Metacritic Legend of Zelda Orcarina of Time .vs. Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword

[Butterfly4Life]

While I'm relatively new to the forums I can't help but notice This signatures that state. *Will Not Remove Until A Zelda Title Scores 99/100 On Metacritic Or Higher, started November 21, 1998*Ocarina of Time stands with a 99/100 from Metacritic. It is the BEST ZELDA GAME EVER, AND THE BEST GAME EVER. NewZelda fanboys, end of line. OoT is the best game ever.

So I decided to check out what Metacritic was. Basically for other who don't know the site is where many news site and gaming sites post their ratings of games that come out. The scale is 1-100 with a score of 100 being prefect. The signature above states that LoZ OoT has an average of 99. Which is correct however, it forgot to mention that the score is out of an average of 22 critics. Meaning that the game was only scored by 22 different sites at the release of the game. While LoZ SS has a score of 93 which is still an excellent score. However, this is out of an average of 81 critics meaning there were more news/gaming sites criticizing the game.

So I went to each page and pulled up the scores of each an found that LoZ OoT has 18 100s. Which is great. While LoZ SS has 27 100s which is fantastic. The only reason why LoZ has a score of 93 is because 3 critics graded it lower than 75. This is only 3.7% of the score which is really good. So I don't completely agree with all the other signatures as stated above because of the fact that LoZ SS had almost 4x the amount of critics with only 3% not totally falling in love with the game. While the scores are across the board ending at a 60 I still think that LoZ SS is a better game. Because when LoZ OoT came out it was the 1st 3D LoZ game making it brand new to the critics who gave it such high scores. So to all of the LoZ OoT fans please don't hate because I'm not trying to start a war but to blindly follow a rating site seems like a unjust way to justify why you belive that LoZ OoT is the best game in the franchise.

Also before you flag me as one of the fans who never grew up with the game I will gladly tell you that my family got the game when it was released and still have the copy as well. But I never got into it because I found it terribly boring when I was younger. Heck I didn't really like The LoZ series till I was like 12. My first game being Wind Waker. The game opened up my eyes to how fun the LoZ series could be. Which is why I put it way above OoT. Also I've tried to play OoT since I've become older but still haven't really enjoyed it so I haven't played all the way through it. Because a game to me needs to capture you a the beginning, like LoZ SS, LoZ WW, LoZ TP, and LoZ ST, not at the middle which OoT is like to me except that I haven't got that far because I find it boring. Not to say I don't enjoy older games. For example, I'm playing through LoZ OoA I haven't completed it yet but I find the game to be incredibly fun.

So All I want is your opinions as too why LoZ OoT is a better game without using rating sites or just you opinion is general on the LoZ series as a whole.

 

[Ventus]

For future reference, I'm the only one with such a siggy, and it'd be nice if you pointed me out specifically. Anyway, OoT is still the highest rated video game of all time, as per Guinness Book of World Records. Wanna go into the future? OoT3D managed a 94/100 from Metacritic, which is still higher than SS' 93/100. *shrug*

Quick comparison, [noparse]OoT3D:[/noparse]
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D for 3DS Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More - Metacritic
vs Skyward Sword:
The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword for Wii Reviews, Ratings, Credits, and More - Metacritic
OoT3D wins.
​

First let me preface this ridiculous post that I myself find far too many holes and even disagree with partly by saying Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword are both video games that are far above par the sixth generation standard (GC, PS2, Xbox). They're possibly the better video games in history. However, it's important to note that they're also both Zelda games, which means they have expectations laid before them. The Zelda series has always been prestigious since A Link to the Past released. Characters always had some sort of depth, the story was always grand. This wasn't the Mario series which was known for being all gameplay and zero story. This wasn't anything but Zelda.

