(05-22-2013, 11:22 PM)Kriven Wrote:

(05-22-2013, 11:15 PM)alexmach1 Wrote: when a game came out actually does matter.
you should rate a game as it was, not by what it couldn't be.

No, because good games, just like good movies, will be good despite their limitations. Anything which is not good, regardless of the reasons, is not good.

yes, because good games at the time were the best they could do at the time. nowadays we can do so much more and expecting more from old games is unreasonable. movies could use illusions and special effects as much as they want, but because of dynamic cameras in video games you can't just lay a sheet over the camera and BS a special effect, it has to happen in real time and render in real time; movies could look as good as they want because each frame could have any amount of work done to them and the movie would still run at a set speed; games had to limit their resources because they can't render each individual frame; it had to be done right then immediately. saying that something that isn't good now does not mean it wasn't good at one point in time.

A good game at the time is still a good game now. I regularly discover older games that I think are good and new games that I think are terrible, and I don't have to frame them in their eras to appreciate them.

Edit: This doesn't mean that games which were considered good really were, but that still applies to the modern market.

(05-22-2013, 11:47 PM)Kriven Wrote: A good game at the time is still a good game now. I regularly discover older games that I think are good and new games that I think are terrible, and I don't have to frame them in their eras to appreciate them.

Edit: This doesn't mean that games which were considered good really were, but that still applies to the modern market.

I think we're talking about 2 different things; I'm talking about the tools and limitations; whether a game was good or not is up to the person.

We're not, though. Because you're saying that a game can only be judged by what it was made with while I'm saying that it should be judged by the experience it offers.

We're both talking about what makes a good game and how one should approach that decision.

Quote:you needed memory for models

sprites and backgrounds apparently do not need memory

Quote:sounds

apparently games before the n64 did not have sounds

Quote:um, yes, the tools were incompetent.

the tools were perfectly competent: just as the tools of the snes were competent, just as the tools of the genesis were competent, just as the tools of the nes were competent; this only applies in instances prior where the restrictions are so limited that it severely dampens the sort of experience a game can give you (atari, etc) and in instances where the technology Is Literally Busted and impossible to work with.

look, buddy; you're not reasoning your points well. take a breather and consider - and please, go back and read through my posts, because your responses thus far have either just been retreading ground already covered or

Quote:saying that something that isn't good now does not mean it wasn't good at one point in time.

quality is an aspect of all of the elements of that product. the product itself does not change. suggesting that a game (like ocarina of time) itself can change from being 'good' to 'bad' is incredibly silly because it's suggesting that something within the game changed to make it so. if we perceive a game as being good when it is actually bad, or a game as bad when it is actually good, that is a matter of either lack of knowledge or lack of understanding.

I wouldn't point not liking something a lack of something. After all if I don't like apples, for example, that doesn't mean I lack competence, intelligence or I don't understand how apples work. Liking something is subjective, and one can like things others find completely unbearable, and vice-versa.

Though in some cases, a person can acknowledge its faults and still like the game. That is also possible and how I feel about some games. I don't like some genres, but I won't say they're bad because I know how they work and the design choices that made the final product like that. I just happen no to like them. Good design doesn't mean people will like it 100% of the times. We're different of each other, thus we have different points of view about the same thing.

I'm just adding this to what you said; I agree with you but I felt it was important to add this. Games don't change its content over time, and poor design choices should be avoided whenever you can; but there's always someone that likes it the way it is..

Quote:I wouldn't point not liking something a lack of something. After all if I don't like apples, for example, that doesn't mean I lack competence, intelligence or I don't understand how apples work. Liking something is subjective, and one can like things others find completely unbearable, and vice-versa.

I don't mean simply not liking something, more part of the process of going from liking something to not liking something, or not liking something to liking something (or alternatively, learning to appreciate something against ones own preferences); that shift is generally because of something, and that something generally implies a re-examination or a better comprehension of what that thing is or what it's trying to do, even if it might still be something that you don't prefer. Of course, this isn't always true; sometimes the reverse can happen.

Quote:but there's always someone that likes it the way it is..

And that's fine. I just think people should always try to make their feelings and opinions as reasoned and considered as possible. It makes things more interesting and engaging.

