacle; the graphics do have a very specific look that holds up better than the other games I've mentioned, and the soundtrack is (mostly) phenomenal.

Of course, I'd rather delve into the nitty-gritty on why it does and doesn't work, but that makes more sense in a webcast situation with people extremely familiar with the game than it does in a thread we necro'd to quote me.

@Little_Socrates said:

@MAGZine: @CrossTheAtlantic: I'm not confused about how anyone could like Ocarina. Hell, there was a time when I liked Ocarina, though I followed a guide through it at seven years old and never looked back until I was a grown-ass man.

I'm just baffled as to why it is considered so revolutionary. Am I crazy for thinking it's smaller and more barren than the original The Legend of Zelda, or A Link To The Past, or Banjo-Kazooie, or Daggerfall? The gameplay is clunky and simplistic compared to all of those games (excluding Daggerfall, which is extremely clunky;) until the Water Temple, the dungeon design and puzzles are extremely boring.

Crazy?? Maybe a little bit. :P Stepping out onto Hyrule field for the first time was like HOOOLLLYYY SHITTTTT SO BIG!!! (that's what she said). At the time, I thought all of the gameplay was fairly fun, although nothing too far outside of the idea of a zelda game. the boomerang in the fish belly was sort of fun, and I loved spending time in death mountain.

To be honest, OoT, while an amazing game, isn't up there for me. LttP, SS, WW, and MM are all above it. Still have to play through the game boy ones though. I think TP is the weakest Zelda game.

I bought an N64 just to play Ocarina of Time, based on how much love I had for every entry in the series before it. In 1998, I can honestly say that I didn't like OoT, at all, nor have I cared for any of the console games that followed in it's footsteps. OoT felt like a 3D adventure game that was missing a jump button. Also, the lack of voice acting just felt weird, to me.

So, yes, it's possible to not like this game.

Damn, I didn't even know that a whole lot of people didn't like OoT until this thread. I thought it was one of the most beloved Zelda games in the gaming community. I guess I was mistaken. I played it for the first time last year on the 3DS. While the long walks in the overworld can get a bit old (Thank god for Epona!), and the Shadow Temple is a bit of a drag, the rest of the game was very well designed. That and the improved graphics is what makes the game age so well to me. Plus, the soundtrack is fantastic! So yeah it's still an excellent Zelda game in my eyes.

Water Temple. It also hasn't held up that well. Remake or not. My personal favorites are Link to the Past and oddly Majora's Mask.

some people are just awful

I played through OoT when it came out on 3DS, and I still really enjoyed it. Don't understand any of this nonsense about it not holding up. I'm not saying it's still the greatest game ever made, but it's still totally playable, which is impressive for an early 3D game. It's also one of the most important games made, so it has that going for it. Even if your friend doesn't like OoT, he probably likes a game that was inspired by it.

I didn't like ocarina of time and I played it day 1. I found it to be a betrayal of everything that made Zola, Zelda up until that point. And indeed, if you ask someone today what akes a Zelda game, they will likely answer things from oot that were entirely absent in Zelda games before that one. I didn't like the hub and spoke setup that essentially turned a game about exploration into a game with levels. I didn't like the wait and counter gampkay that turned a hack and slash game into a game about blocking and backstabbing. I didn't like the games art style and sound effects. I liked the horse. I hated the ay people LOVED the horse. It had positive qualities and by the end I was having fun, but I still think at this point skyrim is the only game that spiritually makes me feel like Zelda 1 made me feel.

I didn't like Ocarina of Time back in the day because I thought the graphics looked really plain-jane, which was true of a lot of games back then. If it had been more based on story and characters than it was, that probably would have been enough to make me interested. I was more interested in stuff like Baldur's Gate at that time, and now that Ocarina of Time is old, I still probably wouldn't like it if I tried it again.

@Little_Socrates said:

I'm just baffled as to why it is considered so revolutionary. Am I crazy for thinking it's smaller and more barren than the original The Legend of Zelda, or A Link To The Past, or Banjo-Kazooie, or Daggerfall? The gameplay is clunky and simplistic compared to all of those games (excluding Daggerfall, which is extremely clunky;) until the Water Temple, the dungeon design and puzzles are extremely boring. And the story is incomparable to many of the JRPGs before it, to A Link To The Past, and to the one-month earlier Metal Gear Solid.

The idea that it was a singular experience that is important in gaming history has obviously not escaped me; otherwise, I wouldn't ever feel the need to discuss it. I'm just confused as to how anyone things it was an acceptable sequel to the much more engaging Zelda games before it, let alone a hallmark in comparison to some of the best games of '98. Part of me thinks it's just an ongoing hype-wave, another part of me thinks it was just in the right place at the right time a la Resident Evil 4 (a game I do love, but will admit is probably not one of the best games ever.) And part of me does think it was the quality of the spectacle; the graphics do have a very specific look that holds up better than the other games I've mentioned, and the soundtrack is (mostly) phenomenal.

As someone who has played every Zelda save Skyward Sword at release, I'd say it was novelty of the style of game. It felt like a whole new gaming experience that seemed impossible just a couple years before.

There has been nothing like the transition to 3d gaming before or since, it was a magical time.

Never before had we seen 3d. Never had we seen before what Link actually "looked like" before (there used to be considerable confusion as to what he would look like based off his sprite). Or seen the geography brought to life. The change of perspective made you feel like you were in Hyrule as opposed to looking at, for many it was their first adventure experience in a 3d setting. Mario 64 felt like a bunch of rooms, OoT felt like a World.

Of course many games have done this better ever since including many Zelda games. But like a lot of landmark games OoT receives such continued adulation because it was first in a landmark fashion (or first enough by popularity) not because it did it best.

Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto III, Super Mario bros, Street Fighter II: the World Warrior, Final Fantasy Vii, Warcraft II, Doom, DotA- almost none of these games are the best their genres has to offer, but being early and definitive of the genre they hold special status for gamers. Deservedly so.