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)
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.