Support NeoGAF

[Cutty Flam]

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is arguably one of the greatest games ever created, if not the greatest game of all time as many would likely argue in favor of

Developed and released in less than 1.5 years after the release of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is arguably just as great of a game as its predecessor. Can even be argued that Majora's Mask is greater than Ocarina of Time

Has there ever been such an instance in gaming history when something even close to this has happened? These are two games that most gaming magazines back in the day all likely had in their top twenty-five somewhere if we're talking about those top fifty to top one hundred games of all time lists. To me, OOT and MM are to gaming as the Mona Lisa is art. Invaluable to the industry. The creativity and craft within each of those two games is unmatched, and will probably fuel discussion for countless generations to come. And to this day, I still can barely grasp how epic and overall amazing OOT is. And then less than two years later, the most impressive sequel ever created in gaming history, is released. How did Nintendo EAD manage to create two unbelievably compelling games in such rapid succession and will we ever see anything like this in gaming again?

MM took one year to develop and a smaller team than the one that had worked on OOT was needed, which makes this all even more impressive. I get that Nintendo used the same game engine and graphics as OOT, but the fact that MM is about on equal footing with OOT in terms of overall quality with just one year of development? That's almost unbelievable. It almost doesn't compute. And it's such an immaculate feat in gaming, that there ought to be a documentary on the full creative process that took place during the development of OOT and MM

Honestly, if we don't get these two games in a Collectors Edition celebrating the 35th Anniversary of The Legend of Zelda, just throw me into the Matrix to battle a few hundred Agent Smiths

 

[Life]

More time doesn't necessarily equal more quality.

 

[SCB3]

I can think of Metal Gear Solid being somewhat close with the first 3

MGS was 1998
2 was 2001
3 was 2003

All very good and high quality, MGS2 still looks fantastic today in 4k and does alot of things that modern games don't do today

Also, for what its worth, a lot of Zelda fans don't like MM as much, it was a bit too different to traditional Zelda, much like Zelda 2 and BotW are as well

 

[SantaC]

I miss the days when developers took more creative risks with their games.

 

[Mmnow]

It says a lot for the honeymoon period of gaming, I think. You didn't need fantastic resolution or even a decent framerate - you didn't even need brand new assets. You just took what worked and build something new.

A huge amount of what makes Majora's Mask special is its scenario, its world and its side quests.

Here's a scenario: take a random AAA game from the last few years. Lower the resolution and framerate, because optimization takes time (not exactly realistic, but necessary for the comparison). Give the developers a year. They make a new game using exactly the same assets and then charge $70 for it.

How do you think that'd go down?

People moan about Call of Duty as a yearly release, and that has a three year development period.

More time doesn't necessarily equal more quality.

This is going to get a lot of likes, but I think it's a little reductive. It's true, but also "less time doesn't equal more quality" is true as well. Games need more time today to get to a basic level of what is acceptable to an audience. That's just a basic fact.

The amount of times where "more time doesn't necessarily equal more quality" is absolutely true in the gaming industry is going to be a single figure percentage.

 

[NikuNashi]

Related to this point, I hear a lot of people asking or anticipating BOTW2. I always think that Zelda never does sequels to games that are similar to the previous incarnation. OoT and MM being a great example, so why do people think Nintendo will break with tradition and churn out a #2 that will be similar to BOTW.

 

[Ceadeus]

I find that Nintendo at that period, had a great analytical sense for what a very well built interconnected 3D world would be like. It also was their best effort at making a role playing game where every character have their own personality and some of them, side quest and secrets . It's even better in MM.

I think it always been Nintendo's strength to be able to schematic innovative , brand new ideas and makes it work.

 

[HE1NZ]

I played them on Wii and didn't care for them. Especially Majora's Mask is just terrible. I wish they ported remakes to Switch, don't want to revisit these games on 3DS.

 

[Spaceman292]

Twilight Princess is better than Ocarina and you all know it.

 

[DGrayson]

Final Fantasy V - December 6, 1992
Final Fantasy VI - April 2, 1994

 

[BlackTron]

Related to this point, I hear a lot of people asking or anticipating BOTW2. I always think that Zelda never does sequels to games that are similar to the previous incarnation. OoT and MM being a great example, so why do people think Nintendo will break with tradition and churn out a #2 that will be similar to BOTW.

I am counting on this for BOTW2. If it's the same as BOTW1, I don't want it.

