Zelda: Ocarina of Time review

[quote name='bruce_pwns_j00']Ive also noticed that you never answer me directly. ould the big bad teacher be scared of the student? No detentions here.[/quote]

I'd rather just let stupidity speak for itself.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Mr Durand Pierre'][quote name='bruce_pwns_j00']Dude, just shut the shaq-fu up. Your not gonna win. Its 1 against almost all. Just give up and go back to sucking your dick.[/quote]

But watching people like you get so riled up is reward enough in itself.[/quote]

And therein lies what I suspect the original motivation for the review was.[/quote]

You're half right actually. Not that I agve the game a lower score just to piss people off. I really did only get a 7/10 level of enjoyment off it. But sure I couldn't expect to post something like this and not get flamed, which is pretty funny in and of itself.

But I also figured that at least someone could counter my argument with something intelligent to say and specific examples, to which no one has.
 
[quote name='bruce_pwns_j00']Mbaye if your attitude dident suck and you hadent let everyone know your a teacher.[/quote]

sure my attitude didn't suck Mr. "shut the hell up!" And we all know how unimportant teachers are.
 
Yep, i counter when i see fit, and in your case i see an ass waiting to be kicked. and yes teachers are unimportant. and you are one. so your unimportant. so go to hell.
 
Hmm, no one witty encountered you? try jsweeney. you got MAJORLY pwned you dickwad douchebag teacher. And i'm sorry for insulting you but come on, stop being so damned immature and so snooty like your'e the coolest cat around.
 
:lol: Holy shit, I think bruce_pwns_j00 is one of the bigger idiots I've encountered on the internet. Save this thread and come back to read it in a few years and realize just how fucking stupid you sound right now. deadzone, same can be applied to you. I don't agree with Durand's review, but he's entitled to his opinion and his opinion isn't "wrong" as some of you would like to believe. And like he said, he never critiqued the game on being bad compared to games of today--have you guys read the review? I repeat: bruce is a fool. It is better to have everyone think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

And did you actually say teachers are unimportant? I'm willing to bet you're one of those C-, D+ students that will get nowhere in life and accomplish nothing productive for society in your life except making me burgers.
 
[quote name='RichD1']:lol: Holy shit, I think bruce_pwns_j00 is one of the bigger idiots I've encountered on the internet. Save this thread and come back to read it in a few years and realize just how shaq-fuing stupid you sound right now. deadzone, same can be applied to you. I don't agree with Durand's review, but he's entitled to his opinion and his opinion isn't "wrong" as some of you would like to believe. And like he said, he never critiqued the game on being bad compared to games of today--have you guys read the review? I repeat: bruce is a fool. It is better to have everyone think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

And did you actually say teachers are unimportant? I'm willing to bet you're one of those C-, D+ students that will get nowhere in life and accomplish nothing productive for society in your life except making me burgers.[/quote]
:applause: Seriously, the guy has an opinion. This is a board to discuss opinions. Reviews are based on opinions. If you don't like an opinion, all you have to do is support why you don't like it, not say shit like "OMG well youre a teacher that means you suck!!!1" and "Well this game is the best game ever and you suck!"
 
You also dident read the whole thing. I SAID im not mad because of his reviews but because when you try to say why you think its good (your opinion) he gets pissy with you.
 
[quote name='ex0'][quote name='RichD1']:lol: Holy shit, I think bruce_pwns_j00 is one of the bigger idiots I've encountered on the internet. Save this thread and come back to read it in a few years and realize just how shaq-fuing stupid you sound right now. deadzone, same can be applied to you. I don't agree with Durand's review, but he's entitled to his opinion and his opinion isn't "wrong" as some of you would like to believe. And like he said, he never critiqued the game on being bad compared to games of today--have you guys read the review? I repeat: bruce is a fool. It is better to have everyone think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

And did you actually say teachers are unimportant? I'm willing to bet you're one of those C-, D+ students that will get nowhere in life and accomplish nothing productive for society in your life except making me burgers.[/quote]
:applause: Seriously, the guy has an opinion. This is a board to discuss opinions. Reviews are based on opinions. If you don't like an opinion, all you have to do is support why you don't like it, not say shit like "OMG well youre a teacher that means you suck!!!1" and "Well this game is the best game ever and you suck!"[/quote]

Well, I didn't exactly say that now did I? Don't put words in my mouth. The only thing i said was that he was being a douchebag, because he's so arrogant and convinced that he's better then anyone else that NO ONE had a statement to make to him that was intelligent. I pointed out jsweeney and you're on my ass because i called him a douchebag? Wow. That's just strange.
 