---

Quote:look, buddy; you're not reasoning your points well. take a breather and consider - and please, go back and read through my posts, because your responses thus far have either just been retreading ground already covered or

lmao i forgot to finish this sentence

heh, that happens with me sometimes


but yeah, I'm fine with the game as it is. It remained to me as an enjoyable experience and I didn't mind it; though, the issue presented in this thread is true and could've been better. I certainly wouldn't mind a better-thought hyrule field

*yet one more game design tip in my book*

(05-22-2013, 10:47 AM)PrettyNier Wrote:

Quote:i was simply saying that the game can't be held to next gen standards -- it cant have billions of side quests, items, enemies, an extensive database... it just can't because it's too old, things like that could not have been done back then without compromising the rest of the game.

the criticism of ocarina of time is not that there "isn't enough to do", hth. that you said the game was phenomenal in the same breath that you said "it was made in 1998, man" makes your defense even more confused. you're thinking about certain criticisms - like the pointlessness of hyrule field - and thinking that the only solution is the reverse, to fill it up with stuff. that is hardly the only solution to the problem, and its certainly not the most reasonable one.

i was replying directly to koh's criticisms mostly. i'm not looking to argue about this anymore, though. i think the game is fantastic. do i think there are better games? of-fucking-course, as koh said earlier, MM is a technically better game. but not much can hold a candle to OoT to me. that game literally helped shape who i am today IN A HUGE WAY.

(05-23-2013, 11:12 AM)PrettyNier Wrote: sprites and backgrounds apparently do not need memory
apparently games before the n64 did not have sounds

never claimed they didn't, I listed what a 3d game needed, albeit there's probably a lot more. thanks for taking what I said the wrong way.

(05-23-2013, 11:12 AM)PrettyNier Wrote: the tools were perfectly competent: just as the tools of the snes were competent, just as the tools of the genesis were competent, just as the tools of the nes were competent; this only applies in instances prior where the restrictions are so limited that it severely dampens the sort of experience a game can give you (atari, etc) and in instances where the technology Is Literally Busted and impossible to work with.

except I said why the tools were bad; they were heavily limiting on 3d software because of the intense strain. sacrifices would obviously have to be made to guarantee a playable game, and this is what made the tools flawed; now with more processing power and functions, we can literally create anything, since the limits now apply graphically rather than a lack of memory for some extra gameplay features or more content. I also said why 2d games, debuted mostly on those consoles you named, had so much more in terms of content, regardless of whether they had to store backgrounds, sounds, etc. they required less processing, thus were less limited as to what they could do.

(05-23-2013, 11:12 AM)PrettyNier Wrote: look, buddy; you're not reasoning your points well. take a breather and consider - and please, go back and read through my posts, because your responses thus far have either just been retreading ground already covered or

you flew over the point of my post to point out, what, that I somehow claimed that sounds and backgrounds are nonexistant? to restate what I already knew what you said?

(05-23-2013, 11:12 AM)PrettyNier Wrote: quality is an aspect of all of the elements of that product. the product itself does not change. suggesting that a game (like ocarina of time) itself can change from being 'good' to 'bad' is incredibly silly because it's suggesting that something within the game changed to make it so. if we perceive a game as being good when it is actually bad, or a game as bad when it is actually good, that is a matter of either lack of knowledge or lack of understanding.

I liked OoC when i played it a few years back, then hated the game and it's 3ds remake. for me, the change occured because I could recognize the limits; I saw why things worked, didn't work, and that spoiled the magic from when I was younger and barely touched programming. the quality never degraded, but that is determined by the player; for me, the things that ruined the quality are entirely different to someone else who hates/likes the game; yes, there are obvious things that make the game lack quality, but most of it is up to the person rather than the game itself.

sigh

Quote:never claimed they didn't, I listed what a 3d game needed, albeit there's probably a lot more. thanks for taking what I said the wrong way.

what you were saying was ultimately pointless, which is why i "flew past the point" (because its a trivial point that adds nothing of worth to the discussion). "there needed to be memory for ____" is a meaningless statement because Every Single Game System up until that point and since has had to balance memory and space requirements. thats called working with the technology. what the technology dictates you can or cant do does not necessarily dictate the quality of the game because a capable and intelligent game designer will be aware of what they're working with and will make something that is good on a practical level, not something that is ideally good but executionally bad. thats the point i've been trying to get across to you.

the tools do not dictate whether a game is good or bad. there are plenty of good games on the n64 that came out both before and after ocarina of time. the issue ultimately comes down to just one thing - ocarina of time is not well designed.

Quote:had so much more in terms of content

this is why i told you to think about what you were saying and reread what was said before. amount of content has nothing to do with the quality of a game, and ocarina of time "not having enough ~whatever" was never the criticism, nor was it at all the point i was getting at with mentioning games on prior systems. quality over quantity, buddy.

design =/= programming

Quote: the quality never degraded, but that is determined by the player; for me, the things that ruined the quality are entirely different to someone else who hates/likes the game; yes, there are obvious things that make the game lack quality, but most of it is up to the person rather than the game itself.

subjectivity isnt solitary

why would you edit your post with a vague contrast? what was wrong with what you said before?