 

[HE1NZ]

Fallout - October 10, 1997
Fallout 2 - October 29, 1998

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Yep, OOT and MM are really two parts of the same work, in a sense. It’s really impossible to me to choose one, even if Majora struck a very special chord in my heart and it’s something that Nintendo never managed to do again ever since.

OOT is the quintessential Nintendo game: does something nobody else did before; rewrites several rules of game design and gameplay out of the blue; has more secrets and charm than an entire game series; controls perfectly considering the time of release and the abysmal framerate; it’s relentlessly brilliant with basically no downs. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime masterpiece.

MM, on the other hand, is the perfect example of that side of Nintendo you never expect. It takes a seemingly established formula and twists it into something bizarre, both in narrative and in gameplay, with many completely unexpected scenes and themes and design choices that seem baffling at first, only to become just natural once you’re accustomed to them. MM’s storytelling is simply phenomenal, and the fact that most of its best moments are completely optional and up to you to discover makes it all the better. And the game’s overall design even surpasses OOT at times, no easy feat after such a short development time.

These two games are an anomaly in the sense that it’s incredible how different they are compared to how similar they seem at first glance, and considering what short a timespan separates them.

 

[HE1NZ]

MM is beyond annoying with it's time limits and restarts. Artificially prolongues the length of the game. City puzzles are so confusing and bad I skipped most of them.

 

[Yoshi]

It is special insofar as those are two of the best games ever made and they are so drastically different even though they share a lot of assets. Other similar pairs such as Mario Odyssey 1 & 2 exist, but I am unaware of instances where the games are so wildly different.

 

[Rean no Kiseki]

I miss the days when developers took more creative risks with their games.

Can’t have that in the age of no compromise, if you're game's not a garunteed hit it wouldn't get past the idea stage.

Games like Devil May Cry, Okami, Viewtiful Joe, Persona 3, God Hand, Tomba! Sly Cooper, and many more won't be made today unless as a piece of shit "indie" where the it has the budget of shoe strings an abysmal art style, level design, gameplay and music that makes you want to pierce your ears.

I read somewhere that Castlevania Symphony of the Night was made for around 6-10 Million which means the game would easily turn a profit by selling 200-300k copies! And that game was re released under the greatest hits label which means it sold over 500k-1M!

 

[lostinblue]

Limitations can often help focus a product.


Ocarina of Time has a certain mix of experimentalism we couldn't see on a modern Zelda, I believe that could be in because the polish needed was lower than what you need to do today. A good example (albeit in Master Quest) is how somebody put multiple cow's on the Jabu Jabu walls. Today that could only be a prototype, then you'd have to spend a lot of time implementing it because you want it to look better, plus, it probably needs to make sense too.

There's a funny annecdote about OoT assets, compared to today, a lot of textures are shared due to memory constrains but also because of how things were done back then, when people started replacing textures in the game they learnt that the hard way, want to replace the wood texture on the door frame in Lon Lon Ranch and Kakariko Village? Well, a lot of things made of wood in the game will be replaced by that texture then. (there are people replacing them with metal textures and getting unexpected results elsewhere). What more was there to do with a wood texture in 1998, than give the idea it was, well, wood.

Similarly, notice how older Final Fantasy's felt like they had more freedom in the things they did, FFVI? Imagine if modern Square-Enix had to do the Ceres Opera with modern graphics? they would just cut it out of the game - as is, it probably didn't take a lot of development time. Also, on FFVI, pretty sure crossdresser cloud would take months to implement on modern technology as opposed to something that might have started as an internal joke of sorts, it could be implemented in 5 minutes. I'm sure it's only in the remake because it's from a fan-favorite game from 1997, but something like that, couldn't happen on a modern game of that series. Things could be done on a whim, games were better for it.

Ocarina of Time was ahead of the pack in 1998 technology-wise, but wasn't too realistic, so a lot of the content could actually be implemented in a short period of time, and you didn't have to worry about whether it was wacky or not. Imagine the speaking frogs ocarina segment, or the magic bean platforms in Twilight Princess, it already wouldn't fit. Curiously, Wind Waker was the last Zelda where this would all fit in, and look how well regarded it is.

Current Zelda lost it's humour, it's quirky japanese'ness. And it only got some of that back (well, kept) on the NPC characters (the way some sellers and the like look).