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Mr Durand Pierre'][quote name='bruce_pwns_j00']Dude, just shut the shaq-fu up. Your not gonna win. Its 1 against almost all. Just give up and go back to sucking your dick.[/quote]

But watching people like you get so riled up is reward enough in itself.[/quote]

And therein lies what I suspect the original motivation for the review was.[/quote]

You're half right actually. Not that I agve the game a lower score just to piss people off. I really did only get a 7/10 level of enjoyment off it. But sure I couldn't expect to post something like this and not get flamed, which is pretty funny in and of itself.

But I also figured that at least someone could counter my argument with something intelligent to say and specific examples, to which no one has.[/quote]

I think you got flamed for the fact that you had a lot of problems with the game that no one else had...ever...anywhere... The only really legitimate (non-subjective and quantifiable) point that can be taken from your review is that OoT has less dungeons than ALTTP.

Everything else is either too niggling a point ("Link's footfalls make me cry,") not really a problem ("z-targeting made it too easy to hit the enemies, almost as if it was targeting them or something; and what's the deal with guarding?! God I hate not getting hit in battle!") or a problem with you and not the game ("I got lost 20 times trying to get to the next quest. Damn Link's labyrinthine treehouse!")

It's good to get another viewpoint on the game, but most people didn't find the same stuff wrong with the game you did, so you shouldn't act surprised when they accuse you of having a head the size of a baseball.
 
[quote name='bruce_pwns_j00']Did you rad what i read? i said its not because of the review its cus of his attitude.[/quote]

His attitude? You're an arrogant little punk. You try to act tough to a teacher when we all know he's got double your age, and you're trying to inflate your internet ego but in fact you're looking like a fool. He wouldn't have an attitude if people could understand one thing, you included; an opinoin is an opinion, there's no need to flame someone for having an opinion.

deadzone: "you dickwad douchebag teacher" Come on now, I'd expect that from a 7th or 8th grader trying to sound cool in front of his friends.

I applaud Durand for not leaving and actually sticking around to defend his OPINIONS which should be a moot issue anyway.
 
OK, well, you can stick up for him and all, sure he is getting bashed on but because his review is inaccurately out of date. He says ridiculous things like (why do they call it z targeting?) and demand that it works too well, and that hyrule was big.

He was just being snide and arrogant, so I thought that Jsweeney properly put him in place. Being the arrogant person he is, though, which clearly radiates by the way he posts and how he thinks highly of himself, he completely ignored Jsweeney's post. I was just trying to point it out, and if he's being a douchebag, then he's being a douchebag. Not pretty, but effective.

FYI, in case you don't know i'm in 9th grade, not 7th. And i'm very mature for my age, but he was being way too snooty.
 
[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']

FYI, in case you don't know i'm in 9th grade, not 7th. And i'm very mature for my age, but he was being way too snooty.[/quote]

:lol: :lol: :lol: !!! Yeah, I can tell how mature you are for you're age. Are you old enough to know what douche is?

Just because he didn't know why z targetting was named z targetting doesn't make his review inaccurate. It's his OPINION THAT IT DOESN'T WORK WELL AND THAT HYRULE AS TOO BIG! I think the same re: Wind Waker and the boats; does that mean and I'm stupid and I'm not playing it at the proper date, despite the fact that I preordered it and played it right away?
 
[quote name='RichD1']does that mean and I'm stupid and I'm not playing it at the proper date, despite the fact that I preordered it and played it right away?[/quote]

You wouldn't think so, but...here we are... To be fair, I might be basing that assessment on the fact that you're trying to fit your entire fist into your mouth.
 
Just to clarify a few things:

I'm not a teacher, still a college student, but I said I wanted to be one, though brce_pwns is greatly discouraging me from doing so.

And also I hardly played any videogames between the SNES and the GC in 2004. I completely missed the N64/PSone/dreamcast generation and when I bought my GC the Zelda collector's edition was the first thing I went through. So by my 10 year outdated standards Ocarina was advanced enough. I may have set my sights too high since it was the first new Zelda game I had played in 10 years, but none of that was based on it being dated. If anyone sees any points where I knock the game based on it's outdated technology then tell me what it is (especially you, JSweeney, since you've brought this point up multiple times in this thread.)

and brc_pwns_j00 or whatever your name is, you say I have a bad attitidue except you posted 4 worthless comments against me before I even responded to any of them. And do you really add anything new by adding "I hate you" as a seperate comment form the "shut the fuck up" one?
 
Instead of pick apart all your complaints and reply to each one of them instead I will pose one simple question:

What about my review is negative that's based on the game being old? The main complaint I hear is that I was judging it by today's standards, which I tried not to do. Anyone have any specific examples from my review?
I didn't care for Ocarina of Time (OOT) that much. I really wanted to like it, but I had a lot of pretty major problems with it.