As for my opinion, OoT is just made better. As I've said before, everything it presents was presented just right, few if any noticeable, big flaws. That's why it's so prestigious. Backlash towards the game only happened recently, and the majority of it comes from TP or SS fans. >_>


Ocarina of Time is simply the better game in my opinion. Story while cliche even at the time of it's release was pulled off excellently; all characters were handled as good as the hardware would allow. Dungeons were amazing (not too hard, not too easy)...world was just great. Gameplay was obviously good since every 3D Zelda since has used it as a template, and even the newest entry Skyward Sword is culprit to this. Targeting system and so on even influenced shooters...THAT'S something. OoT has many more achievements relevant to the Zelda series and gaming in general, just like it's older brother Super Mario 64, than just the aforementioned. It attracted the OoT fanboys years later and although many love to point "NOSTALGIA!!!ONE1111" as some sort of 'argument' that refutes their disposition, I would say that the people who love OoT feel the way they do simply because OoT was far more than "that new Zelda game". As I've said long ago, everything OoT did it just did right. Almost no flaws in this game at all -- one cannot say the characters are bad because OoT is vastly limited by hardware limitations. Should OoT had came out on the Wii in the v1.0 form, THEN there would be some legitimate flaws since the Wii Optical Disc can hold far much more data than the N64 cartridge (which is also why Ura Zelda had to use the N64DD for moar space lulz, the game was already too good to expand upon without a DISC DRIVE). One cannot cry foul to the enemy AI in this game, and I'll say why: if you look into OoT hacks, every hacker knows that they must expand the game file to create more free space; the N64 cartridge doesn't carry this free space. OoT Enemy AI believe it or not is pretty complicated and takes up a bit of space, if you think me wrong go look it up. Again, if OoT came out as it did on the Wii, there would be legit flaws. As an N64 game, I do not see any flaws in Ocarina. It was a game that was really a disaster for the inexperienced dev team, but it came out better than I think they could imagine. Plus, with the added bonus of being relatively new without any previous expectations for it, OoT performed well.

Skyward Sword in my opinion had it's gameplay rolling for it very well. Come on, using the sword like you do in that game has never been done before and while it isn't as revolutionary as the targeting system, it's still pretty darn revolutionary (it's been done before in Wii Sports Resort but I'm talking within the Zelda series). What dragged SS down in my opinion were the characters (specifically Demise, Princess Zelda, and slightly Ghirahim), story, and too many good concepts that weren't used well. I won't go into detail. What caused these problems was the simple fact that Nintendo got their priorities mixed up along the way. Miyamoto himself said (possibly jokingly) that if Skyward Sword wasn't better than Ocarina of Time that there wouldn't be any more Zelda. From there I believe Ninty just decided to throw around concepts and see what would be pleasing to the casual consumer. The art style is a plus, I love it. Gameplay definitely works and if I could have it my way, it would be a mainstay or at the very least a different mode of playing the game should buttons return. Everything else, not so much. I had expectations for SS since it IS a Zelda game. TP failed because it tried too hard to be OoT (and it failed). SS fails because it tries too hard to steal the show.

As for glitches, OoT launched with MANY, MANY bugs and glitches. But guess what? Those glitches were so good, so beneficial to the experience that the devs went out of their way to retain a few of them for Ocarina 3D. How is that possible? Why is that possible? Because OoT is just a great game. SS? It launched with many, MANY bugs and glitches as well. But what's the difference? Those glitches and bugs we so bad, so harmful to the experience that the devs were FORCED from fan feedback to release a patch to fix savefiles. Now, I'd say that the specific glitch I'm talking about is more an homage to Twilight Princess than a problem itself (TP launched with the Cannon Room glitch and if your file was affected iirc you could send your disc in for a replacement or something like that), but OoT easily had the better glitches which, despite the stigma behind glitches, allowed the experience to be enjoyed even further. Crooked Cartridge, swordless Link, Ocarina Items, Reverse Bottle Adventure, and so on. Ocarina definitely wins the glitches/bugs department.

In the end, both were released to extremely positive critical acclaim, with both receiving 40/40 from Famitsu and perfect scores from many sites. Both were amazing video games. SS just doesn't deliver. It doesn't need to deliver like Ocarina did, here I cue Majora's Mask, but it doesn't deliver like a good Zelda should in my mind. OoT wins as a video game (it's far more influential) and as a Zelda game (it's just better IMO). Sorry SS, you should try to be like Majora's Mask and be more of your own game, not emulate Ocarina.