Anyway because of how much simpler it was, most of the content in Ocarina of Time was really created within a 2 year timeframe (we know what they had in 1996, and apart from the engine it wasn't much - on Spaceworld 1996 - so, september - they shown that demo of the first Zelda 1 dungeon in 3D, where there was no boss and link got the triforce in the end of it), OoT materialized and came together in 1997 and 1998, really) they thought, if they re-used assets, including scrapped content they could pull a follow up with smaller scope within one year.

Thing is, they couldn't. Team was smaller and they had quite a bit of ambition so it turned into a grind fest. The kind that makes the Director, Aonuma to clearly not understand what he achieved on it today. Which made for plenty of tone-deaf changes on MM 3DS.

A lot of the decisions in Majora Mask were done on a moving car, type of situation, but that's what really focused it, gave it that special flavour and made it genuine. If it was an album, it's the sort that musicians don't like to revisit because of the memories of how that time made them feel, and probably don't remember most of it anyway, either due to lack of sleep, opioids or perhaps PTSD.

But what a game it was.

It is special insofar as those are two of the best games ever made and they are so drastically different even though they share a lot of assets. Other similar pairs such as Mario Odyssey 1 & 2 exist, but I am unaware of instances where the games are so wildly different.

I haven't played Odyssey, but do you mean Galaxy, or you unlock a second game by the end of Odyssey?

 

[I Love Rock 'n' Roll]

No.
Shenmue came just a year after Ocarina of Time and a few months before Majora's Mask. And Half Life came in 1998 too.

 

[Yoshi]

I haven't played Odyssey, but do you mean Galaxy, or you unlock a second game by the end of Odyssey?

I mean Galaxy indeed.

 

[Xdrive05]

I've been replaying all the 3d Zelda games lately in fits and starts, because I'm introducing them to my 7 year old who has been a BotW fan since the Switch launched and he was just old enough to understand it. I have a fairly fresh perspective on all of them.

There really is something unique about the N64 Zeldas that's not as well replicated in the later ones. WW, TP and SS are better games than the N64 titles in some very different ways from each other, but there is some X factor missing from them.

My kid's favorite by far is OoT. He also finds MM interesting, but I think the time based mechanics is a bit too complicated for a little kid to grasp and appreciate. He always goes back to OoT and thinks it's just the greatest thing ever. I think OoT works on so many levels. First, there's no gimmick. Gimmicks are fine and have their place, but OoT is just pure Zelda goodness with strong mastery. Lots of dungeons with varied puzzle elements. Amazing sound design and music scores all throughout. You can say the Ocarina is a gimmick, and it kind of is, but it doesn't really get in the way of pure Zelda.

By contrast:

• MM has you managing & micromanaging time of day in order to solve puzzles and trigger events to finish quests (I love this, btw, but it is a massive departure from "pure Zelda").
• WW has you sailing more than exploring. And then beyond that, it is "Zelda lite" in a lot of ways. Amazing game but I would have loved a lot more meat on the bones.
• TP forces you to use the wolf mechanic way too much. Some of it is interesting and well done, but a lot of it is tedious and subtracts from the "pure Zelda" that is otherwise there in spades. TP is kind of OoT for adults, but some of that "adulting" just makes the game play not as well as it should have otherwise. But the content is definitely there in a big way, unlike most of the rest of the post-N64 games.
• SS frankly relies too heavily on the motion control gimmicks. It just gets in the way of an otherwise interesting game. This was the only Zelda I did not feel compelled to even continue playing after about the first dungeon. From what I could see in let's plays and such, there just wasn't that much of an interesting Zelda game there beyond the gimmick - at least compared to others.

One observation: the N64 Zeldas get right to the point. There is no 4 hours long "training segment" right at the very beginning like you see increasingly in the later titles (up until BotW broke that terrible mold thank god).

Honestly, it's got to be a "time and place" thing. Whatever the Zelda team was back in the late 1990's, they just had a very clear vision of how those games played best in 3d. And then right after that they (or their replacements) started shifting focus to things that often distracted from what matters in the series.

EDIT: I think MM is the most impressive 3D Zelda game by FAR, design wise, up until BotW. I would have to write a whole a thread about why, but I imagine most of you know about this already. MM is a complete miracle on a cart. The planning that went into making that concept work on an N64 is just nuts. But the above post is specifically about what makes a Zelda game good, and especially from the fresh perspective of a young kid like mine, for whom MM is just a little too much to understand at this time. I think his mind will be blown in a year or two when he start getting the context of everything in the world happening on a schedule.

