Koh -Vs- Ocarina of Time

[Koh]

To Song Bird

First of all, I made this topic because I already knew that my opinion greatly differed from a large number of people who have to say otherwise. I wanted to express my own personal views on the game, and the reasons why I feel the way I do. After that, the thread was left to be open for discussion about Ocarina of Time as a whole, and whatever other people's opinions on it were. It's not a condescending, arguing or "pretentious" thread; it's a thread to discuss a game placed on a high legendary pedestal by many gamers, and why anyone who wants to reply thinks it does, or does not deserve such a title, and/or agree or disagree with the problems I personally had with the game.

Next, who are you to decide what should be a topic and what shouldn't? If people post in a topic at all, outside the creator, then it's a topic worth having. Otherwise, no one would post at all, and it'd get buried. People reply clearly because they have something they want to discuss. There's no need to play the white knight, as if it truly were a topic no one cared about, we wouldn't even be in here at this moment.

[Marth]

I apologize if I offended you, but this simply came off as an "I need attention" kind of thread. We've had members in the past who generally did this on a daily basis and caused a lot of problems. I haven't seen many of your posts my good man and I should have looked into your previous posts more before coming off as an ass. I just assumed you were like the others (in the seven or so years I've been here most of these things play out as problematic).

The topic kinded of went to hell in a handbasket in about 5 minutes. To be perfectly honest I have no gripe with you for making this topic, but I advise you think a bit before you post.

No hard feelings right?

[Koh]

I'm not offended, but you made it sound like I was out to start problems or anything. That's not my game; discussions and healthy, educational debates are my game.

So I'll contribute to the topic at hand more.

Like I said in my initial post, I still find it a very enjoyable game. I just couldn't get to attached to it like many other people have been because of what I pointed out. Perhaps what was said on another set of forums I posted on was true, and in order to ever experience the true legend of a game that's given, you would have had to play it during its respective time period. The problem with that, however, is not everyone has the means to. I never owned any home consoles of the past, minus the Sega Genesis and Playstation. So the only way I could ever experience what I've missed is through emulation years later.

[Gors]

that might be true; while the core doesn't change, our mind is soft and easily moldable. OoT was the only one of its kind at the time, so everything was new. This 'new' content ends up weighing more than the 'quality'; hence why a lot of people don't mind its flaws and enjoy it throughly. Nostalgia is also another factor.

If everyone wasn't perplexed at OoT's groundbreaking new features and weren't so prone to hype, they would analyze it better as it really is; a series of dungeons with a single item etc etc already explained in older posts.

What's done can't be undone though so we can use this as an example to use as inspiration and design a better game. One should aim for a good gameplay no matter what time it is, or what limitations the graphics impose to you.

Spoiler

let's not forget that liking is subjective though, as i said: you gotta balance good design with game 'charisma'.

[Koopaul]

I can actually explain a few things here. Oh I'm not here to defend anyone or say whether someone is right or wrong or that this game is good or bad. I'm here to shed some light on the development of OoT and why some things were the way they were.

I've read tons of interviews from the makers as well as studying the way Nintendo goes about making games (not as one big idea, but as many small ones put together)

Problem #1: Hyrule Field - This is my major problem with the game. There's absolutely NOTHING out there. It's so barren and empty, and enemies only come out at night (save for Peahats, but even then, they're no threat). You've got the random bombable places on the field, and the Lon Lon Ranch smack dab in the middle, but everywhere else is just a bunch of unappealing, boring walking. This could have been their chance to make the world really stand out and add a bunch of scenery and sights to actually make exploring more worthwhile, but of course not.

The reason Hyrule Field is so big and open is because it was designed based on horse-riding in mind. From very early in the game Miyamoto demanded Link ride a horse and use weapons while riding it. Believe it or not the developers had a hard time doing this. They didn't know how to make the player control a horse and use weapons at the same time. They finally settled on Epona moving automatically while using arrows, one problem, she crashes into everything. So they made the area big and open so there will be less crashing going on. You must remember this was developed earlier in the game, even if you only get to ride Epona later in the game.

Problem #3: Bland Characters - The only characters really given much attention were the characters revolving around the plot (I'm tossing Malon into this group). All the other side characters were just THERE. Having NPCs to make places feel populated is one thing, but at least make it worthwhile to actually interact with them. It's sort of like Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest where the NPCs had nothing useful or interesting to say.

Miyamoto has a strict policy on developed characters. He hates them. He hates the idea of a story and he hates the idea of characters. However director Yoshiaki Koizumi loves characters and loves stories. He is notoriously known for sneaking such thing into Miyamoto's games (something he is having a harder time doing now that Miyamoto has gone plum loco)

Anyway, Miyamoto wants NPCs to be nothing more than billboards giving players advice. The only way Koizumi was able to develop characters was only if it had a gameplay purpose. Think about it. Darunia's love of music is just a puzzle to solve. Mido being a bully is just so he can be an obstacle. Yoshiaki then sprinkled depth into these characters. That's why the NPCs don't have any character because there's no gameplay attached to them.

That's pretty much the only explanations I can answer based on what I know.

[AuraLancer]

Never heard about the character thing, but actually seeing it in words makes me realize how true it is in all of the other Ninty games.

To me, excellent characters/writing/dialogue can bump a game up in quality. An excellent example of this is the Paper Mario series. There are plenty of questionable design choices in the first three games that I feel are actually carried by the writing, you can see how it all falls apart in the fourth.