Post by The Smurf on Oct 29, 2007 21:14:49 GMT -5
It's an arguement that's plagued our world since the days of Nintendo 64. Casual fans love the gameplay and continual hack-n-slash greatness of OoT, while hardcore fans love the complexity and darkness of MM. So which one takes the gold?
When I first began playing Zelda, OoT blew me away. It was so engaging with its impeccable gameplay (remember, these are the days of baby, pre-expansion pak N64) and it was just a blast to play. Then MM came out, and I was excited as hell. I played it. I beat it. I never wanted to play it again. It was such a pain to do everything. Then I grew up.
Upon returning to MM after a good couple of years of not touching it but beating its predecessor on a routine basis, I realized that my tastes in games had completely changed. It's no longer any doubt that Majora's Mask is by far the better of the two, a point Zelda fans will argue until the end of time. But Majora's Mask actually has a meaningful storyline devoid of gaping plotholes which I, as a young gamer, never appreciated.
The symbolism and depth of the story (the motif of the masquerade, in particular) as well as the openness for interperetation really shows that the creators knew what they were doing when they programmed the game.
So what's your take on the arguement?
-the smurf
When I first began playing Zelda, OoT blew me away. It was so engaging with its impeccable gameplay (remember, these are the days of baby, pre-expansion pak N64) and it was just a blast to play. Then MM came out, and I was excited as hell. I played it. I beat it. I never wanted to play it again. It was such a pain to do everything. Then I grew up.
Upon returning to MM after a good couple of years of not touching it but beating its predecessor on a routine basis, I realized that my tastes in games had completely changed. It's no longer any doubt that Majora's Mask is by far the better of the two, a point Zelda fans will argue until the end of time. But Majora's Mask actually has a meaningful storyline devoid of gaping plotholes which I, as a young gamer, never appreciated.
The symbolism and depth of the story (the motif of the masquerade, in particular) as well as the openness for interperetation really shows that the creators knew what they were doing when they programmed the game.
So what's your take on the arguement?
-the smurf
©
. I probably beat that game at least 5 times and never got sick of it in spite of its linearity.