EDIT #2: Also, I'll just leave this here for your viewing pleasure:

Texture Packs | Henriko Magnifico

www.henrikomagnifico.com

 

[EverydayBeast]

TP is basically OoT on steroids and MM’s Termina is Hyrule field with a better atmosphere so you can thank these two for those masterpieces

 

[Sophist]

"Are these two games an anomaly?"

GTA3 22 October 2001
GTA Vice City 29 October 2002

From Wikipedia:

Rockstar North began to develop Grand Theft Auto: Vice City in late 2001, around the time of Grand Theft Auto III's release. While initial development only involved creating 3D models, executive producer Sam Houser said "it really kicked off at the beginning of 2002" and lasted about nine months. After the release of the Windows version of Grand Theft Auto III, the development team discussed creating a mission pack for the game that would add new weapons, vehicles, and missions. Upon further discussion, the team decided to make this concept a stand-alone game, which became Vice City. The game was announced on 22 May 2002, during the Electronic Entertainment Expo. It was Rockstar North's most expensive game at the time, with a budget of US$5 million. On 5 September 2002, the company announced that the release date of 22 October had been postponed until 29 October to meet product demand. By 15 October 2002, development of Vice City stopped as the game was submitted for manufacturing.

 

[fart town usa]

Resident Evil - March 22nd 1996
Resident Evil 2 - January 21st 1998

And that's after completely scrapping a version of RE2 that was like 70% complete.

Absolute Wizardry.

 

[Ten_Fold]

Related to this point, I hear a lot of people asking or anticipating BOTW2. I always think that Zelda never does sequels to games that are similar to the previous incarnation. OoT and MM being a great example, so why do people think Nintendo will break with tradition and churn out a #2 that will be similar to BOTW.

Right it’s probably gonna be pretty different, just like OOT/MM. Some people just won’t understand.

 

[Soodanim]

"Are these two games an anomaly?"

GTA3 22 October 2001
GTA Vice City 29 October 2002

From Wikipedia:

Rockstar North began to develop Grand Theft Auto: Vice City in late 2001, around the time of Grand Theft Auto III's release. While initial development only involved creating 3D models, executive producer Sam Houser said "it really kicked off at the beginning of 2002" and lasted about nine months. After the release of the Windows version of Grand Theft Auto III, the development team discussed creating a mission pack for the game that would add new weapons, vehicles, and missions. Upon further discussion, the team decided to make this concept a stand-alone game, which became Vice City. The game was announced on 22 May 2002, during the Electronic Entertainment Expo. It was Rockstar North's most expensive game at the time, with a budget of US$5 million. On 5 September 2002, the company announced that the release date of 22 October had been postponed until 29 October to meet product demand. By 15 October 2002, development of Vice City stopped as the game was submitted for manufacturing.

What gets me about these games is that for all the development time and money put into modern sequels none of them come close to the quality of OoT/MM and GTA3/VC/SA. In terms of profit, sure, because the industry is in a different place right now. But in terms of condensed quality they're unmatched. Breath of the Wild is the only one that comes close for some, because it made a massive change after several games of mixed reviews. It leans so heavily into its gameplay systems (for better or for worse), but arguably isn't a great Zelda game. GTA5? It's not a better game than any of the mentioned, it's just a vessel for the sandbox that is GTA Online.

 

[PooBone]

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is arguably one of the greatest games ever created, if not the greatest game of all time as many would likely argue in favor of

Developed and released in less than 1.5 years after the release of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is arguably just as great of a game as its predecessor. Can even be argued that Majora's Mask is greater than Ocarina of Time

Has there ever been such an instance in gaming history when something even close to this has happened? These are two games that most gaming magazines back in the day all likely had in their top twenty-five somewhere if we're talking about those top fifty to top one hundred games of all time lists. To me, OOT and MM are to gaming as the Mona Lisa is art. Invaluable to the industry. The creativity and craft within each of those two games is unmatched, and will probably fuel discussion for countless generations to come. And to this day, I still can barely grasp how epic and overall amazing OOT is. And then less than two years later, the most impressive sequel ever created in gaming history, is released. How did Nintendo EAD manage to create two unbelievably compelling games in such rapid succession and will we ever see anything like this in gaming again?

