Author Topic: Galaxy back down to #2, Ocarina taking back the crown. (Read 9144 times)

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #25 on:** November 23, 2007, 02:42:10 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: The Traveller
Yeah WW and TP were technically better games, but both had far less of an impact than Oot did. Mainly because it had already been done in Oot for the most part. Which is why neither received the same critical acclaim.

And while I do prefer both of those games, I think the critical acclaim for OOT over them is deserved.

Dirk Temporo · « **Reply #26 on:** November 23, 2007, 05:21:24 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
OOT is overrated.

Stop being a troll.

Except it was.

Infernal Monkey · « **Reply #27 on:** November 23, 2007, 06:15:48 PM »

OoT and MGS are the two most overrated games ever.

Strell · « **Reply #28 on:** November 23, 2007, 07:06:22 PM »

MGS is the most overrated movie ever.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #29 on:** November 23, 2007, 08:17:53 PM »

I think OOT being the innovator shouldn't count for much. The effect of being the first diminishes after a few years, playing OOT now won't give you any of that "zomg 3d!" feeling so the sequels should be rated higher since they deliver the same 3d experience but are better overall. Same reason noone should play the original Metroid anymore.

DAaaMan64 · « **Reply #30 on:** November 23, 2007, 08:29:11 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I think OOT being the innovator shouldn't count for much. The effect of being the first diminishes after a few years, playing OOT now won't give you any of that "zomg 3d!" feeling so the sequels should be rated higher since they deliver the same 3d experience but are better overall. Same reason noone should play the original Metroid anymore.

And denounce the work that humbled me so just a few years back? Does that not sound pompous?

Strell · « **Reply #31 on:** November 23, 2007, 09:10:42 PM »

Pbhbhbht. Germans.

Or...whatever European country KDR is from.

Go watch Kraftwerk at Struttgart, hippie!

Shift Key · « **Reply #32 on:** November 23, 2007, 09:16:01 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The effect of being the first diminishes after a few years, playing OOT now won't give you any of that "zomg 3d!" feeling so the sequels should be rated higher since they deliver the same 3d experience but are better overall.

And this is why people cannot appreciate the fact that reviews are a snapshot rather than everlasting. Comparing different systems or different period of times is stupid because at the end of the day its an opinion (or a group of opinions if you want to be technically correct).

OoT was groundbreaking for its time. That is why it is #1 now. Complain all you want about how it is an injustice but it is a decision that gamerankings has come up with.

Plugabugz · « **Reply #33 on:** November 23, 2007, 10:33:37 PM »

My desk is the best desk ever made.

Why is it not on that list?

Shift Key · « **Reply #34 on:** November 23, 2007, 10:39:21 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Plugabugz
My desk is the best desk ever made.

Why is it not on that list?

It has limited depth

Plugabugz · « **Reply #35 on:** November 23, 2007, 10:41:31 PM »

I disagree. It has MANY applications, its function is innovative lol and decently priced. It only has limited depth because its a small desk.

Luigi Dude · « **Reply #36 on:** November 23, 2007, 11:25:21 PM »

My only problem with Ocarina of Time at number one is it's unfair because it only has around 30 reviews when other games like Metroid Prime and Resident Evil 4 have over 90, that's three time as many. Since games these days have more reviews then they did back in Ocarina of Times day, it's just not accurate.

Because Metroid Prime having a 96.3% average with 92 reviews, is much more impressive then Ocarina of Time's 97.6% with only 31 reviews. If Ocarina of Time had to have 92 reviews I can guarantee it's average wouldn't be as high as it is now.

This is what makes Gamerankings flawed, since the averages depend on the amount of reviews. If one game has more reviews then the other, then it's impossible to have a fair comparison between the two.

Shift Key · « **Reply #37 on:** November 24, 2007, 12:05:29 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Plugabugz
It only has limited depth because its a small desk.

My desk can increase and decrease its depth whenever I want. How it isn't in this list is beyond comprehension.

Mashiro · « **Reply #38 on:** November 24, 2007, 01:22:34 AM »

Quote
OoT was groundbreaking for its time.

I disagree with this statement but as I've said before even when OoT was released I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

What was so groundbreaking about the game?

