05-22-2013, 10:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2013, 10:59 AM by PrettyNier.)
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.
expecting a "launch" game to utilize the technology as well as a later game on the same console is a bit unreasonable. but it's also besides the point: there's a difference between not utilizing the technology on a representational level to its full extent and making poor design decisions that have little to do with their understanding of the technology. stuff like the first zelda looking like a barren desert doesn't really mean too much on a qualitative level; i actually rather like the feeling of the overworld in the first zelda. none of the other zelda games have an overworld that feels like that. if we're to stick with the graphics of the first zelda, a somewhat more applicable criticism would be the horrid choice of palette in some of the dungeons. an issue that could have been rectified but wasn't. but that still isn't really a substantial criticism because quality in games isn't just relegated to specific aspects like graphics or audio but how all of the elements work together to create a cohesive whole.