MM took one year to develop and a smaller team than the one that had worked on OOT was needed, which makes this all even more impressive. I get that Nintendo used the same game engine and graphics as OOT, but the fact that MM is about on equal footing with OOT in terms of overall quality with just one year of development? That's almost unbelievable. It almost doesn't compute. And it's such an immaculate feat in gaming, that there ought to be a documentary on the full creative process that took place during the development of OOT and MM

Honestly, if we don't get these two games in a Collectors Edition celebrating the 35th Anniversary of The Legend of Zelda, just throw me into the Matrix to battle a few hundred Agent Smiths

There's several documentaries about the different stages and changes the game went through. Youtube Gameover Jesse.

 

[Rat Rage]

Has there ever been such an instance in gaming history when something even close to this has happened?

No. It will never be topped.

 

[Yoshi]

SS frankly relies too heavily on the motion control gimmicks. It just gets in the way of an otherwise interesting game. This was the only Zelda I did not feel compelled to even continue playing after about the first dungeon. From what I could see in let's plays and such, there just wasn't that much of an interesting Zelda game there beyond the gimmick - at least compared to others.

I have to strongly disagree here. While the motion feature does play a big role in combat, what makes SS an amazing game (and the best Zelda in my eyes, though not the most well rounded one*) is the very densely designed overworld filled with great environmental puzzles and the great dungeons. SS is probably the Zelda game with the least downtime.

* That's OoT which has almost no issues and balances the three elements, puzzles, skill, and exploration the most evenly. SS focusses a lot on puzzles to the detriment of exploration, TWW and even morseo BotW focus on exploration to the detriment of puzzling.

 

[K' Dash]

I'll do you one up OP:

Metroid Prime and Metroid Fusion launching one day apart.

THAT will never happen again.

 

[fart town usa]

I have to strongly disagree here. While the motion feature does play a big role in combat, what makes SS an amazing game (and the best Zelda in my eyes, though not the most well rounded one*) is the very densely designed overworld filled with great environmental puzzles and the great dungeons. SS is probably the Zelda game with the least downtime.

* That's OoT which has almost no issues and balances the three elements, puzzles, skill, and exploration the most evenly. SS focusses a lot on puzzles to the detriment of puzzling, TWW and even morseo BotW focus on exploration to the detriment of puzzling.

I revisited SS over the holidays and as someone who hated the game when it released, I really enjoyed it this time around. I still have complaints but I won't go into them. One thing I actually really enjoyed was having to make pitstops in Skyloft and buy upgrades and ammo, etc. It's definitely a different Zelda experience and I get why some people may not enjoy it. I'm glad I came around to it though, still need to go back and finish it. I'm roughly 3/4 of the way through.

 

[Xdrive05]

I have to strongly disagree here. While the motion feature does play a big role in combat, what makes SS an amazing game (and the best Zelda in my eyes, though not the most well rounded one*) is the very densely designed overworld filled with great environmental puzzles and the great dungeons. SS is probably the Zelda game with the least downtime.

* That's OoT which has almost no issues and balances the three elements, puzzles, skill, and exploration the most evenly. SS focusses a lot on puzzles to the detriment of puzzling, TWW and even morseo BotW focus on exploration to the detriment of puzzling.

I'm going to give it another shot based on what you said here. I may not have gone in deep enough get to the meat. Thanks for commenting and sharing a different view!

 

[VGEsoterica]

Both are incredible games for sure. Lets hope BotW 2 is the Majora's Mask to BotW

 

[Shakka43]

I'd say if it wasn't for those pesky Survival games the Resident Evil franchise would've had a decade(-ish) of excellence from 1996-2005.

 

[fart town usa]

I'm going to give it another shot based on what you said here. I may not have gone in deep enough get to the meat. Thanks for commenting and sharing a different view!

If you do give it another shot, just some advice...Just be patient, the game is a slog at times but when I revisited it a few months back, I really took my time and never forced myself to play when I wasn't feeling it. I had a great time, some things were frustrating but as a whole, I'm really glad I went back to it. It has some fantastic dungeons and the music is wonderful.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

FFVII - January 31, 1997
FFVIII - February 11, 1999
FFIX - July 7, 2000
FFX - July 19, 2001

All that in 4.5 years is ridiculous, especially considering everything else Square released during that time.