First of all, I should mention my nostalgia with the Zelda series. The first Zelda along with the orinal super mario bros was the first videogame I ever played as a kid. And the SNES A Link to the Past was my favorite SNES or earlier console game of all time. But after playing OOT I'm not sure if I've simply outgrown the series, or if Zelda just didn't translate to 3D that well.

I'll start with my problems with the game. For one, Link moves too slow. Watching that pitter-patter of his footstesp strolling along Hyrule Field got real old real fast.

This has a great deal to do with the technical limitations of the N64. I could be interpreting what you are saying wrong, but to say that he moves to slow, you must use a metric about what the speed of a character should be... I have a feeling that you're expecting GC/PS2/XBOX era response times from a game made for the N64.. that's just not going to happen.


I also didn't like how he keeps grabbing on to ledges if he wants to climb anything. A personal pet peeve of mine is the inability to jump in these kind of games.
That's another limitation forced onto the game, as well as a design choice.
It's a design choice insofar that the developers did not want Zelda to get bogged down in the mire of percision jumping that was plauging many of the other 3-D games, thanks to the still developing 3-D engines, and the problems the were expericencing with collision dection and such ...Considering that Zelda is primarily about puzzle solving and exploration, I think that's a very good choice.


The sounds Link makes are pretty annoying too, esepcially his rolling grunt which you hear way too much throughout the course of the game. Playing this character really hurts the pacing in the game in a lot of places.

Again, this reads like you're expecting a character that moves like he's right out of a PS2/GC/Xbox game. In a game this old, it's not going to happen. Even Sonic wasn't as fast in Sonic 3-D or even Sonic Adventure, thanks in part to design choices, but more-so in the limitations inherent of the software of that day and age.


Also, Hyrule field just plain sucks. It's long, bland, and the time shifting makes it os there's either a ton of enemies to fight in a constant state of respawning, or there's nothing to fight. I deffinitely prefered the older Zeldas where enemies were just spaced out around the map.

You're again expecting things out of a game that weren't done correctly until long after the game had shipped. Calling Hyrule Field long and bland shows that you ARE using today standards to judge the game graphically, as back when the game was released, even the vast tracts of Hyrule Field were stunningly detailed, and that it had overcome the technical foibles of earlier games.

One thing that I never liked that much about the 3D Zelda's that everyone else seems ot love is the "Z-targeting." (no idea why they call it that). I find it's auto-targetting system faulty and boring.

This game was made back in the early days of 3-D console games.. collision detection was not the greatest, so if you just left someone to thier own devices, battle would become more of a chore than they wanted to present. You can expect that a game so old would have modern day control schemes... it had to work with what it was given. If Z targeting is such a bad idea, which was it obviously reused many,many times by gamemakers other than Nintendo? Z targetting is STILL seen in many other games as well...It's a rather simple and elegant solution to a very difficult control problem.

Z-targetting-- One pushes the "Z" button on the N-64 controller to lock on to an enemy (There are other reasons, but that is the simple explanation )



If you don't resort to auto-targetting you're a sitting duck, but if you use it the combat is too easy, and you need only hold down the R button to avoid all attacks.

Considering that this was the first application of the engine, it is possible it could result in balance issues... but it still seems that you're unfairly comparing the modern control schemes born from the Z targetting system
to make your comparisons


Fighting the wolfos really tried my patience. This coupled with the games poor camera made combat a lot less fun than it should have been.

Poor camera? Compared to what? You need a metric to compare these things to, and I have a feeling that yours includes more modern graphical engines.


Often I'd be in a room with a flying enemy, like a bat, and I would know they were in the room, but be unable to move the camera and lock onto them from a distance. The combat isn't that awful, I enjoyed fencing with the lizards, but it really is overrated.

You are saying that ten years after the fact. This game wasn't released yesterday, and thus enjoys the latitude of being judged against other games that were created at the same time... using modern metrics as a basis for a review is just foolish.

Considering that the overwhelming bulk of your complains are based on graphical and control issues, your review really isn't fair to the game at all, as you seem to have no idea of the gating factors that existed when the game was released, or be able to use a fair metric to judge the game.
You can't judge an old piece of media based on the technological standards of modern media.. the comparison is never apt.
 
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre'][quote name='bruce_pwns_j00']Ive also noticed that you never answer me directly. ould the big bad teacher be scared of the student? No detentions here.[/quote]

I'd rather just let stupidity speak for itself.[/quote]

One reaps what one sows.
 
[quote name='Mr Durand Pierre'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Mr Durand Pierre'][quote name='bruce_pwns_j00']Dude, just shut the shaq-fu up. Your not gonna win. Its 1 against almost all. Just give up and go back to sucking your dick.[/quote]

But watching people like you get so riled up is reward enough in itself.[/quote]

And therein lies what I suspect the original motivation for the review was.[/quote]

You're half right actually. Not that I agve the game a lower score just to piss people off. I really did only get a 7/10 level of enjoyment off it. But sure I couldn't expect to post something like this and not get flamed, which is pretty funny in and of itself.