 

[Garo]

I love Ocarina of Time, but it's far from the best. I think a healthy dose of nostalgia and preference due to the revolutionary nature of the title has elevated it beyond what its status would be otherwise. It's better than some games, particularly Skyward Sword, because it gets right to the point and is immediately fun - for that reason I tend to go back and replay it far more often. But it doesn't hold a candle to the likes of Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, or Link's Awakening, all of which are deeper games with better characterization and more stuff to do.

That said, Metacritic results are hardly valuable in determining the worth of a game. What other people think doesn't really matter in the least; how good a game is or isn't is determined by your own reaction to it, so to say it's the best because it has the highest Metacritic score is rather short-sighted. It may be the best reviewed, but not necessarily the best.

 

[Dio]

OOT is a better game because:

It was more revolutionary, in gameplay, in graphics, and in story...for its time. It still plays well today even 15 years later. It has achieved iconic status as both a video game and as a Zelda game, it is the standard to which all other Zeldas are compared to.

It puts you straight into the action with optional tutorial if the player needs one unlike SS which forces you to do some training

The villain is much more intimidating in my view, he actually succeeds in taking over Hyrule partway through the game, where SS's villain is stopped immediately. Speaking of Ganondorf taking over Hyrule, the change to the land and people after 7 years of his reign is shocking and provides a great atmosphere and tension for the player as they see familiar areas that are no longer as they used to be. I actually found Ghirahim to be a bit of a P***y, he seemed incapable of dealing with link and taking the option to flee whenever he got beaten. Demise I found to be cool to look at but with so little screen time and development. For a modern villain that is pretty unacceptable in my books. I really wanted to know more about him from his own lips if you know what I mean.

The difficulty in OOT's combat I much prefer, with enemies such as iron knuckles and Ganondorf himself doing 4+ hearts of damage

There is more variety in OOT's enemies whereas in SS, it all seems to be Bokoblins and any variety it does have is quickly tarnished by more Bokoblin appearances.

There are more races to speak to in OOT. I like the fact that you can interact with many different people. In SS there was hardly anyone outside of skyloft and most of the people in skyloft I would not even want to talk to.

OOT's shadow temple really made OOT a multi genre experience with elements of horror,adventure and fantasy. SS tried a bit of horror, but I did not think it was as effective and it was to a much lesser extent. Shadow temple and the graveyard area was terrifying, I still don't like being around Redeads.

Anyway those are some of the things. If you want to try and counter argue them, go ahead, but there is more where they came from. I just did not want to write a giant page of writing.

 

[Butterfly4Life]

I will give you the fact that OoT has more variety. But think about it since Skyward Sword is the 1st game in the time line than there would be no time in which the other races could develop. Also while LoZ SS does make you complete one tutorial at the beginning it was a very short one. It put in there mainly because of the new game play style which OoT didn't have. This is because OoT uses a game play style that used a button for attacking and others for different items just not to the extent of OoT. However, OoT also had moment in which the game would freeze and directing you how to do things such as Z-targeting. To me this disrupts the gameplay unlike in SS which teaches you right off the bat in a few secs because of how easy the tutorial is.

It was more revolutionary, in gameplay, in graphics, and in story...for its time.

As you brought up it was revolutionary for its time. I agree that 15 years ago the game was vastly popular. But to simply say some thing is the best because it set the standards is kinda of unfair. It would be like saying the 1st Itouch is obviously better that the newest Itouch because its older and set the standards for Itouch. For many like myself we feel that the newer games have already surpassed OoT in their own unique ways. For example, LoZ MM had one of the best atmospheres within a game this is because the fact that you only have 3 days to stop the moon from crashing down on the world. While at first some didn't like the 3 day time limit they soon got over that and found how much more enjoyable the game is because of it.

