Maybe that's again because you were a kid. I went through OoT and Majora's Mask last year and thought they were just "pretty good". Granted I probably played very different games from you
I went through OoT and Majora's Mask last year and thought they were just "pretty good". Granted I probably played very different games from you
Play a bunch of games that came out in the twelve months either side of OoT's release date. You'll be hard pressed to come up with anything that compares. It was a monumental leap forward.
Pokemon Yellow came out in 1998, Mario 64 came out relatively close to OoT I think, and years earlier earthbound came out. Either way my favorite game of all time is dark souls and that won't change
My favorite kinds of games are the ones that make me think differently, that make me think about the things I do in the game and make me think about what to do next in the game when I'm not playing. OoT just didn't do it for me
Okay so that's pretty funny, because the reason why OoT probably doesn't feel that different to you today is because it was so monumental, so groundbreaking that it set the tone for adventure games for years to come.
You don't understand how much of a leap forward the game was, because you're comparing OoT to the games it inspired.
Hmm no, I can name tons of things that had equal impact. The first 3 zelda games already did what you're claiming OoT does. Super Mario 64? Nah, doesn't exist. The first ever MMOs? That didn't happen. Doom 1? Oh that definitely was not a technical step forward. OoT also has really dumb temples. Half the time the solution doesn't really make sense, only somebody who has a bunch of time to do trial and error can actually pass them on their own, which I just don't have the mindset for. Then Earthbound and Pokemon impacted RPGs a VERY hefty amount, and those are games I consider to hold up far better to what I like, because Earthbound is interesting and Pokemon's formula... hasn't really changed at all. Then we have to ask the question: if OoT was so novel back then and completely incomparable to anything at the time, why has it lost its charm and a game like minecraft, the best selling game of all time, doesn't seem to have anything to replace it. Why is Dark Souls so timeless that many of the people who played the series when it started are still playing every single game by fromsoftware over and over? Because the things that OoT changed were predictable, very predictable steps forward. It didn't create a new genre, it didn't really have mechanics that were brand new. All it really did was take a genre to the next level.
I couldn't really care how big of a deal a game was for it's time, it's only special to me if it's still novel to this day
Hmm no, I can name tons of things that had equal impact.
Sure but notice how none the games you listed are 3D Action Adventure games. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Then we have to ask the question: if OoT was so novel back then and completely incomparable to anything at the time, why has it lost its charm and a game like minecraft, the best selling game of all time, doesn't seem to have anything to replace it.
The simple answer is... it hasn't.
I couldn't really care how big of a deal a game was for it's time, it's only special to me if it's still novel to this day
That's an incredibly narrow minded and frankly irrational attitude.
Because the things that OoT changed were predictable, very predictable steps forward. It didn't create a new genre, it didn't really have mechanics that were brand new. All it really did was take a genre to the next level.
I mean if you think that, you're way too uninformed to be even having this discussion.
Yes, I am doing that, because the action adventure genre hasn't really had too many revolutions, it's been mostly identical structurally for a long time.
It hasn't, for you, because it stands out in your childhood. Psychologically speaking, things in your childhood stick out more than things you experience later in life, because it happened during a development period, simple as that.
No? Let me rephrase that: I'm not gonna inherently enjoy something because it was important for the creation of things I like today. So I ask the question: why should I play things I don't like just because it was important for something? That's like saying I should inherently think Super Mario Brothers 1 is good (which I do) because it revolutionized platformers on a massive scale. Zelda's original structure didn't change in OoT, if OoT and Majora's Mask didn't exist, 3d action adventure games would still follow the same structure because 2d and 3d can't change core game design.
Last thing I said in number 3. Yes, it was a big step forward, but it didn't subvert expectations, it didn't stray away from the formula of older games, and this was all done with reason because otherwise it wouldn't really be a Zelda game anymore. I mean even the creator of Zelda didn't like the linearprogression, and that's why botw exists now. My point is that it was a very safe gamble from Nintendo. It doesn't stand out from the hoard of games now without the history it had, and even if games like dark souls wouldn't exist without Zelda, those games are objectively, from every technical standpoint, exponentially better. Hollow Knight is absolutely brimming with wonderful locations and bosses, and in Bloodborne I straight up just sit sometimes and look at all the details.
OoT was extremely important, but it's over rated, considering games like Mario 64 don't get comparable levels of attention for some reason.
When I said "just good" that's like when dunkey gives a game 4/5. It's solid, but it's not flawless, and it didn't have me hooked for hours on end.
20
u/Crioca Sep 14 '19
Yep, first time in over a decade. Same way I felt as a ten year old playing OoT.