But I also figured that at least someone could counter my argument with something intelligent to say and specific examples, to which no one has.[/quote]

You're not the one that gets to make that decision. You're so blinded to anything anyone else says by your bias that you make a poor judge of what the flow of the conversation is... if you notice, debates are never judged by the participants.

In fact, there have been plent of salient points that you just fail to answer to. Not to mention that considering that little outburst you had, you ceeded the moral and intellectual high ground long ago.
 
JSweeney please, even someone like you can realize Durand has every right to laugh at the stupidity being spewed from bruce's mouth.
 
I don't agree with Durand's review, but he's entitled to his opinion and his opinion isn't "wrong" as some of you would like to believe.

Your right, RichD1.
Though it may be misinformed, Using improper metrics, or unenlightened it is still his opinion, so it can't be wrong. Incorrect, yes, but not wrong.

And like he said, he never critiqued the game on being bad compared to games of today--have you guys read the review?
He is, but not in so many words. It's obvious he's not comparing the graphics and graphical engine OOT used compared to game of it's own era.


I repeat: bruce is a fool. It is better to have everyone think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Then it goes with out saying, eh?


And did you actually say teachers are unimportant? I'm willing to bet you're one of those C-, D+ students that will get nowhere in life and accomplish nothing productive for society in your life except making me burgers.

Not all teacher, just poor ones. Ones that are so blinded by thier own ego or selfishness that they refuse to see the needs of the children in their charge. Great teachers are of high value... poor teachers are lower than dirt. To my great benefit, I've had more great teachers than I have had poor teachers. That's not the case for some people.
 
[quote name='RichD1']JSweeney please, even someone like you can realize Durand has every right to laugh at the stupidity being spewed from bruce's mouth.[/quote]

Yes, but that doesn't post had no value and only furthered the pointless bickering... despite the fact that Durand thinks he's getting the better of him, he just begins to look dumber and dumber as he argues with bruce.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']Instead of pick apart all your complaints and reply to each one of them instead I will pose one simple question:

What about my review is negative that's based on the game being old? The main complaint I hear is that I was judging it by today's standards, which I tried not to do. Anyone have any specific examples from my review?
I didn't care for Ocarina of Time (OOT) that much. I really wanted to like it, but I had a lot of pretty major problems with it.

First of all, I should mention my nostalgia with the Zelda series. The first Zelda along with the orinal super mario bros was the first videogame I ever played as a kid. And the SNES A Link to the Past was my favorite SNES or earlier console game of all time. But after playing OOT I'm not sure if I've simply outgrown the series, or if Zelda just didn't translate to 3D that well.

I'll start with my problems with the game. For one, Link moves too slow. Watching that pitter-patter of his footstesp strolling along Hyrule Field got real old real fast.

This has a great deal to do with the technical limitations of the N64. I could be interpreting what you are saying wrong, but to say that he moves to slow, you must use a metric about what the speed of a character should be... I have a feeling that you're expecting GC/PS2/XBOX era response times from a game made for the N64.. that's just not going to happen.


I also didn't like how he keeps grabbing on to ledges if he wants to climb anything. A personal pet peeve of mine is the inability to jump in these kind of games.
That's another limitation forced onto the game, as well as a design choice.
It's a design choice insofar that the developers did not want Zelda to get bogged down in the mire of percision jumping that was plauging many of the other 3-D games, thanks to the still developing 3-D engines, and the problems the were expericencing with collision dection and such ...Considering that Zelda is primarily about puzzle solving and exploration, I think that's a very good choice.


The sounds Link makes are pretty annoying too, esepcially his rolling grunt which you hear way too much throughout the course of the game. Playing this character really hurts the pacing in the game in a lot of places.

Again, this reads like you're expecting a character that moves like he's right out of a PS2/GC/Xbox game. In a game this old, it's not going to happen. Even Sonic wasn't as fast in Sonic 3-D or even Sonic Adventure, thanks in part to design choices, but more-so in the limitations inherent of the software of that day and age.


Also, Hyrule field just plain sucks. It's long, bland, and the time shifting makes it os there's either a ton of enemies to fight in a constant state of respawning, or there's nothing to fight. I deffinitely prefered the older Zeldas where enemies were just spaced out around the map.

You're again expecting things out of a game that weren't done correctly until long after the game had shipped. Calling Hyrule Field long and bland shows that you ARE using today standards to judge the game graphically, as back when the game was released, even the vast tracts of Hyrule Field were stunningly detailed, and that it had overcome the technical foibles of earlier games.

One thing that I never liked that much about the 3D Zelda's that everyone else seems ot love is the "Z-targeting." (no idea why they call it that). I find it's auto-targetting system faulty and boring.

