You all acted exactly as I predicted! I love doing experiments to see what people will do. That and I was bored and I really wanted to point out the flaws of the game. So for your patience I will give you all a real review as soon as I write it. I've been sick and I'm still not feeling great. I want to write something spectacular so HAVE SOME PATEINCE

"PS3 sucks by the way."
Lol, what did that have to do with Ocarina of Time? Sorry, I just laughed when I read that line. It seemed a little out of place. 

Not to be mean, but this is more of a rant than a review. As Anakin already pointed out, if you're going to say the story has plot holes, then go into a little more detail. If you're going to say the story is bland, then you need to explain why it's bland instead of just saying "Just bland."

I enjoy OoT, but I don't consider it the best game ever. It's not even my favorite Zelda game. However, I do think it's an awesome game. There's also a certain thing about "legacy" games that have such high praise about them. Like, they are more likeable and considered the best to those who played the game in its prime. What I mean by that is, if you played OoT during the N64 era, then you'll probably hold it to higher value for at least two reasons: (1) nostalgic value, and (2) the fact that you were able to be in the era where you could actually see how the game was improving (i.e., how OoT was the first Zelda game to be in 3D, and the first of many now-common Zelda features, etc). For example, if you played Wind Waker first, then go back and play OoT for the first time, some of OoT's thunder is stolen because some of the features that made OoT so groundbreaking have been passed on to WindWaker. This happens a lot in a franchise that is so large ... things carry on, so when you go back to an older game where the "things" originated from, you're not so surprised with it. I'm not sure when the first time you played OoT was, but that doesn't really matter. Everyone has their own opinions.

The 'side quests' you mention are actually main-quests....they directly affect the main story.  Saying they are 'side quests' and then saying they're a 'necessary evil' is kind of contradictory...they either aren't necessary(side quests), or they are(main quest).

That small bit aside, I have to say that they're VERY welcome in my opinion.  Let's say you just went from dungeon to dungeon about eight times in a row....what's the point?  Why am I there?  After a while, it would just feel like I'm doing the same thing over and over again.... you need something to break it up, switch it around, make it interesting.

Even aside from that, anyone who reads or writes stories would know that a story filled only with battle isn't going to be very interesting.  From an artistic/creative-writing standpoint, I love these so-called 'side quests' because they include YOU, the user, into the world, both in epic and seemingly simple situations.  The first has you joining Zelda by the window looking into the castle, and she talks with you, showing you the person who she suspects is the enemy, and telling you of a plan she has.  Suddenly, you have a reason to WANT to go to the next dungeon - you have to find the rest of these treasures to ensure protection of what that man apparently wants to steal.  Now you proceed onward feeling like you're a part of something, displaying a letter of authority to one guard who doesn't really believe you, and playing a song signifying your importance to the gorons.  Finally you go on to the dugneon with a purpose, and while the importance of figuring out the puzzles within the dungeon itself takes precedence for that small amount of time, getting to the boss or after its defeat reminds you of why you're doing all of this, and you're happy that you're one step closer to completing it.

All of this involves YOU, the player, so that you feel like you're actually a part of that world.  You can ESPECIALLY see this in Majora's Mask, where you see the problems and daily concerns of most individual citizens, and even have an impact on their lives.  Take all of that away, and you might as well be some made-up, faceless, Not-Link character in a Not-Zelda game wandering through maze after maze, until you beat the final maze and boss.  Big deal.  These not-dungeon quests actually give a face to what the game "Zelda" is actually about, a reason for this game-world to actually make sense, and be a lot less obvious that it's a game.

It's practically the core part of the game.  You wouldn't read a book just to skip all of the wordy-details and get right to the battles and confrontations, would you?  Why would you play a series known for its characters and music and landscapes, and throw all of that out just to play through the main dungeons and bosses?  Are you hoping to just beat the game as quickly as you can so you can push it off to the side and play something else?  Granted, I'm not into Zelda anymore myself, but it's for much different reasons, and partially because I was never a dedicated-fan to begin with.....but if there was one thing I appreciated, it was that it made the story and your own personal involvement so endearing that you WANTED to keep going further.  It just seems rediculous to claim that it's a hinderence......maybe if you'd read about the game before you played it, or spoiled the story before you played it, or played a game ahead of OoT and THEN came back knowing most of what was going on, or you just REALLY don't like to read and hate story in games altogether, THEN you could possibly want to just skip what you already know.  But playing through it for the first time during the era that it was actually new and hi-tech, all of that was very welcomed, and made the game what it is.  It's funny, because although it's not the main battle part of the game, the story/"side quest" is exactly what MAKES it so well liked.....it's very subtle, yet wraps itself around every important part of the game to make it complete.

In stating immediately that you're SURE someone would be "upset" from your review, and then rambling off inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading statements and opinions one after another, I'd have to assume that was your actual GOAL with this review.  Rather than give a fair and balanced view of what the game is actually like, you've only seeded it with your own opinion in hopes of making people mad for unknown reasons, or have them just assume that it was all written as a quick joke to make people remember why they appreciate it...

That's kind of the same thing, saying that the backbone of what makes it a Zelda game(rather than a quick dungeon-to-dungeon brawler) is actually 'a flaw' when it was more of an opinion.  It really isn't a review if it's meant to point out supposed 'flaws' when most of said-flaws are opinions on how the game works, not actual problems that prevent it from being playable or likeable.

For that matter, most of the problems with OoT WERE overlooked back then, but that's entirely because the game was the first of its kind, and we overlook them because the improvements made down the road were not available back then.  It would be like pointing out that Super Mario Brothers is worse because it wasn't as good as Super Mario Brothers 3.... of course it's not as good/complex, but in its own context, it's still a good game.  Comparing OoT to 'better' games that came out after it is taking it out of its own context and simply saying that it's not as good.  Of course it's not as great as recent games...it was made back in 1998...ten years ago....but now it's being put-down because it's not a recent game?  Come on.

Besides that, my statements are directed towards his disgust of the story elements which he labels as 'side-quests'...that's not "a flaw most people overlook", that's a big part of the game, and what makes the player a part of it.  I'm not attacking ZGDK for saying these things at all, I'm saying he's just picking at parts of the game HE didn't like, and making it sound like it's a flaw that everyone should be aware of, and that the game isn't as good because of it.  To which, I still disagree.


Really, if I wanted to point out flaws in OoT, that'd be entirely too easy.  It's an old game, it has problems.  It's not 100% perfect, especially compared to other games.  But it has a certain 'feel' to it, and it's very nostalgic for a lot of people.  For that matter, the people who played it in the context of its release time know how good it was during that time, and that's where most of the high-ratings for it come from.

I can understand if he's irritated that such an old game gets high reviews.  I feel the same way about Earthbound....I know a lot of people like it, but I find it too simple, and I can never get into it.  But that's my opinion.  I know and recognize that there are many games out there that I like, that other people do not, so I'm well aware that if I don't like a game for reasons that are unique to me, there are bound to be people who don't mind or even like those same reasons/points.  But if I went in and made opinionated statements about common elements as if they were truths that everyone should listen to, you can bet I'd get raked for it.  I'd expect it... only if I had enough reason to back up my claims, and make sure to state that this was simply my feelings on the game, would I really go through with it....but if I tried to change their view with such statements, it'd never happen...it'd only make them defensive and fire back.