(05-23-2013, 10:17 PM)PrettyNier Wrote: you're repeating the same thing i said with less understanding of it and reaching silly conclusions

you said I was reaching silly conclusions with less understanding? what about you? you claim that the devs could have done so much more, but I don't see how you would possibly justify that without knowing what they could and could not do; my point was that their tools limited what they could do, and that what they created was quite possibly the best they could do with what they had, essentially "working with their technology" as you had said. what I'm trying to say(and what you are continually rebutting with the same excuses) is that saying they could have done more is ignorant, akin to asking a legless man to climb a mountain; they could not have done more without putting a massive dent into what they already have. additionally, comparing OoC to other 3d games that came out afterwards would be pointless, as the differences with their engines would be like comparing halo 3 to crysis. further comparing OoC to MM would be pointless as well since, as Koh pointed out, MM required the expansion pack which released some of the pressure on devs to make things optimized.

you also say that you flew past my point because it was pointless, yet how would you know if you flew past it? that is, as you condescendingly put it, "ultimately pointless". if you simply fly over points in an argument, regardless of their validity, then there is no argument to be had.

also, sighing with text is also ultimately pointless.

it expresses exasperation, actually

exasperation that you can't get past the modal concept of "more" when "more" has nothing to do with the criticism. it's like an unintentional strawman.

it's like you're under the impression i'm saying that ocarina of time "could have been more" quantitatively, and the way to fix the game was to keep the game the same but with more content, which is bollocks; i'm arguing that the game could have been made differently because the things it did wrong have little to do with technological limitations. it is not because of technological limitations that there are so many items and that a lot of them are not worthwhile, acting as little more than keys; that is bad design and an obvious correction is not "more content" but reduce the amount of items and make them more unique and focused and to shape the level design and mechanics around actually utilizing these items in a way that doesn't relegate them to just keys with a different skin.

super mario 64 (released 2 years earlier, hey-o) had a number of different abilities, ranging from the different kinds of jumps to the different kinds of hats, and with few exceptions, they're all integrated naturally and organically with the game and the level design; nothing feels like a key even though mechanically there are many instances where these things sort of are.

the criticism of hyrule field isn't that "it should have been larger" or that "it should have things under every nook and cranny", the criticism is that it is filler and that it is barren; essentially, not that its "too small and doesn't have enough" but that its unnecessarily bloated and that it serves little actual purpose. and that it's level design is incredibly uninteresting.

it's almost as if you've created this false defense around your argument that ocarina of time, existing as is, is the only thing that the technology could have made, which is pretty dang short-sighted (and i really shouldn't have to tell you why)

furthermore: the entire point of mentioning technology was only to say that "technology does not justify a bad game as being good". it doesn't matter why a bad game is the way it is, because it's... still a bad game. that's it. the experience with a product is with the product, not with the process that led to the products creation. this does not mean that contemporary standards on superficial elements - graphics, audio quality, et cetera - matter, it means that Game Design is not one of those superficial elements that "revolutionizes" itself qualitatively every generation.

to try to state it as simply as possible: the problem isn't that the game doesn't have more, the problem is what's already there

Quote:why would you edit your post with a vague contrast? what was wrong with what you said before?

i edited it because i didn't want to say what i said before?? that should be obvious. and "subjectivity isn't solitary" is not a contrast, its a statement that means subjectivity does not stand on its own and the only thing justifying subjective experience is objective experience

Okay, I'm starting to see a lot of repetition in arguement so I think it's time i tried throwing a bit of a different perspective on some of OoT's design decisions. Now, I get it, OoT could have had a few things designed better. However, I'm of the opinion that not all the things you think are poorly designed are actually that. Mediocrely designed or Not greatly designed perhaps, but I'm not seeing too many things that are truly poor.

