Yes, the ledge grabbing is great, but other than that... turning around while an animal is attacking you is a nightmare in that game.
I still think that Z-targeting was a step up to what Mario had, but I guess Mario feels less clunky because the fights aren't as deliberate as in OoT and you usually have a safe distance from stuff that wants to kill you, whole OoT seems harder as a game. I play the game quite frequently and still think it was better than most 3rd person games of the time. Soul Reaver plays better, but it also came out later I think.
Mega Man Legends has a camera that strictly follows the character's position. It's not dynamic, so I don't think it counts. Also, I'm not sure about North America or Japan... but in Europe at least, it seems to me like Mega Man Legends gained its cult following with the sequel and that wasn't as mainstream when it came out. Or am I wrong?
Well I meant Tomb Raiders controls worked for platforming, not for combat lol.
In general Oots camera simply followed you from behind except in areas with fixed angles. You couldn't manually move it around, you could only use the Z button to center its focus or lock onto an enemy. There are areas where I remember this lack of control for the camera being really annoying.
Megaman Legends actually let you use the L1 and R1 buttons to move the camera around. And I dunno when MML gained its cult following, I think it got flak for being too different from what MM fans expected from an MM game.
Well I meant Tomb Raiders controls worked for platforming, not for combat lol.
In general Oots camera simply followed you from behind except in areas with fixed angles. You couldn't manually move it around, you could only use the Z button to center its focus or lock onto an enemy. There are areas where I remember this lack of control for the camera being really annoying.
Megaman Legends actually let you use the L1 and R1 buttons to move the camera around. And I dunno when MML gained its cult following, I think it got flak for being too different from what MM fans expected from an MM game.
back then despite the innovation in controls, not everything was accepted and praised.
Eg Gabriel Knight 3 combined a unique first and third person switch with mouse controls for navigating and interacting that left many pnc traditionalists disappointed
Well I meant Tomb Raiders controls worked for platforming, not for combat lol.
In general Oots camera simply followed you from behind except in areas with fixed angles. You couldn't manually move it around, you could only use the Z button to center its focus or lock onto an enemy. There are areas where I remember this lack of control for the camera being really annoying.
Megaman Legends actually let you use the L1 and R1 buttons to move the camera around. And I dunno when MML gained its cult following, I think it got flak for being too different from what MM fans expected from an MM game.
I mean, a lot of what I'm telling you is how I and most others I knew felt at the time, and also what I read in gaming magazines from the era. Of course, everyone's experience is a bit different and we also have to take into account that we've played much better games since then and that human memory is also weird. We remember the good stuff, we tend to ignore the bad things, etc. BTW, I don't have too much nostalgia for OoT, since I only played it a little at a friend's back when it came out. I actually played it for real when the UltraHLE emulator was good enough, so around 2001? I totally get that fighting with the camera when Link is hemmed into a dark corner, being attacked and the console gets down to 20fps is horrible, but I do still think that this was a normal experience back then and that few other games did it better.
And yes, Mega Man Legends is a great example of a game with smooth fps, and they smartly just didn't implement a dynamic camera, but just had a fixed one that followed Mega Man and, as you said, could also be adjusted with the bumpers. I really have to admit that Mega Man Legends flew under my radar then. It came out in late 1998 in PAL regions, maybe that's why? At least I didn't hear about people being super into MML until 2000 or so. Also, I was 14, so maybe a silent broody elf who has to grow up too quickly or a soul vampire with a cool light sword coming out of his hand were just cooler for me at the time. :D Maybe the art design of MML would have been too childish for me back then (which of course is dumb).
back then despite the innovation in controls, not everything was accepted and praised.
Eg Gabriel Knight 3 combined a unique first and third person switch with mouse controls for navigating and interacting that left many pnc traditionalists disappointed
I mean, a lot of what I'm telling you is how I and most others I knew felt at the time, and also what I read in gaming magazines from the era. Of course, everyone's experience is a bit different and we also have to take into account that we've played much better games since then and that human memory is also weird. We remember the good stuff, we tend to ignore the bad things, etc. BTW, I don't have too much nostalgia for OoT, since I only played it a little at a friend's back when it came out. I actually played it for real when the UltraHLE emulator was good enough, so around 2001? I totally get that fighting with the camera when Link is hemmed into a dark corner, being attacked and the console gets down to 20fps is horrible, but I do still think that this was a normal experience back then and that few other games did it better.