This game was made back in the early days of 3-D console games.. collision detection was not the greatest, so if you just left someone to thier own devices, battle would become more of a chore than they wanted to present. You can expect that a game so old would have modern day control schemes... it had to work with what it was given. If Z targeting is such a bad idea, which was it obviously reused many,many times by gamemakers other than Nintendo? Z targetting is STILL seen in many other games as well...It's a rather simple and elegant solution to a very difficult control problem.

Z-targetting-- One pushes the "Z" button on the N-64 controller to lock on to an enemy (There are other reasons, but that is the simple explanation )



If you don't resort to auto-targetting you're a sitting duck, but if you use it the combat is too easy, and you need only hold down the R button to avoid all attacks.

Considering that this was the first application of the engine, it is possible it could result in balance issues... but it still seems that you're unfairly comparing the modern control schemes born from the Z targetting system
to make your comparisons


Fighting the wolfos really tried my patience. This coupled with the games poor camera made combat a lot less fun than it should have been.

Poor camera? Compared to what? You need a metric to compare these things to, and I have a feeling that yours includes more modern graphical engines.


Often I'd be in a room with a flying enemy, like a bat, and I would know they were in the room, but be unable to move the camera and lock onto them from a distance. The combat isn't that awful, I enjoyed fencing with the lizards, but it really is overrated.

You are saying that ten years after the fact. This game wasn't released yesterday, and thus enjoys the latitude of being judged against other games that were created at the same time... using modern metrics as a basis for a review is just foolish.

Considering that the overwhelming bulk of your complains are based on graphical and control issues, your review really isn't fair to the game at all, as you seem to have no idea of the gating factors that existed when the game was released, or be able to use a fair metric to judge the game.
You can't judge an old piece of media based on the technological standards of modern media.. the comparison is never apt.[/quote]

Alright, I don't know how to do that nifty conversation style psting you do, so I'll just respond to everything below:

One of the biggest complaints I had that you tried to counter was the Hurule Filed/Link walking too slow thing. The fact of the matter is that in confined spaces such as dungeons, he doesn't walk to slow. He walks at an average pace and it works out fine. But Hyrule Field was so unnecessarily huge that by comparison it took him forever to get across (I had a similar complaint with the sailing in the wind waker which was created several years later). You say that Hyrule Field was impressive way back then, and maybe graphically it was, but form a gameplay point of view it really slowed things down and was just poorly designed.

The jumping thing is a personal pet peeve. I realize I'm in hte minority on this one, but I'm not alone. I understand that more emphasis was put on the puzzle solving, but considering it's so easy to fall off a ledge it should be just as easy to jump back up.

My complaints with the camera were mainly just revelant to fighting bats and other flying enemies who would sneak up behind you and in the sky, which is not good since your sword is such short range.

And Z-targetting isn't bad or anything, but I don't really like hte impact it's had on games since. My main problem with it in Ocarina though is that two enemies hardly ever attack you at once. The blocking/ attacking routine got old pretty fast.

I know the game is old, so I was never bothered by Link's lack of motion, or the choppy first person framerates, but everything I didn't like was designed that way on purpose.
 
[quote name='RichD1']JSweeney please, even someone like you can realize Durand has every right to laugh at the stupidity being spewed from bruce's mouth.[/quote]

Even someone like me. Hmm. Exactly how am I to interpret that?
 
[quote name='JSweeney']

And did you actually say teachers are unimportant? I'm willing to bet you're one of those C-, D+ students that will get nowhere in life and accomplish nothing productive for society in your life except making me burgers.

Not all teacher, just poor ones. Ones that are so blinded by thier own ego or selfishness that they refuse to see the needs of the children in their charge. Great teachers are of high value... poor teachers are lower than dirt. To my great benefit, I've had more great teachers than I have had poor teachers. That's not the case for some people.[/quote]

And how do you know the capabilities of his teaching? I have 3 cousins all teachers, 2 of which teach mentally handicapped; and they're completely different people in classroom than our as they need to be when working with handicapped children. It's not really fair to make any judgement on his teaching when you know nothing about it, especially when the man deserves SOME respect for taking such a low paying job to educate America's youth.

Yes, but that doesn't post had no value and only furthered the pointless bickering... despite the fact that Durand thinks he's getting the better of him, he just begins to look dumber and dumber as he argues with bruce.
Click to expand...

Hell, I like the pointless bickering. :) And the more bruce looks a fool, the bigger the smile across my face becomes.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='RichD1']JSweeney please, even someone like you can realize Durand has every right to laugh at the stupidity being spewed from bruce's mouth.[/quote]

Even someone like me. Hmm. Exactly how am I to interpret that?[/quote]

As someone who's against Durand.
 