In reply to Ganondorf I feel that Demise created more tension in SS. Because as you play SS you learn that the seal on Demise is weakening and it only a matter of time before he breaks out. Meaning that in the back of your mind you always thinking OMG am I doing this stuff fast enough. Is he going to break loose before I collect all of the tri-force? While in OoT your merely trying to undo all that Ganondorf has done while you were gone for 7 years. Which to me doesn't really add tension because in SS you're fighting/trying to prevent evil from taking over the world. Also Ganondorf is merely a reincarnation of Demise which to me make Demise better cause he's the root of all evil in LoZ and the fact that Demise just looks epic compared to Ganondorf also helps.

So yah

 

[Garo]

I will give you the fact that OoT has more variety. But think about it since Skyward Sword is the 1st game in the time line than there would be no time in which the other races could develop. Also while LoZ SS does make you complete one tutorial at the beginning it was a very short one. It put in there mainly because of the new game play style which OoT didn't have. This is because OoT uses a game play style that used a button for attacking and others for different items just not to the extent of OoT. However, OoT also had moment in which the game would freeze and directing you how to do things such as Z-targeting. To me this disrupts the gameplay unlike in SS which teaches you right off the bat in a few secs because of how easy the tutorial is.

Haha, wow this is the exact opposite of how I feel. Skyward Sword's "tutorial" section dragged on for what felt like hours. Ocarina of Time's was over and done in ten minutes, max, and then you were in the first dungeon right away. It also allowed you to skip most of the tutorials - sure, the Z-targeting lesson from the girl on top of the shop always happens, but the sword training can be skipped by just not reading the signs. Skyward Sword forces you into these tutorials, and that's not a good practice.

 

[Butterfly4Life]

Ahh sorry about that I thought there more with siggys like that. As you metioned LoZ OoT 3d does have a score of 94 but with only 24 100s out of 85. While LoZ SS had more negative votes but meh. I wasn't trying to make anyone mad. I just wanted to start a converstation. But I still feel like LoZ OoT isn't the best.

Haha, wow this is the exact opposite of how I feel. Skyward Sword's "tutorial" section dragged on for what felt like hours. Ocarina of Time's was over and done in ten minutes, max, and then you were in the first dungeon right away. It also allowed you to skip most of the tutorials - sure, the Z-targeting lesson from the girl on top of the shop always happens, but the sword training can be skipped by just not reading the signs. Skyward Sword forces you into these tutorials, and that's not a good practice.

If you were to remove all of the cut scenes than the tutorial is Almost the same length as OoT. The sword fighting took less than 1 minute, the diving part took maybe 2 mins, and the flying part took about 5 maybe because it was a race. So all in all its still shorter than OoT.

 

[Garo]

If you were to remove all of the cut scenes than the tutorial is Almost the same length as OoT. The sword fighting took less than 1 minute, the diving part took maybe 2 mins, and the flying part took about 5 maybe because it was a race. So all in all its still shorter than OoT.

But you can't remove all the cutscenes, because that's part of it. Including the cutscenes in OoT's "tutorial" (of which there really isn't one, it's all option except the Z-targeting conversation, which takes less than 10 seconds) it lasts no longer than 15 minutes. Skyward Sword feels the need to cram a long introduction down your throat before taking off the training wheels and letting you play the game fully.

 

[Ventus]

If you were to remove all of the cut scenes than the tutorial is Almost the same length as OoT. The sword fighting took less than 1 minute, the diving part took maybe 2 mins, and the flying part took about 5 maybe because it was a race. So all in all its still shorter than OoT.

Well, that's assuming if you COULD take out the cutscenes in SS. You're forced to play through the entire game and even after that I believe the game forces you to play Hero Mode (I could be wrong on this point, I wouldn't know personally) in order for you to skip majority of the cutscenes. That's just a developer flaw, but it's part of SS. Even Twilight Princess allows you to skip majority of cutscenes right of the box (hit Start twice or Minus twice depending on if playing GC/Wii), and that was definitely one of the lower received Zeldas.

 

[Butterfly4Life]

The fact tht that there are hardly any cut sences in OoT proves the point that I was making there's more tutorial in OoT than in SS. While Intro in SS doesn't feel like training wheels it just that they wanted gamers to understand the game and the fact that it takes place before anything. Also to me Oot and OoT 3D are the same freaking game so to me there is no difference besides control scheme.

