By Jeremy Moore
Now everyone knows OOT was a great game,
and where it ranks compared tothe others is a matter of
personal taste. But I'm going to talk aboutwhere the
appeal of Zelda 64 was, and when you think of it, its
hard to pinpoint. I feel that Zelda 64 was good, because
it had no weaknesses, or any strengths. It was a well
balanced game with many nice touches, such as Epona or
fishing, no matter what idiosyncrasies they may have had,
they were still fun to do. Now comes the combat, which I
though was done very well. People complained about the
lack of enemies, but with such a complicated combat
system it would have been impossible. Now we have
thrusts, lunges rolls. parries and side jumps, instead of
repetitious tapping of the a and b buttons. Then there is
the storyline, which was great even if the ending was
somewhat lacking. I think the best timeline theory is
53412, on the others people make WAY too many
assumptions, I direct to Gandalfs latest editorial on
TGL, where he claims you start as a kid in OoT, then 1
and 2 happen, then Adulthood in OoT for christs sake. The
thing most people are missing is Gannondorf to Ganon, it
is important.
Oh well there's my 2 cents.
(currently trading at 1.46 US cents)
Staff Comments:
Stalfos333: I agree with the part about no weaknesses, but Zelda64 has many strengths. Perhaps he just meant that it lacks that one strength that sticks out above the rest. I personally thought that the combat system worked well enough. It could be easy so beginners could get by, but with enough moves to keep a hardcore gamer happy.
Crysaler: I agree with Stalfos, but I think that the Adventuring/Questing part of the game stands out from the rest. I just wish that Hyrule could have been a bit larger. It always sucks when video-game worlds are too small.