And yes, Mega Man Legends is a great example of a game with smooth fps, and they smartly just didn't implement a dynamic camera, but just had a fixed one that followed Mega Man and, as you said, could also be adjusted with the bumpers. I really have to admit that Mega Man Legends flew under my radar then. It came out in late 1998 in PAL regions, maybe that's why? At least I didn't hear about people being super into MML until 2000 or so. Also, I was 14, so maybe a silent broody elf who has to grow up too quickly or a soul vampire with a cool light sword coming out of his hand were just cooler for me at the time. :D Maybe the art design of MML would have been too childish for me back then (which of course is dumb).
I guess these games are fresher in my mind since I recently replayed them. I personally never understood the "we forget the bad thing" since I definitely remember the mediocre games I played as a kid lol. I have pretty decent nostalgia for Ocarina of time as I played with a friend who owned it. Weirdly I never owned it. Megaman Legends I first played much later admittedly on emulator. Wouldve loved it as a kid. Super Mario 64 I did own and played the hell out of. Replaying it now both for fun and curiosity to see how it holds up.
I feel like with childhood games for me they mostly hold up though some really do not but some I feel have aged better with time.
so, non sega devs saying vf made them go 3d, countless references and things outside of videogames inspired by vf and the fact there where soooooo many vf ripoffs that never came close to its greatness means nothing then i guess the ground is fucking indestructible god damn
Super Mario 64 feels more groundbreaking by virtue of releasing first. In a lot of ways, Ocarina of Time is structurally just a 2D adventure game like the ones you got on a SNES but in 3D. It has stellar presentation and is certainly beyond the scope of most 3D adventure games of its era, but the concept of a 3D adventure game had been done by that point, at least. SM64 pioneered a lot thanks to its status as a launch title for the system it was on. That level of 3D fidelity on a console, the scope and scale of levels, the use of an analog stick etc etc.
OoT is a masterpiece and its influence would certainly be felt forever, but SM64 changed the industry on a fundamental level.
Can someone who uses the term "wonder" in relation to 3D Zelda please explain it to me? Every time one comes out, people try and wax poetically about the sense of wonder. Do you not also feel this in every other 3D game with big explorable spaces? I could maybe see it if it was your first 3D game ever, and newer entries remind you of that time. But it's like, it's a zelda? You know what to expect thematically. Do you walk out in Skyrim and have a sense of wonder? Hello Kitty Roller Rescue?
As someone who didn't play OoT until 2019 when I was already 24, I can honestly say it has nothing to do with if it's a formative game for someone. Ocarina of Time benefits a lot from the hardware and limitations of its day. The lack of voice acting, the more limited soundscape, the abstract soundfont communicating familiar instruments, the minimalist presentation and low poly visuals imbuing everything with a sense of abstract awe etc etc. I find that when playing or replaying a lot of 5th generation games I am always getting this sense that I am missing something. There is this eerie and exciting feeling that the game just goes on forever, that there is always another stone to turn over and uncover the next secret. Some modern games can give me this feeling to, Team Ico games are the obvious examples I'd give. It is a far less common phenomenon though because the worlds are so much more detailed and technically sound. The fog in Silent Hill is a common example of how much atmosphere and sense of scale can be added by a technical limitation/artistic decision.
In sooooo many ways games of that era are able to capture a sense of adventure and mystery unlike anything nowadays because everything wasn't spelled out for you. Much like in a lot of Japanese media it relies on soft worldbuilding and has more abstract mechanics that drive its world. Western media tends to be waaaay more prone to trying to spell everything out for you and make its world very coherent and mechanically consistent. When the world is full of so many abstract concepts and little mysteries surrounding its characters, locations, events and themes it leaves so much room for your mind to wander and try to fill in the gaps. It creates far more personal playthroughs and experiences where you relate to the world on your own terms because you end up mapping your feelings and lived experiences onto the world and its various stories without even meaning to.
This is partially why communities surrounding Asian media in general tend to have more thriving communities for theorycrafting. We can still debate and swap stories on so many aspects of games like Final Fantasy 7 on the PS1 because that is a game that on top of displaying all of the wonderfully unique and abstract brilliance of the 5th console generation, manages to be a game that feels very coherent and yet leaves so much room open for interpretation and theorycrafting. The amount of times I've said X happened in the plot only for someone to go "Wait what? No I thought Y happened," only for us to realize that the actual text itself doesn't really clarify either way is awesome. Suddenly we're both swapping our theories and talking about why we felt that way or assumed something about the world and its characters. I learn something about someone that way, I learn something about myself in that way!
