227 replies to this topic

[spunky-monkey]

In LttP, you collect three arbitrary magical artifacts to unlock the Master Sword and open up a second version of the gameworld where the bulk of the game takes place.

I OoT, you collect three arbitrary magical artifacts to unlock the Master Sword and open up a second version of the gameworld where the bulk of the game takes place.

Yes that is stagnation as far as plot devices go, but is this necessarily at its worse with Ocarina? I would say no, simply owing to the 3D cinematic experience which made the adventure fresh and interesting, yes you've hit upon a shortcoming in the Zelda series, but not a specific flaw in just one title, like OoT.

In LttP, the item found in any given dungeon is typically the key to beating that dungeon's boss.

In OoT, the item found in any given dungeon is typically the key to beating that dungeon's boss.

In LttP, a major boss is defeated by using the Master Sword to ricochet his magical energy balls of doom back at him. This boss fight occurs once about 1/3 into the game, and again just before the final boss.

In OoT, a major boss is defeated by using the Master Sword to ricochet his magical energy balls of doom back at him. This boss fight occurs once about 1/3 into the game, and again just before the final boss.

Hmm I think you're starting to get a just little bit overly analytical here SteveT. These aforementioned gameplay trends apply to nearly every single Zelda installation ever made post-ALttP, in fact these are so commonplace they're practically considered a novelty, it wouldn't feel like 'classic Zelda' without them. This isn't solely evidence for Ocarina stagnating up the whole franchise and would be rather unfair to bash that title for all said reoccurrences.

Take away Link's green clothes, body, and limbs and you have Pac-Man.

Ha. Well done, that actually put a smile on my face. =]

I touched on the subject with the intention to indicate that OoT was distinctly unoriginal both in plot and in gameplay, just as the newer games are accused of being. Ocarina simply came too soon for its own good - there is so much Nintendo simply could not do with their environments on the N64 and did not do with Ocarina.

The N64 was being slaughtered in terms of sales by the PlayStation, Nintendo desperately needed this on their platform, and some would argue it, like Majora's Mask, came far too late.

The flat walls with textures pretending to be trees high atop cliffs in the Lost Woods did not amount to a forested environment. Considering the 3D aspect of the game, the world of Ocarina entirely lacked artistic grace. Battles were made awkward with OoT's classically obtuse battle engine, and the player's inability to handle larger amounts of enemies lead to their infrequency - if that was not already determined by the limitations of the platform.

Bearing in mind, it is the first three-dimensional Zelda game ever made of course. They'd never attempted anything on this scale before. Retrospectively there was only so much the designers could hope to do with a deadline hanging over them, and this ever-delayed game still took years to develop. You have to judge ALttP and Ocarina by different standards.

Now, to be fair, I wouldn't have a problem with these lists if people used them to elaborate on their personal feelings; this list-making is something we all do. But when people use this tactic to blur the line between their personal subjective opinion and objective points, then the fallacy appears. And as spunky-monkey and SteveT have shown, it leads to arrogance and contempt for other opinions (seriously guys, people don't like having their opinions scoffed at. It's insulting).

I certainly hope people here aren't as narcissist as you make out, look there's nothing wrong with someone disagreeing with you - Hey I get it all the time! If someone here seriously can't handle criticism from others and goes onto an Internet message board site then they're going to come unstuck sooner or later.

[Raien]

I certainly hope people here aren't as narcissist as you make out, look there's nothing wrong with someone disagreeing with you - Hey I get it all the time! If someone here seriously can't handle criticism from others and goes onto an Internet message board site then they're going to come unstuck sooner or later.

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing on whether OoT is innovative; I have a problem with people presenting their opinion on the subject as objective fact. Because whether a game feels "fresh" is something that differs from person to person; how you justify it is not how everyone justifies it. The list-making is nothing more than a personal justification.

[Selena]

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing on whether OoT is innovative; I have a problem with people presenting their opinion on the subject as objective fact.

You mean like how Spirit Tracks is going to suck and how it's another step toward the ruination of the Zelda series for reason X, Y, and Z? Even though we've seen about two or three minutes of the actual game?