One of the biggest complaints I had that you tried to counter was the Hurule Filed/Link walking too slow thing. The fact of the matter is that in confined spaces such as dungeons, he doesn't walk to slow. He walks at an average pace and it works out fine. But Hyrule Field was so unnecessarily huge that by comparison it took him forever to get across

He pace doesn't change. It more the fact that there is actual realism in the game.. Link will walk slower up a hill than he will across flat land... you're point is rather moot anyway, considering that you do end up getting Epona, making the speed at which Link walks on the overworld nearly inconsequential. (Hmm, lets see.. Zelda game have always been fairly open, but they'll usually give you an item when they want you to do a specific thing... hmmm... did you ever think that they didn't want people to explore most of Hyrule Field until after getting Epona?




(I had a similar complaint with the sailing in the wind waker which was created several years later). You say that Hyrule Field was impressive way back then, and maybe graphically it was, but form a gameplay point of view it really slowed things down and was just poorly designed.

Every Zelda game has a vast overworld. It's expected. It's part of the gameplay... if you don't want to explore the vast overworlds to find the hidden (or not so hidden) dungeons, you're missing half the point of what the Legend of Zelda series is about.


The jumping thing is a personal pet peeve. I realize I'm in hte minority on this one, but I'm not alone. I understand that more emphasis was put on the puzzle solving, but considering it's so easy to fall off a ledge it should be just as easy to jump back up.

If that were the case, it would be all about precision jumping... that's not what Zelda is about. If you want precision jumping, go play a Super Mario Brothers game.

My complaints with the camera were mainly just revelant to fighting bats and other flying enemies who would sneak up behind you and in the sky, which is not good since your sword is such short range.

That doesn't mean that you aren't applying a modern metric to it.
That really does hurt the credibility of your gripe.

And Z-targetting isn't bad or anything, but I don't really like hte impact it's had on games since. My main problem with it in Ocarina though is that two enemies hardly ever attack you at once. The blocking/ attacking routine got old pretty fast.

And Z-targetting isn't bad or anything, but I don't really like hte impact it's had on games since

Why is Zelda to blame for the ills of other games? Because it actually did something right?


I know the game is old, so I was never bothered by Link's lack of motion, or the choppy first person framerates, but everything I didn't like was designed that way on purpose.

Yes, but due to technical limitations. You can't blame the game because the hardware wasn't capable of fully realizing a game... Developers must do they best they can with the hardware they have.
 
And how do you know the capabilities of his teaching? I have 3 cousins all teachers, 2 of which teach mentally handicapped; and they're completely different people in classroom than our as they need to be when working with handicapped children. It's not really fair to make any judgement on his teaching when you know nothing about it, especially when the man deserves SOME respect for taking such a low paying job to educate America's youth.

Respect is earned, not given..
Especialy when people think they are entitled to just because of their job title. If he goes into a classroom and becomes a great teacher, nothing would make me happier. Of course, considering that finding a great teacher is like finding a diamond in the rough, the smart money is against it. I just hope he's a good teacher and not one of those self esteem destroying, self-important teachers whose main concern lies with themselves rather than in enriching the children.
 
Where is this snooty attitude in Durand's review that you guys keep talking about? It just seems like he's expressing his opinion, and he even admits his biases. And what's wrong with reviewing a dated game? Like someone said earlier, some games just don't stand the test of time. If his complaints have something to do with the time it came out, just tell him. Discussion is good; flaming is bad :p

As someone who hates platform games, I was surprisingly bothered by the fact that Link didn't jump too in OoT and WW. Puzzle-wise, I'm glad I didn't have to deal with precision jumping crap. It more bothered me the way ledges were dealt with. Seemed unintuitive to me.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']One of the biggest complaints I had that you tried to counter was the Hurule Filed/Link walking too slow thing. The fact of the matter is that in confined spaces such as dungeons, he doesn't walk to slow. He walks at an average pace and it works out fine. But Hyrule Field was so unnecessarily huge that by comparison it took him forever to get across

He pace doesn't change. It more the fact that there is actual realism in the game.. Link will walk slower up a hill than he will across flat land... you're point is rather moot anyway, considering that you do end up getting Epona, making the speed at which Link walks on the overworld nearly inconsequential. (Hmm, lets see.. Zelda game have always been fairly open, but they'll usually give you an item when they want you to do a specific thing... hmmm... did you ever think that they didn't want people to explore most of Hyrule Field until after getting Epona?




(I had a similar complaint with the sailing in the wind waker which was created several years later). You say that Hyrule Field was impressive way back then, and maybe graphically it was, but form a gameplay point of view it really slowed things down and was just poorly designed.

Every Zelda game has a vast overworld. It's expected. It's part of the gameplay... if you don't want to explore the vast overworlds to find the hidden (or not so hidden) dungeons, you're missing half the point of what the Legend of Zelda series is about.


