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.