And yea a game like Skyrim that approaches storytelling and lore from a more hardline, "This is what happens and how all of this works" perspective can still imbue that sense of wonder, it just does it in a different way. I experience a sense of wonder in being asked to inhabit this world that is so big, detailed and full of life. It feels like a pocket dimension of sorts, and I can just put some headphones on and lose hours doing whatever it is I feel like doing at that time.
Meanwhile, a game like OoT feels almost unknowable. Almost everything I experience in that world allows me to map myself onto it to some degree. So much of the game and why it looks/sounds/feels will never be concretely explained.
What Sega did on a technical level with Virtua Fighter is inherently groundbreaking. VF became a cultural phenomena in Japan in no small part BECAUSE no one had ever seen a game look or move so fluidly. Z axis movement within the genre was still very novel!
I get not saying it was as groundbreaking as SF2 since SF2 invented so many evergreen concepts, but I also think it is silly to discount just how ahead of its time VF1 was in 1993. Hell, VF2 is argued to be the first game to use full mocap for its animations in a way that wasn't just Mortal Kombat's digitized sprites or a full on FMV game. Considering how commonplace that technology has become over the last 30 years that's wild!
Both were groundbreaking and hugely important games for the genre and industry at large.
What Sega did on a technical level with Virtua Fighter is inherently groundbreaking. VF became a cultural phenomena in Japan in no small part BECAUSE no one had ever seen a game look or move so fluidly. Z axis movement within the genre was still very novel!
I get not saying it was as groundbreaking as SF2 since SF2 invented so many evergreen concepts, but I also think it is silly to discount just how ahead of its time VF1 was in 1993. Hell, VF2 is argued to be the first game to use full mocap for its animations in a way that wasn't just Mortal Kombat's digitized sprites or a full on FMV game. Considering how commonplace that technology has become over the last 30 years that's wild!
Both were groundbreaking and hugely important games for the genre and industry at large.
my soul has been healed, but not fully
people still have no idea how much they owe to vf beyond just the technological aspects, the core game design and/or mechanics have been inherited by so many other fighting games even to this day, hell, even non fighting games borrow from vf
why do you think mario's default attack combo in mario 64 is two punches and a kick?
Can someone who uses the term "wonder" in relation to 3D Zelda please explain it to me? Every time one comes out, people try and wax poetically about the sense of wonder. Do you not also feel this in every other 3D game with big explorable spaces? I could maybe see it if it was your first 3D game ever, and newer entries remind you of that time. But it's like, it's a zelda? You know what to expect thematically. Do you walk out in Skyrim and have a sense of wonder? Hello Kitty Roller Rescue?
Virtua fighter whas even more groundbreaking than SF II, not only it helped make Tekken a better game but also laid the groundwork for the Dead or alive franchise.
Can someone who uses the term "wonder" in relation to 3D Zelda please explain it to me? Every time one comes out, people try and wax poetically about the sense of wonder. Do you not also feel this in every other 3D game with big explorable spaces? I could maybe see it if it was your first 3D game ever, and newer entries remind you of that time. But it's like, it's a zelda? You know what to expect thematically. Do you walk out in Skyrim and have a sense of wonder? Hello Kitty Roller Rescue?
Zelda games are fun and Nintendo does take care to make them something that's at least an 8/10. There's rare Zelda games that are really trash IMHO.
However
I think a lot of the hype also had to do with the fact that Nintendo consoles have been missing out on a lot of cool adventures and RPGs from N64 to Wii U. It has changed with the Switch, but even now, if a game is technically very cutting edge, it just isn't on the Switch or it has a nastier version. Ocarina of Time was the number 1 product of its kind on the N64. Later there was Majora's Mask. But what else is there? Aiydn Chronicles? LOL. Meanhwile, the PS1 had loads of RPGs or action adventures, so it's normal that people who had a PC or other consoles weren't that impressed by Zelda. I think Zelda 1 and A Link to the Past were truly revolutionary. Ocarina of Time had some cool inventions, but some other aspects were lacking compared to, for example, PC CRPGs or JRPGs on the PS1 of the time. Later Zelda games are great, but they're itterations on Ocarina of Time. They're evolutions, not revolutions.
I remember when Breath of the Wild came out and you could clearly see that a lot of the Nintendo fans have never played an open world RPG for more than 10min. They've clearly missed out on a lot of RPGs from the PS3/PS4 era. I mean, they had Xenoblade Chronicles 1 and X, that's it I think. The Switch was the first console where they at least had Witcher 3 (and since they've never seen AAA at a stable 60fps, they even liked the graphics downgrades).