The jumping thing is a personal pet peeve. I realize I'm in hte minority on this one, but I'm not alone. I understand that more emphasis was put on the puzzle solving, but considering it's so easy to fall off a ledge it should be just as easy to jump back up.

If that were the case, it would be all about precision jumping... that's not what Zelda is about. If you want precision jumping, go play a Super Mario Brothers game.

My complaints with the camera were mainly just revelant to fighting bats and other flying enemies who would sneak up behind you and in the sky, which is not good since your sword is such short range.

That doesn't mean that you aren't applying a modern metric to it.
That really does hurt the credibility of your gripe.

And Z-targetting isn't bad or anything, but I don't really like hte impact it's had on games since. My main problem with it in Ocarina though is that two enemies hardly ever attack you at once. The blocking/ attacking routine got old pretty fast.

And Z-targetting isn't bad or anything, but I don't really like hte impact it's had on games since

Why is Zelda to blame for the ills of other games? Because it actually did something right?


I know the game is old, so I was never bothered by Link's lack of motion, or the choppy first person framerates, but everything I didn't like was designed that way on purpose.

Yes, but due to technical limitations. You can't blame the game because the hardware wasn't capable of fully realizing a game... Developers must do they best they can with the hardware they have.[/quote]

Link's pace doesn't change, but the environments do, so being in a huge open space drags on forever, as opposed to a confined hallway where in comparison he moves at an appropriate pace.

And Hyrule Field (as far as I can tell) doesn't have anything hidden about it. I liked the secret caves and exploring in A Link to the Past, and Ocarina had a lot of that too, but only on the fringes of the game world border (like around death mountain, or zora's river), where as Hyrule Field was still very bland and unnecessarily big.

And you don't get Epona until at least halfway into the game, and if you're like me and like sub-quests you'll spend far more time than you intend running aorund the game world trying to solve trading sequences. You said yourself that the games are about exploration and secrets, and yet you say that running around Hyrule Field is no big deal, because you're not supposed to until the second half of the game. you're just contradicting yourself.

and in my Z-targetting rant I said that the blocking/ waiting/ striking routine got real old real fast, and that two enemies hardly ever attack at once.

And if they didn't have the technology to move the camera back when flying enemies approach then they shouldn't have had so many flying enemies. (hmm... I just came to the realization that flying enemies are almost always the most annoying enemies in third-person games. Like in POP, or Starfox Adventures they're annoying there too. Someone should do something about that.)

And the lack of jumping simply felt too constrictive, escpecially considering that there is climbing, which is like jumping, but takes longer and Link makes an annoying sound while doing it. And you say that making it based on precision jumping would be bad in a puzzle based game, which might be true except Ocarina had stuff just as bad with running accorss narrow ledges. Like that room at the top of the fire temple where you get the hammer. You have to run across a narrow turning ledge and everytime you fall you go back down a couple floors and need to backtrack (or use that warp potion like I did until I ran out of magic). I don't think precision jumping could've been any worse.
 
Link's pace doesn't change, but the environments do, so being in a huge open space drags on forever, as opposed to a confined hallway where in comparison he moves at an appropriate pace.

Yes, but that point is rather moot considering that you do get Epona making the multiple trips across Hyrule Field quick and easy.

And Hyrule Field (as far as I can tell) doesn't have anything hidden about it. I liked the secret caves and exploring in A Link to the Past, and Ocarina had a lot of that too, but only on the fringes of the game world border (like around death mountain, or zora's river), where as Hyrule Field was still very bland and unnecessarily big.

LOCATION: HYRULE FIELD
AGE: Both
HOW TO GET IT: Near the enterance to Lake Hylia is a small fenced-off area.
Drop a bomb right in the middle of it to find a secret grotto and a Deku Sales-man. You might also want to take ten rupees with you

LOCATION: HYRULE FIELD
AGE: Adult / Young
HOW TO GET IT: Out in the middle of the field, quite a ways north of Lon Lon
Ranch, is a tree planted next to a secret grotto. Bomb the base to find it. If
you're doing this as a kid, you must have the Golden Scale, otherwise use the
Zora Tunic and Iron Boots.

Skultulas-

HYRULE FIELD
AGE: NIGHT: LOCATION:
Both Yes Near the gate to Hyrule Castle Town
Both Yes In a circle of stones near Gerudo Valley


You were saying?
Not to mention Hunting down the running man to sell him the bunny hood as part of a trade sequence.

There are many things done on Hyrule Field... it isn't just wasted space.


And you don't get Epona until at least halfway into the game, and if you're like me and like sub-quests you'll spend far more time than you intend running aorund the game world trying to solve trading sequences. You said yourself that the games are about exploration and secrets, and yet you say that running around Hyrule Field is no big deal, because you're not supposed to until the second half of the game. you're just contradicting yourself.