Nintendawg · « **Reply #39 on:** November 24, 2007, 02:51:06 AM »

Regardless, Galaxy is an amazing game and hopefully it sells just as well.

darknight06 · « **Reply #40 on:** November 26, 2007, 10:21:21 AM »

My view, I never beat OoT because I hated the way the game flowed and played (I've gotten more looks from other gamers for this statement than enough). IMO it was a huge step backwards from LttP, and as many times as I've come back to play the game to try to finish it I just can't get into it. Same for Metal Gear Solid, except that I actually beat it the first time never went through it again. Even if the ending was different, I felt like I've experienced pretty much everything that it offered as a game. That and I didn't feel like sitting through the soap opera again. It's also why despite the upgrade, I didn't even bother with Twin Snakes, or any Metal Gear afterwards for that matter.

Kairon · « **Reply #41 on:** November 26, 2007, 11:11:13 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
My view, I never beat OoT because I hated the way the game flowed and played (I've gotten more looks from other gamers for this statement than enough). IMO it was a huge step backwards from LttP, and as many times as I've come back to play the game to try to finish it I just can't get into it. Same for Metal Gear Solid, except that I actually beat it the first time never went through it again. Even if the ending was different, I felt like I've experienced pretty much everything that it offered as a game. That and I didn't feel like sitting through the soap opera again. It's also why despite the upgrade, I didn't even bother with Twin Snakes, or any Metal Gear afterwards for that matter.

It's also why you didn't bother with Zelda: TP, right?

I share similar, if much less extreme concerns actually...

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #42 on:** November 26, 2007, 11:15:46 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
My view, I never beat OoT because I hated the way the game flowed and played (I've gotten more looks from other gamers for this statement than enough). IMO it was a huge step backwards from LttP, and as many times as I've come back to play the game to try to finish it I just can't get into it. Same for Metal Gear Solid, except that I actually beat it the first time never went through it again. Even if the ending was different, I felt like I've experienced pretty much everything that it offered as a game. That and I didn't feel like sitting through the soap opera again. It's also why despite the upgrade, I didn't even bother with Twin Snakes, or any Metal Gear afterwards for that matter.

It's also why you didn't bother with Zelda: TP, right?

I share similar, if much less extreme concerns actually...

Kairon loves barebones gameplay.

Mario · « **Reply #43 on:** November 26, 2007, 12:28:35 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
Quote
OoT was groundbreaking for its time.

I disagree with this statement but as I've said before even when OoT was released I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

What was so groundbreaking about the game?

Exactly, it was basically Mario 64 with all gameplay taken out of it.

darknight06 · « **Reply #44 on:** November 26, 2007, 04:22:04 PM »

I did finish TP and WW. They felt better to me, being that it was on a system that can actually handle what was thrown at it. (let's be honest, OoT was too much for the N64. 90% of the time the game ran sub 20 which didn't help the already sluggish feel of the game) However, they still weren't quite it. TP too often felt like it was dragging on just so the producers can say that the game is 40 hours long on the first playthrough. (I almost left this on the shelves at Wii launch because of this) WW's big problem wasn't the cut dungeons or the shorter time to play through it. It's the fact that you NEVER had to worry about dying. Even against Gannon, that fight was over before it begun. I also only beat both games once. WW was never booted up again except to see how it looks in progressive scan and TP was played until a couple other games came in. Personally, I hope the next console Zelda gets radically changed up because after TP and WW I'm not sure I'd be interested in OoT 4.0.

Oh and one more thing. Mario Galaxy >>>>>>>>>>> OoT. It's not perfect, and it is overhyped just like 99% of what you hear the industry raving on and on about, but it corrected a lot of what I didn't like about SMS (hated this too, and not because it was hard) while bringing some of the essence of the pre SM64 days. Now I did like SM64, but it'll never hold a candle to anything YI down. SMG is probably the closest thing to them though, and for that I do have to commend them.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #45 on:** November 26, 2007, 05:55:18 PM »

"90% of the time the game ran sub 20 which didn't help the already sluggish feel of the game"

This is false and exaggerated.

The Traveller · « **Reply #46 on:** November 26, 2007, 06:23:56 PM »

The game looks and runs much nicer on the Cube Collection disk than the original N64 version.

News:

Author Topic: Galaxy back down to #2, Ocarina taking back the crown. (Read 9144 times)