I can't in good faith give this game a good rating. 3D Zelda games are plagued with so many issues, that most of them are either boring or infuriating. The N64 Zeldas are more infuriating while the later ones are more just boring. I've tried to play this game 3 times now and let me tell you some of the breaking points that existed for me

The first time, I tried to present the letter to the zora king but it didn't work so I spent 2 hours trying to find out what to do, just to find out that I was not standing the right spot. The second time was trying to find out what to do after the bad jabu jabu "dungeon" just to realize that I didn't pay attention to the cutscene enough where zelda throws a thing in the water in front of the town. This time around, was doing the forest temple and the required small key was in the beginning where you have to climb a vine texture that blends into the background. These moments suck but these are more "the straw that broke the camels back" than the real causes. 3D Zelda games tend to be very obtuse and inconsistently fun. Most of these games consist of dialouge, lots of walking, terrible combat, and dungeons. Only one of those things is good and its not the walking.

You know, for how much these Zelda game have to say, it sure is a whole lot of nothing. This is a larger problem of every 3d zelda where they all have story and all of them are damn near the same and add nothing of value. But also every game has unskippable dialogue and mindless chatter. The story is nothing, its meaningless, its all the same. Link is the hero he has to kill ganon, then he does. You always have to help the zora and do a water dungeon, you always have to help the gorons and do a lava/fire dungeon. You always get the hookshot, and the bow, and bombs, and a boomerang, a couple bottles, and some type of instrument. The dungeons are always the same, the items are the same, the characters are the same. SO IF EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS THE SAME, WHY DO YOU KEEP GIVING ME A BORING UNSKIPPABLE STORY? This is less targeted at ocarina of time, being that it is the first 3d one but it is something this game still suffers from.

The combat is awful, I know this is a 1997 n64 game but I still do not enjoy this combat. Its clunky, slow and barely functional with the terrible camera controls.

There is some good though. The dungeons are mostly fun. Twilight princess 100% has better dungeons than this game but there are still cool. The dungeons here struggle being interesting considering this is the first attempt into 3d, but they have the core elements that make zelda dungeons fun. Theres a lot of really strange things that players will have to figure out in the n64 zelda game to clear it without looking it up, like my earlier example of the forest temple. I spent a lot of time in jabu jabus dungeon, because I didnt realize to get to the boss room, I had to use the boxes that only exist in that one room for the button. Or sneaking into the hyrule castle for the first time and not realizing you had the power to climb steep slopes all of a sudden. In a way, OoT has issues that tomb raider 2 has, where it requires you to do things that the player had access to but would never know. For example, in tomb raider 2, theres a level where you can climb bookshelves, but you can't climb all bookshelves, only those specific ones in that level.

The music in this game is also great and boosted my rating of this game by at least half a star. It has some absolute classic tracks that are iconic to this day.

I've given this game many chances though, I've tried to be patient but even looking back, I can't say much of my time spent playing this game was doing anything that much fun outside of the dungeons. Its strange to me that a franchise so creatively bankrupt that has barely improved upon itself is considered one of the best in the industry. I'm sorry, but I don't like the best game of all time.

I’m going to destroy the nonexistent credibility I have and criticize OOT. It’s not bad by any stretch, more an indication of my changing tastes and what I look for in a video game. I admit I was never a big fan of this game, but I couldn’t place my finger on why. After some deliberation, I figured it out.

Zelda is an action, puzzle, adventure franchise. You explore the world for secrets, complete puzzles to traverse the dungeons, you fight bosses and enemies, it’s all self-explanatory. OOT’s job was translating the design of the previous Zelda’s, notably ALTP, into 3D. Assessing how well it accomplishes that job, it’s solid, but far from perfect.


ALTP’s Hyrule field felt expansive but contained, just the right size to pack full of secrets. Progression was open ended enough to feel player lead without relying on a guide. I remember finding items such as the flippers and medallions thinking I found some broken powerup, only to realize that they were required to open certain dungeons. I remember how I needed to use the hook-shot to access the second half of the Dark World. I remember how items from one dungeon were required to beat another. I remember how it all culminated in Ganon’s Tower; a gauntlet that remains brutal no matter how many heart pieces you have.