Every post in here is obviously an opinion, and I don't think anyone has (seriously) tried to make their statements out to be any more than that. But like any argument, people are going to back their opinions up with facts. We've all been doing it throughout the entire thread. List making is not a personal justification. List making is listing potential evidence for one's argument. If anyone has a problem with usage of said evidence, they can argue against it and come in with their own reasoning.

Whether a game feels innovative or immersive is completely personal and subjective. Two people can observe the exact same property in a game and come to two completely different opinions about it. So when people here actually refer to a particular property, why do they simply assume it supports their opinion? Selena, why do you presume that the similarities you referenced should be considered important as to whether a game feels fresh and innovative? SteveT, why do you presume that the 3D addition should be considered superficial? This assumption is the fallacy in question.

The similarities hinder the feeling of 'freshness.' The camera is new, of course, and it adds a new level of gameplay. I've already agreed to the camera's innovation. But the camera isn't the end-all, be-all of the game. What you actually do in the game is just as important as how it looks and how you interact with the environment. In the case of Ocarina, I've essentially did the quest already. I collected three trinkets, unlocked the Master Sword, collected more trinkets, and fought Ganon in A Link to the Past. Why do I have to do the exact same thing over again? Sure, the camera is different. And sure, the setting and cast has changed a bit. But it's still the same quest. If Ocarina's sole winning point is the 3D camera, then yes, I consider that to be on the superficial side. But the actual game means more to me than the graphics ever could.

The camera doesn't dismiss the fact that the rest of the game is essentially lifted straight from a previous title. In this respect, Ocarina has the same problem as Final Fantasy 7 and Halo - an overzealous fanbase. That overzealous fanbase is usually blind to faults and assumes that every concept in the game is original. But more often than not, these 'revolutionary' games just take the concepts established by their predecessors and toss in a few new ones to continue the evolution of the franchise. Their popularity often stems from very good marketing and hype. Once the overzealous fanbase takes over, there's no letting go. And for new people just joining the craze, they're generally ignorant of the fact that the game is not really as revolutionary as they think.


It happens in more than one medium. Another example of this phenomenon is something like Kill Bill. Yes, Kill Bill is a great movie and it's great fun to watch. But Kill Bill is ultimately a 'remix' of several old movies - like Lady Snowblood or The Game of Death. Some scenes in Kill Bill are directly lifted out of those earlier movies. Which is very blatant - not a 'you can deconstruct every movie if you really try' sort of thing. Most people remain unaware of those connections, and hype up Kill Bill way too much (despite Tarantino's efforts to point out these older films in making-of specials). Does that make Kill Bill a bad movie? No, of course not. It's a fun movie. But it does fail to give credit where credit is due.

Which, to me, is something of an injustice.

[Raien]

Okay, Selena. I will admit that my initial argument, that the list-making was a distortion of the game's properties, was not appropriate for the context. I don't believe that an opinion needs to be self-referenced and I don't believe people should not make lists to explain their opinions.

I do however maintain that such lists do not give the whole picture. If they did, then surely they could account for the fact that OoT is widely celebrated as a hallmark of innovation. Instead, we get arguments like "OoT wasn't innovative, and everyone else is blind to that fact. LOL fanbase!". Reality check; this argument is not a justification for the position that 3D is superficial. In fact, I don't think anyone here has explained to me why exactly they feel 3D is superficial. It just is, apparently.

I for one can explain why 3D isn't superficial. The most immersive environments in any media are those that are realistic, because people are best able to associate fictional locations with the environments they recognise in real life. As basic as OoT's design was, the interaction between player and environment was much closer to what people recognise. Ground tends not to be flat, trees tend to be observed from below, people tend to exist in three dimensions. Despite that the player is not looking through the eyes of the main character, the effect is still generated for the camer all the same. In addition, the 3D environment allows cinematic conventions to be introduced to the game; locations and characters become much more emotive, and players can more easily associate them with the works of traditional narrative media. The scale and perspective surrounding Death Mountain, for example, evokes the stories told in traditional fantasy, such as the scaling of Smaug's mountain in "The Hobbit". Seeing Zelda laugh in OoT is a degree of character that was never visible in ALttP, as was seeing Link stretch and yawn when left to wait for player input. Visible characterisations such as these make the world of OoT more lifelike, and thus more immersive, than ALttP ever was.