 

[Deputy Moonman]

I didn't like MM as much, personally. TP was the true sequel to OoT that I had been waiting for and I loved it. SS is probably my least favorite zelda entry of all time. But more on topic, the quality of OoT and MM while releasing within 2 years of each other is impressive. Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 released within 2.5 years of each other. Not quite as short but close. Funny enough, I didn't really care for the galaxy games lol.

 

[GaviotaGrande]

I think GTA series is the best example of this.

GTA III - 2001
GTA Vice City - 2002
GTA San Andreas - 2004

It's been 8 years since the last GTA.

 

[Belmonte]

It would be an anomaly if we are talking about a mediocre/good enough series which suddenly released OOT and MM. We are talking about Zelda, one of the greatest gaming franchises ever. I don't want to sound like a fanboy but the previous game was A Link to the Past! Legendary game. And the spin-offs are great also.

This is like calling Mario 64 an anomaly after having Mario World, Mario World 2 and Mario 3.

What happened to OOT is that it's impact was greater because of the jump to 3D. Even MM suffered from the "it is not OOT2" syndrome because of the impact.

 

[Dream-Knife]

They are amazing games. Majora's Mask is actually what got me back into video games in 2017. I didn't like the game when I was younger, but wanted to play a Zelda game with puzzles. Game had very few, but it drew me in.

I don't really care about a remake. The 3ds versions of both games were...off. I don't know what it was but they didn't feel right. Not using the C buttons for the ocarina is also wrong.

Much like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, I consider these games a set and can't really choose one over the other.

 

[A Elbereth Gilthoniel]

I played them on Wii and didn't care for them. Especially Majora's Mask is just terrible. I wish they ported remakes to Switch, don't want to revisit these games on 3DS.

Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.

 

[InfiniteCombo]

Resident Evil - March 22nd 1996
Resident Evil 2 - January 21st 1998

And that's after completely scrapping a version of RE2 that was like 70% complete.

Absolute Wizardry.

I'd say if it wasn't for those pesky Survival games the Resident Evil franchise would've had a decade(-ish) of excellence from 1996-2005.

 

[Rodolink]

most games before were the concentrated design that made then unique, nowadays apart from the base design blocks that comprise them they are filled with extra nonsense that blurry what makes them great.
that's why I think they're still regarded as master pieces.
Many indie games are examples of this. Just the core that keeps all together.

 

[Romulus]

Playing through Half Life 1/2/Alyx for me in VR made me realize how great those games are again too. Definitely stands alongside OoT and the other handful of greats.

 

[Kamina]

If i had to choose two games for the rest of my days i’d choose those two.

 

[HE1NZ]

Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.

 

[namekuseijin]

here's a tip: that legend in the title is just a title, not a sign of untainted quality

 

[StateofMajora]

There will never be anything like that again, back to back. Ocarina was built out of a necessity to evolve game design brought about by the world leap in technology that was the N64, and the fact that budgets and studio size were still in control during that era. Majora was only made because of the budgets and workflow of the time and they could afford to be different.

Looking at Breath of the wild, and its amalgamation of current design tropes it's hard to imagine another Ocarina of time class defining game coming out of the current Nintendo, or indeed any studio. But Majora's mask was the combination of that brilliant foundation laid down by Ocarina, and a lot of polish, creativity and wonderful storytelling that I frankly don't ever see Nintendo realizing ever again.

I would go as far to say that if computer technology had simply halted progress in the early 2000's and budgets were kept down, and team sizes small that the gaming landscape would be hugely better than what it is today. It's not as if we even needed super high resolutions with CRTs anyway.

 

[A Elbereth Gilthoniel]

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Twilight Princess is better than Ocarina and you all know it.

I may have to slap you. The art in that game is so bad, does it want to be OoT or Wind Waker? Pick one, Nintendo. For me it's

OoT
MM
ALTTP
WW
Twilight Princess
Skyward Sword

 

[Barry Burton]

Majora's Mask is nearly as good as Ocarina of Time because they didn't just try to make Ocarina of Time again. Mostly out of necessity (short development time, lots of reused assets) it had to be a very different game. Twilight Princess is proof that just trying to make the same game again but just bigger isn't the recipe for surpassing OoT.

With Breath of the Wild they finally broke out of the 3D Zelda framework that they'd been stuck in for almost 2 decades. OoT is my favorite game of all time, but repeating that same formula over and over again became stale. MM was always the best of its follow-ups because it was the most willing to chart its own course.