Honestly, Hyrule field just might be there to seem bloated for the benefit of the game. Yes its filler... but not for the sake of filler. First time through, it gives a sense of vastness. Did it turn out to be... well boring?
Yeah. But it serves as a slow point. A buffer so to speak. And throughout the game they continuely give you faster and faster ways to tranverse it for those that just want to get to the next place faster.
Shortcuts, warps, even a horse (Really, this is Epona's only purpose ever in a Zelda game). Not many people really think much about Hyrule field at all, unless they are over analysing it such as in this case. It's a mood setter, a rest area, a break from the action and puzzles of the game.
Could it have been done better? Most certainly. I would have not made the walk from the forest to hyrule town quite so long the first time, and left longer trecks for when you had access to other faster modes of travel. (and have an alternate entrance to hyrule town at night for young link, that's just time wasting)

As for the items... few of them felt like keys to me. It may be strange to bring up megaman here, but for an example, it serves me well. For the longest time, Megaman's weapons were boss killers to me, like how a lot of the zelda items are keys to you. That's it. Until I saw someone else play it using the weapons on the stages. Suddenly I have a new way to play. Many of OoT's items are like this. They have a dungeon based around them... but past that, they are optional, but still can be used.
They CAN feel like keys if you just stick to favorites with the new ones are required, but they're other options. Sometimes I just feel like hammering things rather than using the sword?

The boomerang is in an odd place, I'll admit. It had a functionality overlap with the sling shot (Ranged weapon and all) and the deku nut (stuns), and it's adult replacement is one of the best zelda items ever (The hookshot, not the arrow. Bow and arrow replace the slingshot).
Throw in the fact you get it in the last full young link dungeon, and it becomes a little used item that you tend to forget about when it comes time you can actually use it again. (And giving it to adult link would be silly. There's little the boomerang as it was in OoT could functionally do that another item couldn't better without scripting it boomerang only... and that could just create unneeded busy space.) Functionally, it wasn't until windwaker that the boomerang found its great design use niche, as a multitarget ranged weapon preventing hookshot and arrow overlap.
Would it have been great if they had WW's boomerang in OoT? YES. SO MUCH YES. But they didn't have that idea yet. Can't fault them for that.

And then... There's what OoT did right. I see maybe 3 to 4 issues of what it did wrong and a bunch of excuses of how you can't fault it for it or reasons on how that did it wrong, and nothing about what it did right.

On the subject of excuses... Nier's mostly right here. Technical limitations are really only a reason on why they couldn't expand in an area, not why they couldn't do something differently using the same limitations. Like its why they couldn't make an NPC react twelve different ways to certain situations, but not why they couldn't make that NPC a tad more interesting with that one reaction they can give him.

i don't think there's much worth in talking about the "things ocarina did right" because i don't think it really did all that much right that other games haven't done much better. i've mostly been focusing on three or four faults because that's all i can care to mention.

Quote:As for the items... few of them felt like keys to me. It may be strange to bring up megaman here, but for an example, it serves me well. For the longest time, Megaman's weapons were boss killers to me, like how a lot of the zelda items are keys to you. That's it. Until I saw someone else play it using the weapons on the stages. Suddenly I have a new way to play. Many of OoT's items are like this. They have a dungeon based around them... but past that, they are optional, but still can be used.
They CAN feel like keys if you just stick to favorites with the new ones are required, but they're other options. Sometimes I just feel like hammering things rather than using the sword?

hammering things instead of using the sword is more just a deceptive way to break the monotony. it flips certain enemies over, which is good, but that's a very limited use, considering its slow speed and the fact that the damage is the same as the master sword. there isn't a practical reason to use it outside of the "scripted" events in which it demands use, and those "scripted" events are neither varied nor common enough. the process and the effect is largely the same. the issue isn't that these things are literally keys, its that practically speaking, they're effectively keys; they don't do enough to distinguish them as useful or meaningful on a general level. take the hookshot - there are points with hookshot nodes, you use the hookshot, and then you're across. its the same thing as using a key to open a door, just with a different visual; the process is automated. the gameplay element is largely absent. if it functioned like the grappling beam from super metroid, that would be different; the grappling beam was controlled and it served a purpose against different enemies in different environments. even if ocarina's hookshot weren't controlled in the same way as the grappling beam, it would be better if it served more purposes beyond just bringing link from place a to place b and the occasional puzzle solving. the longshot is just an insult. a lot of items in the game are similar in this: there simply isn't reason enough to use them. a lot of items are essentially the same - meaningful in only a small selection of instances, over-ridden by a later upgrade (silver scale, gold scale; silver gauntlet, gold gauntlet, etc) or a different item altogether.

thats also ignoring how rote the general dungeon structure is: go into dungeon, get item, beat dungeon centered around use of that particular item, fight boss; boss most likely necessitates use of item. probably forget about the item for the subsequent dungeons. rinse and repeat. it's uninspired and disengaging.

honestly, a lot of these problems do not exist in just ocarina. they're the zelda formula - but that doesn't excuse it.

Quote:Would it have been great if they had WW's boomerang in OoT? YES. SO MUCH YES. But they didn't have that idea yet. Can't fault them for that.

you ... can, though?