Edited by Raien, 12 April 2009 - 07:04 PM.

[SteveT]

In particular, I found SteveT's scoffing about the impact of 3D incredibly irritating.

I've been scoffing at 3D since 1996. Nothing personal.

Yes that is stagnation as far as plot devices go, but is this necessarily at its worse with Ocarina? I would say no, simply owing to the 3D cinematic experience which made the adventure fresh and interesting, yes you've hit upon a shortcoming in the Zelda series, but not a specific flaw in just one title, like OoT.

Hmm I think you're starting to get a just little bit overly analytical here SteveT. These aforementioned gameplay trends apply to nearly every single Zelda installation ever made post-ALttP, in fact these are so commonplace they're practically considered a novelty, it wouldn't feel like 'classic Zelda' without them. This isn't solely evidence for Ocarina stagnating up the whole franchise and would be rather unfair to bash that title for all said reoccurrences.

I think you made my point without trying to. Let me first say that I didn't exactly answer your challenge. I cannot and will not say that OoT was the most stagnant Zelda game thus far. It was simply the first game in the series that wasn't trying too hard to innovate.

And who can blame Nintendo? Simply moving the gameplay of LttP to 3D was certainly an accomplishment, and at the time was considered one if the best games ever made. As Masa pointed out to me, from a developer's perspective, OoT was very innovative. It was made a time period where franchises were moving from 2D to 3D gameplay, and often failing. It wasn't a good time for the series to try too many new things, apart from whatever was necessary to make the game work in 3D.

Fortunately, it wasn't the first Zelda game with a z-axis, so Nintendo didn't have to worry as much as they did. Once they realized that, they were free to make Majora's Mask, possibly the most innovative game in the history of the franchise, and one that hasn't been cheapened by imitation.

Anyway, to point out a sentence in your post that basically embodies my point of view:

These aforementioned gameplay trends apply to nearly every single Zelda installation ever made post-ALttP, in fact these are so commonplace they're practically considered a novelty, it wouldn't feel like 'classic Zelda' without them.

When LttP came out, all you need for classic Zelda gameplay was dungeons containing tools (to open up areas in the overworld) or weapons to murder monsters with, MacGuffin devices to mark completion of a dungeon, Ganon, the Triforce, Zelda, and a seamless overworld full of secrets.

"Classic gameplay" pretty much stayed that way for the first four games, with Link's Awakening being the first game in the series to break the ties to the Triforce, but otherwise keeping the gameplay of LttP intact.

Then along comes Ocarina of Time, the second game to use LttP as a template. This is where LttP's specific idiom became "classic Zelda." Through the first four games, Nintendo gave itself a lot more leeway to play with the formula. Post-Lttp, not so much. Sure, you had Majora's Mask and Four Swords Adventures, but those were criticized as not being "Zelda" enough. Aside from Majora's Mask, Wind Waker was the only effort to innovate, but once you got past the cel shading and the boat, you realized it was still sticking to the template.

To summarize: Ocarina of Time, in its failure to innovate (beyond adjustments to make 3D gameplay work) is not the most stagnant game in the series, but rather the reason the series has stagnated. All the fans want to relive OoT (which was itself a retread of LttP) over and over and over, and raises a storm on the Internet if Nintendo even tries to deviate.

I'm not saying that I don't like Ocarina of Time, and its lack of innovation wasn't even annoying at the time; it's the lasting consequences it had on the series that bother me.

[Raien]

SteveT, when did people complain Zelda was deviating from OoT? I can recall the Celda graphical style being a point of controversy, but I can't remember a single person saying that a game was bad because it was not enough like OoT. I know MM got its critics, but complaints there were effectively about the 3-day system alone.

[SteveT]

Wind Waker would be the biggest example. After it actually came out, people shut up because it turned out to be a good game.

