Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Excellent Article

This is a very informative and all around excellent article, the best video game related one I have seen on wikipedia. This in sharp contrast with the low quality of many other zelda articles. All I would suggest to improve it is possibly adding some of the obvious connections to TP, its spiritual successor. Accolades to the people who wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.92.192 (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Relase Leftovers?

I used some gameshark codes on my Oot on my N64 and i founded some leftovers of Beta/Pre-relase of OOT

  • Rauru talking about see zelda on temple of time insead impa, maybe after beat beta-temple of light, before rauru gives beta light medallion, the game frezzes
  • Sheik on kakariko village talking with link about the shadow spirit and shadow spirit aparears and attack sheik (wow! sound effects of sheik with damage!)
  • Part 2 of before beta cutsense, with sheik learing noctune of shadow to link
  • What the!?!?!? Burning Death mountain "volcano"?!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.17.231.220 (talk • contribs) .

__*These are remains from an earlier version, or possiby functions that would be called with the N64DD. --HarroSIN 07:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

____* No way, it dont have logic... I founded also the rauru leftovers on Master quest(a.k.a 64DD zelda) and frozen too...



Actually, the Master Quest and 64DD version are 2 different versions of OOT, even though Nintendo claimed them to be the same.

Marikthechao 21:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Marik the Chao Marikthechao 21:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronology inconsistency

The following is stated in the introduction of this article: "In 2003, Ocarina of Time was re-released as a bonus disc for those who pre-ordered The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker." In the The Legend of Zelda series article, however, it is stated that this version was released already in 2002. --pred 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words?

"It is widely considered one of the best games of all time. Some argue that it is the greatest game ever made, and has been featured in numerous Top 100 greatest games lists."

These sound like weasel words to me. Things like "...is widely regarded as..." and "Some argue..." are considered weasel words and really shouldn't be in Wikipedia articles. The article is supposed to have a neutral point of view.

For more on what weasel words are, click one the following: WP:WEASEL Link2086 15:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's your criteria for slapping a "weasel words" template on an article, you're going to be quite busy branding that all over Wikipedia. More articles feature such "weasel words" than have this template, which leads me to believe that that particular aspect of WP:WEASEL is not enforced very well.

Not accusing you of anything, but this strikes me as trying to find trouble where there isn't.24.161.186.145 04:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of the weasel-wording page says it's a matter of tryign to give statements authority without actually referencing them to some authority. Saying that OoT is widely considered the best game ever would be weael wordign if you didn't give specific examples of some notable publications or peopel that said htat, but this is referenced, so it's just fine. I'm deleting the tag. Ace of Sevens 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


OOT is considered one of the greatest games of all time--Greenday21 (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Ariana Hoax

The hoax was actually an in-house production from the staff at Hyrule: The Land of Zelda, and not them being fooled by someone else. They created the screenshots in Photoshop and then projected them onto TV with video out equipment, which was somewhat rare back in 1998. Not really that important, but interesting to know.

71.198.235.198 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WOW! a image on a TV can foolish many peoples, its'n? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.17.229.69 (talk • contribs) .

Record Completion Time

Is it worth adding the world record completion time of the game? I'm pretty sure that the actual world record is held by Mike 'TSA' Damiani, as detailed here: http://speeddemosarchive.com/OcarinaOfTime.html — Adamgritt 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Possibly only as a side-note, though. But so long as the link is added, it should be okay. And interesting. 66.177.246.101 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Anonymous

Weight?

Has anyone noticed that the cartridge is a bit... heavier than other games? It might just be mine, but it definitely weighs more... DarkLink Metroid 05:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be that gold plastic weighs more than gray plastic. Jaxad0127 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I have the gray v 1.2 cartridge. DarkLink Metroid 15:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

if you can't find anything on the internet about it, then publish it on a blog or something and reference your findings. (no original research, remember) although i think a small fact like that isnt neccecary to add to the article...

just browsing this article, i'm smelling alot of fancruft...Blueaster 09:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My cartridge was the gray one, and I noticed that when there was no saved data on it, it was pretty light. But when there was even one save file all the way to the end, the cartridge weighed at least three grams more than if not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onigiriman (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC).


Its a Large Game (in Mb) and hence required more silicon on cartridge to hold it ...... yes it did weigh more 81.103.136.247 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ridiculously long summary

we need to cut it down to what's appropriate for a wikipedia article 24.13.192.86 09:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be in part of my laziness to check, but what is the requirement for a Wikipedia article? Blizpeak
If you're referring to an article layout, there is not set layout. Length standards on Wikipedia are only an object of the mind, and nothing more. We do not have to worry about the length of the article. --DavidHOzAu 05:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


yea, but....

"The Nupedia FAQ rightly warned about taxing a reader's patience with rambling prose, but detailed subtopics and sub-subtopics enrich Wikipedia with information. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page."

"Of course, a 100-page thesis on poker is useless to someone who merely needs an article summarizing the basic rules and history of the game. The purpose of a normal encyclopedia is to provide the reader a brief overview of the subject, while a reference book or text book can explain the details."