It’s surprising to play a game with the confidence to gatekeep progression behind the players own curiosity to explore. Ironically, it gives the player everything they need to succeed but remains brutal in its challenge. It somehow conveys these values better than Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, games centered around player discovery.

Ocarina of Time is infamous for Hyrule Field, a sprawling green field of nothing, but its other areas are just as bland. Lake Hylia is a lake housing the Water Temple in the middle, Death Mountain is a linear path containing stops to Dodongo’s Cavern and the Goron City, Zoro’s Domain is a straight line ending in the waterfall where you play Zelda’s Lullaby.

It’s not the lack of meaningful exploration, or Link’s slow movement, that’s the issue (though they are factors.) It’s as if these areas have no interest in anything besides getting you to the next dungeon or “place-where-the-story-happens.” It’s the lack of detours and depth that makes this iteration of Hyrule less interesting. The world design is the definition of something that’s “aged poorly.” What was once impressive with its ability to render sprawling landscapes only becomes less impressive with time, demonstrating a lack of foresight.

The bosses in A Link to the Past sell the “action” in action-adventure. They had weaknesses, you often used the dungeon item to provide an advantage, but they were fights first and foremost. They required strategy and skill to overcome. The Helmasaur King had you use items to break his helmet. After his helmet broke, the fight continued. You now had to attack his green weak point, but he was still shooting fireballs and using tail swipes. Trinexx needed the Ice and Fire rod to stun the protruding heads. Once they’re defeated, the main head starts snaking around the player, subverting the fight in a way that’s surprising and memorable. With the right strategy, many of these bosses can be trivialized, but they’re designed in a way that tests both your knowledge of the mechanics and skills in maneuvering Link to dodge attacks. The interactions were varied and nuanced in a way disturbingly absent from the rest of the series.

Ocarina of Time. Gohma, wait for its eye to turn red then attack with the slingshot, it then lies down for you to attack it. King Dodongo, wait for its mouth to open to throw a bomb, it then lies down for you to attack it. Twinrova, you wait for them to shoot a beam so you can reflect it, they then lie down for you to attack. These are egregious examples, but every fight is like this. It’s a boring and binary interaction repeated 9+ times.

The bosses and world design are a simple product of my central problem with OOT. It’s transition to 3D adopts a more streamlined and predictable approach to everything you encounter, and that’s unproductive when applied to a game claiming to be about “adventure.” The appeal of an adventure is finding what surprises await you, but when it’s so easy to boil every encounter down to a formula it gets less interesting. A Link to the Past has stayed timeless in my mind because it doesn’t fall for the trap of predictability. Unfortunately, Ocarina of Time does, and it’s a worse game for it.


You can say that all these aspects were simple growing pains of a franchise moving toward the third dimension, with which I will wholeheartedly agree. However, the term “growing pains” implies the thing experiencing the shortcomings has moved past the stage of development they were in, and unfortunately, I disagree.

My biggest problem with OOT isn’t with the game itself, but with the Victory Disease it gave the franchise. Every subsequent 3D Zelda except for BOTW is essentially an attempt to one-up Ocarina of Time by tying it to a new novelty. Unknowingly inheriting the same flaws and cliches, never evolving as a product.

Wind Waker, what if Ocarina of Time was more expansive? Twilight Princess, what if Ocarina of Time was darker? Skyward Sword, what if Ocarina of Time was a shitty prequel? It’s a reductive assessment of these games’ quality, but their ties to a flawed game limits what they can do. As a result, they fail to interest me.


Ocarina of Time is not bad by any stretch, but it’s not what I look for in a video game anymore. I chase things that are new, surprising, risky, and not afraid to offend. Ocarina is not what I look for in an adventure. You can love this game, along with its successors all you want, and I will understand why. Unfortunately, I can’t share that passion with you.