Also, remember the excitement over Twilight Princess when it was first announced. "Finally, a true sequel to Ocarina of Time" and all that.

Edited by SteveT, 12 April 2009 - 09:58 PM.

[Selena]

I do however maintain that such lists do not give the whole picture. If they did, then surely they could account for the fact that OoT is widely celebrated as a hallmark of innovation. Instead, we get arguments like "OoT wasn't innovative, and everyone else is blind to that fact. LOL fanbase!". Reality check; this argument is not a justification for the position that 3D is superficial. In fact, I don't think anyone here has explained to me why exactly they feel 3D is superficial. It just is, apparently.

I did, actually. A few times. In summary, that point was: "The camera added a new level of gameplay and immersion, but the quest was exactly the same." Change in looks, not substance or structure. Same quest. Same sword unlocking trinkets, right down to the color. Same weapons. Same formula. In my mind, graphics never take precedence over the actual game. There are many 2D DOS games that I enjoy more than current generation games - not because of nostalgia, as I might be playing those 2D games for the first time - but because of their excellent gameplay. Immersion can be done with good scripting and interactivity. 3D elements and realistic graphics are nice and can certainly help, but are not required for an immersive experience. Realistic graphics help enhance realistic games set in the real world more than they do any other game. If a game is fantasy, your imagination takes over anyway.

As a question of superficiality, ask the following: If Ocarina of Time had been done in 2D on the SNES after ALttP, would people have seen it as innovative and fresh?

Likewise, ask: If Majora's Mask had been done in 2D on the SNES after ALttP, would it have been seen as innovative and fresh?

If you answer 'yes' to the above questions, then it was a game with substantial changes and innovations. If you answer 'no,' then the changes made were probably on the superficial appearance side, rather than a change to the game itself.



Also, after all the fussing you did about having your opinion scoffed at or mocked, you just did it to the rest of us (or at least me). I don't care much, but as a matter of fairness, it should probably be pointed out.

[SOAP]

Speaking as someone who's played ALttP AFTER playing OoT, I have to agree with Selena. It seemed at every corner, I kept bumping into something that reminded me of OoT and being spoiled by the 3D experience, if it weren't for fact the game had been made many years before OoT, I would have thought it was a lame knock-off down to ripping off the very story. In fact, I stopped playing it after the first two dungeons because it felt too much like OoT except with out the 3D graphics taht I got bored right away. It's the 3D experience that made it seem new and fresh. Had OoT been done in 2D it wouldn't have seem all taht amazing. MM, definately with it's unique gameplay, new story, and 3 day cycle.

Edited by SOAP, 13 April 2009 - 06:46 AM.

[Raien]

I did, actually. A few times. In summary, that point was: "The camera added a new level of gameplay and immersion, but the quest was exactly the same." Change in looks, not substance or structure. Same quest. Same sword unlocking trinkets, right down to the color. Same weapons. Same formula. In my mind, graphics never take precedence over the actual game. There are many 2D DOS games that I enjoy more than current generation games - not because of nostalgia, as I might be playing those 2D games for the first time - but because of their excellent gameplay. Immersion can be done with good scripting and interactivity. 3D elements and realistic graphics are nice and can certainly help, but are not required for an immersive experience. Realistic graphics help enhance realistic games set in the real world more than they do any other game. If a game is fantasy, your imagination takes over anyway.

3D didn't just change "in looks". You could move in three dimensions, you could interact in three dimensions. You could not do the Water Temple in 2D. And while immersion can be done with good scripting and interactivity, it cannot replace the realism that is achieved with 3D. And realism is just as applicable to fantasy stories as it is for everything else; the ability to visualise a fantasy world has just as much impact as it does for science-fiction or a real-world setting.

Thinking about it, the impact of the introduction of 3D to gaming is most comparable to the introduction of sound to films. You could tell imaginative stories before sound, but the way in which sound was used not only to emulate the real world, but to create new degrees of emotion and character, made sound irreplacable in the industry.

As a question of superficiality, ask the following: If Ocarina of Time had been done in 2D on the SNES after ALttP, would people have seen it as innovative and fresh?