 

[Ventus]

I see where you're coming from, but if that's truly the case (here I'm speaking as if it is), then everything that ISN'T a tutorial in SS is useless information and of course story tidbits. Either way it's a negative for Skyward, as in one view the beginning of the game takes forever to get on (because of the cutscenes and lengthy tutorial getting in the way) and in the other the game isn't doing the PLAYER any good (by lack of a tutorial, but I assure you SS doesn't lack in tutorials >_> ).

They ARE the same game, one with a graphical uplift and a reworked "second quest" esque mode, not to mention "3D" added to the subtitle.

As you brought up it was revolutionary for its time. I agree that 15 years ago the game was vastly popular. But to simply say some thing is the best because it set the standards is kinda of unfair. It would be like saying the 1st Itouch is obviously better that the newest Itouch because its older and set the standards for Itouch. For many like myself we feel that the newer games have already surpassed OoT in their own unique ways. For example, LoZ MM had one of the best atmospheres within a game this is because the fact that you only have 3 days to stop the moon from crashing down on the world. While at first some didn't like the 3 day time limit they soon got over that and found how much more enjoyable the game is because of it.

OoT is the reason why SS, no, the reason why any 3D Zelda game exists to this day. It's revolutionary even now. SS isn't remotely revolutionary like OoT is; Skyward just grabs pre existing mechanics and puts them all together, giving the silly fans a reason to love it. Yeah, that's good and all, but it is neither original nor revolutionary -- speaking within patenting terms it's obvious to put X and Y together if that's how they're made and thus you can't say SS has earned a "patent" for being revolutionary. OoT on the other hand, it earned that right.

 

[Dio]

I will give you the fact that OoT has more variety. But think about it since Skyward Sword is the 1st game in the time line than there would be no time in which the other races could develop. Also while LoZ SS does make you complete one tutorial at the beginning it was a very short one. It put in there mainly because of the new game play style which OoT didn't have. This is because OoT uses a game play style that used a button for attacking and others for different items just not to the extent of OoT. However, OoT also had moment in which the game would freeze and directing you how to do things such as Z-targeting. To me this disrupts the gameplay unlike in SS which teaches you right off the bat in a few secs because of how easy the tutorial is.

Certain characters may stop to talk to you, telling you that you can Z target, but it is optional for you to do so. Without that the instruction manual will be the only way for a player to know what to do. In Skyward sword, there is not a guy who stops you and asks if you want to be reminded of how to fly your bird, you have to actually do it which is especially annoying for learning the whirlwind attack thing with the instructor. SS's tutorials take ages in comparison to OOT.

As you brought up it was revolutionary for its time. I agree that 15 years ago the game was vastly popular. But to simply say some thing is the best because it set the standards is kinda of unfair. It would be like saying the 1st Itouch is obviously better that the newest Itouch because its older and set the standards for Itouch. For many like myself we feel that the newer games have already surpassed OoT in their own unique ways. For example, LoZ MM had one of the best atmospheres within a game this is because the fact that you only have 3 days to stop the moon from crashing down on the world. While at first some didn't like the 3 day time limit they soon got over that and found how much more enjoyable the game is because of it.

SS was not very revolutionary at all though. It used gameplay from Wii sports resort and a slightly improved aiming system from TP utilising motion plus. I would not use the I pod touch analogy at all. The I pod touch incorporated things that had been used in other devices. Apple did not even invent touch screen. OOT used gameplay mechanics that were completely new, and things in it are now used in other games such as its targeting system and multi-purpose action button.

In reply to Ganondorf I feel that Demise created more tension in SS. Because as you play SS you learn that the seal on Demise is weakening and it only a matter of time before he breaks out. Meaning that in the back of your mind you always thinking OMG am I doing this stuff fast enough. Is he going to break loose before I collect all of the tri-force? While in OoT your merely trying to undo all that Ganondorf has done while you were gone for 7 years. Which to me doesn't really add tension because in SS you're fighting/trying to prevent evil from taking over the world. Also Ganondorf is merely a reincarnation of Demise which to me make Demise better cause he's the root of all evil in LoZ and the fact that Demise just looks epic compared to Ganondorf also helps.

