Koh -Vs- Ocarina of Time

[Terminal Devastation]

...I appreciate the attempt at psychoanalysis, I do, but isn't that a bit presumptuous? I usually find games like that to be unsatisfying. Commendable, of course, but there generally isn't enough to hold my interest. I want more than just a singular refined mechanical system from an experience. I'm a bit perplexed that you came to that conclusion given that the only other game I've mentioned (which has been in a positive light) has been Super Metroid, which is... not that sort of game at all.

I've mentioned before, the criticism isn't that there is too much; its that what's there doesn't work as well as it should. What's there is misguided. Simply, it isn't the presence of alternative options or different areas and dungeons and levels, it is the soulless implementation of those two things. the level

I want the level design to differ, I don't want every dungeon to come packaged with the same formulaic expectations; maybe don't have an item in some of the dungeons. maybe this one dungeon that gives you an item crafts itself in a way so that you become "trapped" and getting that item is the way you get out, sort of a microcosm of a level within the macrocosm. I want the mechanics and items to be interesting and engaging, with reduced overlap; I want the level design to be smartly designed and undeceptive. you know, all things that zelda isnt

Honestly, just, destroy the "formula".

I wasn't attempting to psychoanalysize (at least intentionally). I'm trying to figure out at how big a unit you're finding the "formula" to fail, or if its just Zelda's inherent base pattern you dislike. The later is more personal taste, and there's really nothing flawed either way about it (as in, the pattern or ones taste).

A lot of the things you mentioned suggested you found Zelda to fail on, to borrow your own phrase, the microcosm of a level within the macrocosm. With the microcosm of a level being the actual level, and the macrocosm being the entire game.
Zelda neglects to continue to build upon the "use" of each item outside of the dungeon they were found it. Areas aren't designed with the previous things in mind.
Super metroid on the other hand, it's just as likely to find a puzzle that uses one or more of the things you found previously as just the new thing. Area's are designed around the previous things and the new things.

Which leads me to why I mentioned portal. Portal is designed as a whole, rather than a series of parts. That's the comparison to Super metroid I was making. The formula's are vastly different, but that remains the same.
I might have been wrong about you liking it, but I'm lead to believe you find it a decent game regardless. Still could be wrong there, but, eh, doesn't matter.

With all that said... Zelda's formula DOES have wiggle room to make things interesting. Since I like the phrase, the "microcosm of a level" would be easy to incorporate into a Zelda game, without changing the dungeon's expectations. I believe its rather common that the room the item was found it locks you in until you get and use the item. There's no reason the locked in can't be much earlier in the dungeon (I want to say there's one zelda game with a dungeon that DOES in fact do this... but I'm drawing blanks). A Link to the Past (which is a better game) mixes things up quite a bit in dungeon design. The 4th dark world dungeon is quite different from the usual pattern. The dungeon item is useless in the dungeon itself, and even uses a completely different mechanic from any other dungeon. Yet still has a dungeon item. I think the Water temple in Oot could have been improved if it changed the water level of the lake outside and made the fire arrow it's item rather than the long shot, and just have Dark Link guard the final flood valve. Would be able to delay a lot of the dungeon for a while, and still progress how you'd like, and still keep the pattern, since at this point it would feel like a rip off if you DIDN'T get a dungeon item in a dungeon in a zelda game... but that doesn't restrict how, where, or when you'd get the item or how useful it was in the dungeon.

Maybe it would be neat to have a dungeon where the item right there in the front door... and you don't enter the main part of the dungeon until much later. Or killing the boss changes the dungeon so you can access the item later.

Also... I realize the topic might have shifted from why OoT is or isn't a bad game to what could make a Zelda game really great... but I think the later is far more productive and interesting, so I'm just going to role with it.

being said, Prettynier is hardly attacking OoT for the sake of attacking, there are reasons behind his posts (a thing you all failed to have) and etc etc

I'm largely asking for more and more detail about said reasons, mostly because I find a lot of his reasons not quite complete, because I don't see them quite that way. If I pry them part into smaller units, maybe I can see just where he's coming from in a way I understand. Or just maybe... I can find something flawed in his reasoning, point it out, and we both can learn from it as he reforms the reason stronger than before.