Likewise, ask: If Majora's Mask had been done in 2D on the SNES after ALttP, would it have been seen as innovative and fresh?

If you answer 'yes' to the above questions, then it was a game with substantial changes and innovations. If you answer 'no,' then the changes made were probably on the superficial appearance side, rather than a change to the game itself.

Actually, the fact that 3D defined people's experiences with OoT actually supports the argument that it wasn't superficial. Because you're right, the game wasn't much changed anywhere else. That means its critical acclaim lies in its achievements in a new degree of interaction and immersion.

I should also point out that your OoT/MM comparison is false equivalence; you removed OoT's key innovation and compared it with MM's key innovation still intact. A more appropriate comparison would be this:

-If Ocarina of Time had been done in 2D on the SNES after ALttP, would people have seen it as innovative and fresh?
-If Majora's Mask had been done without the implementation of the 3-day system, would it have been seen as innovative and fresh?

Also, after all the fussing you did about having your opinion scoffed at or mocked, you just did it to the rest of us (or at least me). I don't care much, but as a matter of fairness, it should probably be pointed out.

Fair enough.

Edited by Raien, 13 April 2009 - 08:46 AM.

[SteveT]

3D didn't just change "in looks". You could move in three dimensions, you could interact in three dimensions.

But LttP and LA both had a z-axis.

You could not do the Water Temple in 2D.

You mean a dungeon whose puzzles are centered around changing the water level? Couldn't do anything like it in 2D

And while immersion can be done with good scripting and interactivity, it cannot replace the realism that is achieved with 3D. And realism is just as applicable to fantasy stories as it is for everything else; the ability to visualise a fantasy world has just as much impact as it does for science-fiction or a real-world setting.

I see two arguments here:

One is that 3D graphics makes intrinsically makes games look more realistic. Wind Waker was 3D. Mortal Kombat was 2D. I am forced to disagree.

The other argument is that 3D intrinsically helps you visualize the world. Both 2D and 3D games have had impressive sights to see. Figaro Castle from FFVI comes to mind, or the Pyramid of Power in LttP.

Both of those arguments are about artistic design, not any merits of the 3rd dimension.

I should also point out that your OoT/MM comparison is false equivalence; you removed OoT's key innovation and compared it with MM's key innovation still intact. A more appropriate comparison would be this:

-If Ocarina of Time had been done in 2D on the SNES after ALttP, would people have seen it as innovative and fresh?
-If Majora's Mask had been done without the implementation of the 3-day system, would it have been seen as innovative and fresh?

Could be (and I'm no Selena), that she was trying goad people into thinking about your argument regarding whether 3D is a superficial innovation? Maybe she did that on purpose to make a point? I don't think she was trying to say "Games aren't innovative without their innovations," but rather "Not all innovations are equal."

At least, that's what I got out of it.

Edited by SteveT, 13 April 2009 - 06:37 PM.

[Fin]

You could not do the Water Temple in 2D.

I'm not sure why you'd want to do the Water Temple in 2D or 3D.

[Selena]

I should also point out that your OoT/MM comparison is false equivalence; you removed OoT's key innovation and compared it with MM's key innovation still intact. A more appropriate comparison would be this:

-If Ocarina of Time had been done in 2D on the SNES after ALttP, would people have seen it as innovative and fresh?
-If Majora's Mask had been done without the implementation of the 3-day system, would it have been seen as innovative and fresh?

I think you misunderstood. Steve is more on the right track.

It's not about removing 'the key innovation.' It was simply about removing the 3D camera and letting the actual game stand on its own. Everything other than the camera would remain intact - temples, weapons, plot, trinkets, etc. Majora's 3-day system is not reliant upon the use of a 3D camera. Nor is the shapeshifting that occurs when you put on a mask. In Majora, it was the actual plot and gameplay elements that made it feel 'fresh' compared to previous titles.

But with the 3D camera removed from Ocarina, the game is suddenly very unremarkable. It's "wow!" factor is not there. Had Ocarina been released on the SNES as another top-down title, it would have been accused of being stagnant. And because of that, I consider the camera to be a superficial change. If you can have a significant superficial change, that would probably a better term. It changed how the game was played, but the quest was still the same.