I'd argue that it's like Yie Ar Kung-Fu which was a pre-SF fighting game. Virtua Fighter is an impressive tech demo but VF2 and Tekken are the SFII of the 3D side of the genre.
Can someone who uses the term "wonder" in relation to 3D Zelda please explain it to me? Every time one comes out, people try and wax poetically about the sense of wonder. Do you not also feel this in every other 3D game with big explorable spaces? I could maybe see it if it was your first 3D game ever, and newer entries remind you of that time. But it's like, it's a zelda? You know what to expect thematically. Do you walk out in Skyrim and have a sense of wonder? Hello Kitty Roller Rescue?
This is something that is hard to define but Zelda has a poetry that barely any game can reproduce.
As good as Skyrim is this isn't Zelda but a High Fantasy Western RPG with a viking/Nordic/Scandinavian vibe to it. It's not a bad thing but this is why Ocarina of Time will always be unique.
I think a lot of the hype also had to do with the fact that Nintendo consoles have been missing out on a lot of cool adventures and RPGs from N64 to Wii U. It has changed with the Switch, but even now, if a game is technically very cutting edge, it just isn't on the Switch or it has a nastier version. Ocarina of Time was the number 1 product of its kind on the N64. Later there was Majora's Mask. But what else is there? Aiydn Chronicles? LOL. Meanwhile, the PS1 had loads of RPGs or action adventures, so it's normal that people who had a PC or other consoles weren't that impressed by Zelda. I think Zelda 1 and A Link to the Past were truly revolutionary. Ocarina of Time had some cool inventions, but some other aspects were lacking compared to, for example, PC CRPGs or JRPGs on the PS1 of the time. Later Zelda games are great, but they're itterations on Ocarina of Time. They're evolutions, not revolutions.
Most 3D games back then were clunky or too obtuse to play. The PSX had a ton of bad games because devs didn't know how to properly do 3D games. It was the second half of the console's life that saw great games, most pre-1996 games were forgettable or anecdotal.
How many PC ARPG/Adventure game stood the test of time compared to OoT?
And I'd say that evolution of a base formula is fine, most AAAs are based on things set previously.
I remember when Breath of the Wild came out and you could clearly see that a lot of the Nintendo fans have never played an open world RPG for more than 10min. They've clearly missed out on a lot of RPGs from the PS3/PS4 era. I mean, they had Xenoblade Chronicles 1 and X, that's it I think. The Switch was the first console where they at least had Witcher 3 (and since they've never seen AAA at a stable 60fps, they even liked the graphics downgrades).
I'd argue that it's like Yie Ar Kung-Fu which was a pre-SF fighting game. Virtua Fighter is an impressive tech demo but VF2 and Tekken are the SFII of the 3D side of the genre.
This is something that is hard to define but Zelda has a poetry that barely any game can reproduce.
As good as Skyrim is this isn't Zelda but a High Fantasy Western RPG with a viking/Nordic/Scandinavian vibe to it. It's not a bad thing but this is why Ocarina of Time will always be unique.
Saying that the game has soul isn't just because people are fan of Zelda.
I think that objectively there's no bad Zelda game made by Nintendo (therefore excluding the CD-I games which aren't canonical anyway).
You could say that some of them are weaker but they're still good games nonetheless (yes, even Skyward Sword, Foursword and TriForce Heroes).
Most 3D games back then were clunky or too obtuse to play. The PSX had a ton of bad games because devs didn't know how to properly do 3D games. It was the second half of the console's life that saw great games, most pre-1996 games were forgettable or anecdotal.
How many PC ARPG/Adventure game stood the test of time compared to OoT?
And I'd say that evolution of a base formula is fine, most AAAs are based on things set previously.
I'd say that BotW is also an Open World game that changed things because even if you've played Open Worlds before none were as deep as BotW.
"I'd argue that it's like Yie Ar Kung-Fu which was a pre-SF fighting game. Virtua Fighter is an impressive tech demo but VF2 and Tekken are the SFII of the 3D side of the genre."
I would say Virtua fighter is still groundbreaking, arguably still the more groundbreaking game compared to Tekken and VF2 but the others were the more realized and polished successors.
"How many PC ARPG/Adventure game stood the test of time compared to OoT?"
In terms of quality or popularity?
"I'd say that BotW is also an Open World game that changed things because even if you've played Open Worlds before none were as deep as BotW."
I don't know what you mean by deep in the context of Botw. Id always considered it a relatively shallow open world game compared to what came before. Do you mean purely in terms of physics?