You aren't supposed to. Just because you can doesn't mean you are supposed to. You can go to level 8 in Legend of Zelda before you go to Level 1. You can do it, but you aren't supposed to. Giving you Epona nudges you to go explore the field, just like other tools and weapons led you to explore parts of the earlier games.

and in my Z-targetting rant I said that the blocking/ waiting/ striking routine got real old real fast, and that two enemies hardly ever attack at once.

It doesn't matter. That was all done to present the game they wanted despite the technical limitation.

And if they didn't have the technology to move the camera back when flying enemies approach then they shouldn't have had so many flying enemies. (hmm... I just came to the realization that flying enemies are almost always the most annoying enemies in third-person games. Like in POP, or Starfox Adventures they're annoying there too. Someone should do something about that.)

It's part of the series to have Keese, and since they gave you Z-targetting, they expect you to wait to take your shot... attacking them as they swoop down. That's not all that different that having to sneak up behind Armos to attack them in the earlier games. You'll only see success with the specific tactic they want you to use.

And the lack of jumping simply felt too constrictive, escpecially considering that there is climbing, which is like jumping, but takes longer and Link makes an annoying sound while doing it.

Back when it was made, you could have the autojump or implement it as precision jumping with spotty collision detection... autojump is obvioulsy the better choice.

Link makes an annoying sound while doing it
Now you're just getting ridiculous.
 
Looks like a thread that someone creates to garner attention and other people fall into the trap. A lot of arguments on both sides are just ridiculous. I also didn't think OoT was that great of a game, but I played it when it came out and was indeed impressed by a lot of aspects of it. A lot of aspects that were complained about in this review were reasons why everyone across the country was in love with this game because they were revolutionary at that time, something which is easy to forget 6 years after the fact. I think that's why a lot of people have taken offense, just some have an incredibily poor taste in showing it.
 
Hey rich, you dont even know me so you can stop acvting like you do. You speak of me as if you know how I am 24/7 and like youve known me all my life. I actually dont act like I do on this post. Most of what I said I was just joking about. So actually you are looking like as big of an ass as i did. And i will admit I was an ass because I know I was. Maybe the reason I'm an ass sometimes is because of people like you instigating me. And durand I'm willing to appolagize to you, because i jumped to conclusions about you. Its just that some of the things you said just made me a little mad. So look I guess im the mature one now.
 
Nope, you still look like a fool. You brought up nothing but invalid points, but +10 points for effort, anyway.
 
Link's pace was rather slow, which is why I rolled around throughout the entire game. You moved slightly faster and looked like an idiot at the same time. :wink:
 
everyone just shut up, there is no need to take offense to someone else's opinion about ocarina of time. Different people have different opinions, I for one loved OOT and this guy didn't, oh well. I was definitely not a big fan of a link to the past, and he was. I'm not going to try and tell him that LTTP was a bad game just because I think so. Geez its not difficult to understand that an opinion is just that, an opinion, and it's stupidity-rampant topics like these that ruin boards.
 
[quote name='thegamer4787']everyone just shut up, there is no need to take offense to someone else's opinion about ocarina of time. Different people have different opinions, I for one loved OOT and this guy didn't, oh well. I was definitely not a big fan of a link to the past, and he was. I'm not going to try and tell him that LTTP was a bad game just because I think so. Geez its not difficult to understand that an opinion is just that, an opinion, and it's stupidity-rampant topics like these that ruin boards.[/quote]

Yep, and bumping the thread after it was basically done with really will prevent people from posting in it! Good Job! You deserve a gold star!!
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='thegamer4787']everyone just shut up, there is no need to take offense to someone else's opinion about ocarina of time. Different people have different opinions, I for one loved OOT and this guy didn't, oh well. I was definitely not a big fan of a link to the past, and he was. I'm not going to try and tell him that LTTP was a bad game just because I think so. Geez its not difficult to understand that an opinion is just that, an opinion, and it's stupidity-rampant topics like these that ruin boards.[/quote]

Yep, and bumping the thread after it was basically done with really will prevent people from posting in it! Good Job! You deserve a gold star!![/quote]

PWNAG3!!11!
 
Hyrulde field is a piece of crap, just like the entire ocarina game. ralism + Zelda = teh suck.

hope you losers are happy yopu ruined video games and zelda
 
[quote name='DenisDFat']Hyrulde field is a piece of crap, just like the entire ocarina game. ralism + Zelda = teh suck.

hope you losers are happy yopu ruined video games and zelda[/quote]

I'm quite happy that I ruined Video games and zelda... for you and you alone.

While OOT isn't my fav Zelda game, it was revolutionary and it's still fun today, even if it is a very slow moving game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top