Koh -Vs- Ocarina of Time

[alexmach1]

that doesn't matter. the "tools" were perfectly competent; the issue is not what those tools were, but how the artist chose to utilize them and what they chose to create. super metroid came out 8 years prior and very clearly understood everything it was doing. it is the fault of the creators that they weren't able to design a quality game that worked around the utilized technology.

further, what is the point in saying "DUDE IT CAME OUT IN 1998"? that's nothing but misguided apologetics. it doesn't accomplish anything. its an admittance of poor quality trying to simultaneously pass itself off as a defense of said quality? seriously guys

um, yes, the tools were incompetent.
when a game came out actually does matter.
you should rate a game as it was, not by what it couldn't be. back then, the memory limitations really put a damper on what they could do, especially since for a 3d game you needed memory for models, textures, sounds, UVs, animations, vertex weight data, bone data, etc. and processing power for calculations. if you ever took a modern calculator and tapped out "sin(-sin(cos(-cos(tan(-tan(x" it would take a really long time to process out before getting your answer; multiply this sort of thing by 30 times per second, and that is a massive strain on an old system.

using a 2d game for comparison is really a dick move, since a 2d game has so many more shortcuts for checking(ie running at 5 frames per second and checking a grid instead of raycasting) and takes up a lot less data(sprites, coordinates) than a 3d game would. expecting an old game to "do better with what it has" is like asking for an eiffel tower with wooden tools. the people can be as creative and awesome as possible, but the tools really make the difference in how well the object is constructed. there is a massive difference between drawing, painting, writing a story, etc and making a fully functional 3d game.