I would say Virtua fighter is still groundbreaking, arguably still the more groundbreaking game compared to Tekken and VF2 but the others were the more realized and polished successors.
Maybe but remember that on console the Saturn version was really underwhelming because consoles were the best ground for making a game popular (SF II without the SNES wouldn't have been as massive, same with Tekken and the PlayStation). VF Remix tried to "fix" it but it was a bit too late.
I don't know what you mean by deep in the context of Botw. I'd always considered it a relatively shallow open world game compared to what came before. Do you mean purely in terms of physics?
There's a ton of videos showing many intricacies regarding the game (the way it handles heat/cold, the way it has fire propagation and how there's air currents made from it, the way the level design is made so that there's always a thing to do and check, the way you can use the climbing ability to go from one point to another in a more natural way than Skyrim's horses or jumping on the ledges of a mountain, etc...). Even the physics engine is quite responsive for an open world.
I'd have to disagree with BotW being deep (although I'm not sure if we're using the term in the same way?)
BotW had a lovely crafted open world, with amazing terrain and nice environmental story telling, little clues. However, the quests and immersion were very lacking and were handled much better even in games from 20+ years ago. Compared to NPCs from e.g. Gothic (which came out 2 years after OoT), everything regarding the main story and quests felt like amateur hour. And then the objectives and opening up of the world recycles this tower-activating slop from Ubisoft. They should also have just done maybe 50 shrines less, but instead made 3-4 big, classic Zelda-style dungeons. But again: If people just had Nintendo consoles and the last decent open world game was Xenoblade Chronicles X, I can see how BotW would seem revolutionary.
Still, it's a very good game. It's easily an 8/10 and you can have loads of fun with it.
Tears of the Kingdom rectified a lot of the criticism I've had with BotW.
Maybe but remember that on console the Saturn version was really underwhelming because consoles were the best ground for making a game popular (SF II without the SNES wouldn't have been as massive, same with Tekken and the PlayStation). VF Remix tried to "fix" it but it was a bit too late.
Both. Also remember that people had to spend quite a lot of money to decently run most of those games. It was more affordable to get a N64.
There's a ton of videos showing many intricacies regarding the game (the way it handles heat/cold, the way it has fire propagation and how there's air currents made from it, the way the level design is made so that there's always a thing to do and check, the way you can use the climbing ability to go from one point to another in a more natural way than Skyrim's horses or jumping on the ledges of a mountain, etc...). Even the physics engine is quite responsive for an open world.
"Maybe but remember that on console the Saturn version was really underwhelming because consoles were the best ground for making a game popular (SF II without the SNES wouldn't have been as massive, same with Tekken and the PlayStation). VF Remix tried to "fix" it but it was a bit too late."
I mean popular and groundbreaking arent really synonymous imo. A lot of the most groundbreaking games go under the radar, like I' Robot was one one of the most objectively innovative and groundbreaking games ever made but was a flop and is largely obscure even today (still a fantastic game though imo).
"Both. Also remember that people had to spend quite a lot of money to decently run most of those games. It was more affordable to get a N64."
I think there were plenty that were just as good or better than Oot imo. In general I think first person games have tended to age better than third person games, I would say Oot feels much clunkier than say Unreal or Half Life.
"There's a ton of videos showing many intricacies regarding the game (the way it handles heat/cold, the way it has fire propagation and how there's air currents made from it, the way the level design is made so that there's always a thing to do and check, the way you can use the climbing ability to go from one point to another in a more natural way than Skyrim's horses or jumping on the ledges of a mountain, etc...). Even the physics engine is quite responsive for an open world."
Ok fair, just when you say deep I was thinking in terms of quests, customization, and narrative choices which is where Botw falls flat imo.
I'd have to disagree with BotW being deep (although I'm not sure if we're using the term in the same way?)
BotW had a lovely crafted open world, with amazing terrain and nice environmental story telling, little clues. However, the quests and immersion were very lacking and were handled much better even in games from 20+ years ago. Compared to NPCs from e.g. Gothic (which came out 2 years after OoT), everything regarding the main story and quests felt like amateur hour. And then the objectives and opening up of the world recycles this tower-activating slop from Ubisoft. They should also have just done maybe 50 shrines less, but instead made 3-4 big, classic Zelda-style dungeons. But again: If people just had Nintendo consoles and the last decent open world game was Xenoblade Chronicles X, I can see how BotW would seem revolutionary.
Still, it's a very good game. It's easily an 8/10 and you can have loads of fun with it.
Tears of the Kingdom rectified a lot of the criticism I've had with BotW.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