The imprisoned looked a bit silly to me, not very threatening, and Impa makes it clear that you could in theory keep resealing it until your death which would be a chore but it's something that can be done, because it has been done before. With Ganondorf it's not what he's going to do it's what he's done which is so shocking and you are faced with the daunting task of overthrowing him.

Ganondorf is not merely a reincarnation of Demise, he became the way he is because of the manifestation of Demise's hatred and he will never be stopped because hate can't be killed it can only grow more intense. Everything demise was apart from his hate was exterminated for good. Ganondorf has his own mind and way of thinking and will reincarnate as Ganondorf eternally if he is ever unable to revive himself for whatever reason. Demise was a one time villain, used to explain the origins of Ganondorf who is much more important to Nintendo. Demise looks good, his look is clearly based on Ganondorf's design. I do think he looks a bit cooler but not dramatically more than Ganondorf. Remember they had six years to come up with and improve the designs for skyward sword.

 

[Butterfly4Life]

So basically you guys can't get over how revolutionary OoT was, to me it doesn't matter how revolutionary a game was for its time to me a game needs to be fun which OoT is not for me. Also while OoT had new control types use of C bottoms and Z targeting the game still used bottom press in order to fight. I'm not saying it wasn't revolutionary for its time but technology is ever evolving so soon games like OoT and SS will be obsolete because technology keeps getting better. Personlly I prefer the new control of SS while not originally created for the game the controls still work excellent. Also to the comment about glitches minly the game breaking one when it was first reported I read about it and it seemed easy enough to avoid. The reason why the glitched happened in the first place is that some one went out of order. Nintendo sent out free DLC which helped unlike in OoT because that couldn't have been done. Besides from that one glitch I never really heard of that the large amount of glitches that you guys found but then again I just play the game unlike some people who go looking for glitches.

 

[Ventus]

I'm not quite stuck on how revolutionary OoT is. I enjoy Super Mario 64 a lot more than Sunshine, but just because SM64 is revolutionary doesn't mean that's why I love it. Fact is, OoT is infinitely more replayable than Skyward. You can do so many things in so many orders, whether it's because you abused a glitch (that btw was intentionally left in OoT3D) or because you simply can, and it makes OoT easily look like the more fun game. Skyward Sword, you can do everything in one static order. Not so much fun.

Nintendo sent out free DLC which helped unlike in OoT because that couldn't have been done. Besides from that one glitch I never really heard of that the large amount of glitches that you guys found but then again I just play the game unlike some people who go looking for glitches.

Actually, patches for OoT3D CAN be done (in fact, a game Kingdom Hearts Dream Drop Distance got some patches in Japan recently), but Nintendo knows that the glitches in OoT are BENEFICIAL to the player experience, that everyone WANTS those glitches in. Nintendo went out of their way to keep a few glitches in OoT3D that previously were in OoT. In comparison, NO ONE wanted the glitches in Skyward Sword, because those were harmful to the player experience. That says a lot about the infrastructure and the general reception of Ocarina compared to Skyward, at least on a nerdy "omgz0rz i gl!tched teh gaemz" level.

 

[Dio]

So basically you guys can't get over how revolutionary OoT was, to me it doesn't matter how revolutionary a game was for its time to me a game needs to be fun which OoT is not for me. Also while OoT had new control types use of C bottoms and Z targeting the game still used bottom press in order to fight. I'm not saying it wasn't revolutionary for its time but technology is ever evolving so soon games like OoT and SS will be obsolete because technology keeps getting better.

Well I say OOT was fun for me and it was fun for millions of other people. OOT will not become obsolete, technology is not going to change how we play games very much. Only the graphics and power of consoles will change, control schemes will be much the same as now. People still play the original LOZ 25 years on and I can guarantee you people will still be playing OOT 10 years down the line when that is 25 years old. People still drive cars that are 100 years old even though the newer designs are superior technically the same goes for games. OOT is an icon that will never be forgotten, it marked a turning point for the world of games.