3D was a nice leap forward in gaming, but 3D alone is not what makes a game immersive or great. A lot of the early 3D games sucked. Not because they were bad at incorporating the 3D camera, but because the game itself sucked. What happens in a game is the important stuff. 3D helps. It is not, however, the cornerstone of realism or immersion. Which is why some people prefer certain vintage titles to modern ones.

To go back to your thing on sound in movies - I can watch The Godfather muted with subtitles and will still think it's a gripping masterpiece. Sound adds another layer, but like 3D, it is not the cornerstone for immersion and enjoyment.

....Of course, a lack of 3D isn't as nerve wracking as total silence.

[Duke Serkol]

What kind of ad-bot is clever enough to send links through PM disguised as messages from administrators (not very well disguised of course, but that isn't the point) and then gives itself away by doing this?

[SL the Pyro]

A... train.

...What?

I know I shouldn't be badgering about this of all things, but... a train? Unless the WW Deku Tree's dream of the entire world being connected by vast grasslands and trees came to fruition (unlikely: LINK IS STILL A KID!), there's something very big missing from this picture. I WANT to say that it's not Hyrule, I really do, but having the dang Princess there pretty much confirms that it is Hyrule. I'll just love to see how Nintendo backs this up.

...I don't know. They're keeping the main gameplay elements of PH, which I liked; fast-paced and challenging, so I guess I can throw them a bone. And the only reason I forgive the train part AT ALL is because of how awesome Link looks in a conductor's outfit. But it's hanging on by a thread in my book, seriously.

I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.....!

C... h... o... o......... c... h... o... o......... [/giygas] (WHY DO YOU HAUNT ME!?)

[GuardianNinja]

What kind of ad-bot is clever enough to send links through PM disguised as messages from administrators (not very well disguised of course, but that isn't the point) and then gives itself away by doing this?

you get those things too, god its annoying...

[Raien]

It's not about removing 'the key innovation.' It was simply about removing the 3D camera and letting the actual game stand on its own. Everything other than the camera would remain intact - temples, weapons, plot, trinkets, etc. Majora's 3-day system is not reliant upon the use of a 3D camera. Nor is the shapeshifting that occurs when you put on a mask. In Majora, it was the actual plot and gameplay elements that made it feel 'fresh' compared to previous titles.

The 3D camera was a key innovation. It defined the execution of story and character design within a more realistic and recognisable context, and it introduced new degrees of player interaction that were previously impossible in a 2D landscape. Majora's Mask was reliant on the 3D camera in both its interaction and its storytelling; you could not see the characters emoting as they did if MM was released on SNES. No Link shaking his Deku head as he sees his reflection, no mask salesman throwing eratic gestures and faces. Oh, and no upside-down dungeons either (at least, it would be impossible to tell the dungeon was flipped upside-down).

3D was a nice leap forward in gaming, but 3D alone is not what makes a game immersive or great. A lot of the early 3D games sucked. Not because they were bad at incorporating the 3D camera, but because the game itself sucked. What happens in a game is the important stuff. 3D helps. It is not, however, the cornerstone of realism or immersion. Which is why some people prefer certain vintage titles to modern ones.

The 3-day system wouldn't save a shitty game; no single particular device would. That doesn't mean 3D, or the 3-day system, didn't make a particularly good game stand out from the crowd.

To go back to your thing on sound in movies - I can watch The Godfather muted with subtitles and will still think it's a gripping masterpiece. Sound adds another layer, but like 3D, it is not the cornerstone for immersion and enjoyment.

So your response to "Sound made a significant impact on the film industry and film culture" is "I don't care". This argument doesn't change the reality that film sound was significant to culture, and it doesn't change the impact of 3D in video games either.

Edited by Raien, 16 April 2009 - 07:47 AM.

[Selena]

So your response to "Sound made a significant impact on the film industry and film culture" is "I don't care".

I think that's only what your head translated it as.





Well, bye-bye. I'm joining SteveT at the bar for drinks.