It's just that, IMO, the plot section is a bit too long to be practical. Who's going to read all that? Blueaster 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The points that should be covered are, in my opinion: The Deku Tree, Meeting Zelda, Mentioning that the other two stones were found (no more detail than that), Getting the Ocarina of Time, Opening the Temple (and letting Ganondorf get the triforce), Finding the sages (no more than saying "He goes to find the sages, each in their respective temples), sealing Ganon away, and then returning to his original time (leading into Majora's Mask). We definitely don't need to mention details about each temple. Any objections to a judicial trimming? Fieari 02:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I just cut it down to about half its previous length a few weeks a go. I wanted to make it shorter, but I also wanted to keep in the summary characters that recur throughout the series, to give additional context to readers (the Zoras, Jabu-Jabu, Impa, Twinrova come to mind). Certainly you are welcome to take a whack at it some more. Sraan 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

new age

can u guys put a before and afer links age? Mr.Willison 11:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. As addressed earlier in the discussion, there doesn't seem to be quite enough agreement on the age differences, though many believe it to be 10 as a child; 17 as an Adult.
Off subject, but I added that OoT was the first game to feature Link as an Adult clearly, assuming that he wasn't already adult in the SNES games. Correct me if I'm wrong.

66.177.246.101 22:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

I had heard that he was 12 as a kid and 19 as an adult. No idea where I heard it from though.... ChaosMaster 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Solution to "plot problem"

The plot is long no doubt. So why don't we have a seperate article for the plot. Have a link to the new page where the plot is on this page. Again, just a possible solution.

User:wittj

I believe that is unnecessary. As it is, the plot can definitely be trimmed. This isn't a plot summary; it's more of a step-by-step explanation of all events in the game. --Tristam 18:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary

Here is a prototype for a somewhat more condensed plot. It is a little more than half the length, although still perhaps too long. Please edit as needed and I will post it sometime if we like it.Sraan 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and edited it in - please fix it up. It especially needs a lot of wiki links in the second half. Sraan 00:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Level Select

Cadohacan found a level select in both OOT and MM. Is this worth mentioning? It's here: http://kodewerx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3116 Dlong 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the Fire Temple controversy should be in the Music section

I strongly believe that the Fire Temple controversy should be in the Music section. If it is not, people might see it in the differences and think, "Why wasn't this in the Music section?". Well, if they think hard enough, but still. It is an important part of the history of the game's music and should be in that section. I have edited the article to put the Fire Temple stuff in the music section. If anyone objects, please tell me a good reason why it should not be in there. I can't think of one.



Marikthechao 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Marik the Chao Marikthechao 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The music section should describe the game's music, while the differences section should describe the changes between the version and why they were made. Those passages don't describe the music, they describe the reasons the music was changed. — Jaxad0127 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still related to the music, therefore it should be there. We could put it in both sections, though; the music section could just put more detail on what the music is like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marikthechao (talk • contribs)

Except it doesn't add anything to the music section. That section is already comprehensive enough with out describing in detail the Fire Temple music. — Jaxad0127 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
So even if the fact about the fire temple is just mentioned shortly.
Where can I read more about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.187.254.152 (talk • contribs).

Restructuring sections

I did a fairly big restructuring of the sections and content, to see if I could make everything flow a little better. Virtually all of the previous content is still in the article but some of it is in different places, trying to use a more standard plot->gameplay->development->versions->reception->impact and legacy format. Please let me know here if there are problems with it. Hopefully this helps resolve some of the music controversy, because music is now part of the development section (which should discuss how the music was created), placing the discussion of the controversy squarely as the responsibility of the "Versions" section. Sraan 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


lol spoiler tags?

This game came out YEARS ago and thus is not necessary to recieve spoiler tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.31.201 (talk • contribs)

Please post new messages at the bottom of a talkpage. -- RattleMan 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been under the impression from discussions at WP:CVG that spoiler tags are not needed for any sections clearly labeled as "plot" etc, because they obviously would contain spoilers. Many people are against the tags for any reason, but I agree they are redundant and against the purpose of Wikipedia in this case. Sraan 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I just started the game recently and havent finished yet. Just because its old dosen't mean everyone has played it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.38.99.188 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree there are many people who may pick the game up on the internet or at retailer so just because the game is old does not mean it should not have spoiler tags. Kou Nurasaka 16:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted of Good Article

I realize many of the people editing and viewing the article are either good fans or hold their editing highly. This is why I have to ask you to let those feelings aside, and understand why this should not be a Good Article without letting your opinion on the game hinder you - remember, this is about the article, not the game. I will explain all the violations of what a good article is.

  • The article is not fully comprehensible to non-specialists. I will only deconstruct the lead just to inform of the problems.
  • "he must go on a quest to stop a "dark stranger" who lays a curse on the tree".
Why? Is this tree important? What is the tree for? It needs to be lightly explained without the reader having to click the link.
  • "to help save Hyrule from destruction by the forces of evil."
What is Hyrule? Who are the forces of evil? Why are they destructing Hyrule?
  • There are lists in the "Characters" and "Leftovers" section.
  • There are very few sources - there are no sources in the Story and Gameplay sections. Because of the article's size, this is a big problem.
  • There are a lot of unnecessary details. The plot is far too long, it needs to be summarized. The "Leftovers" section needs to be truncated, and the "Triforce rumors" section goes unnecessarily in-depth.
  • This article is definitely not neutral point of view. Here are some examples.
  • "due to its groundbreaking graphics ... ingenious puzzles and breath-taking story."
  • "Koji Kondo, Nintendo's famed in-house composer."
  • "gained a ferocious amount of hype before release"
  • "Very few were disappointed with the game, something which is a startling rarity in gaming"
  • "Many gamers, especially Nintendo fans, would argue that no game since Ocarina has matched its classic standard."
  • There are no images describing gameplay, but far too many images describing minor things like "hidden" items and pictures of both the box AND the cartridge.
  • There are no image rationales or sources.

I hope these problems can be fixed. When editing, try to think that no one has played the game and that your life depends on explaining it. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article to try to find out why my wife loves this game so much (I've never played it and find no interest in games featuring child-heroes). The plot summary makes the game seem rediculous. Link seems to have little motivation for doing anything. It sounds like a heavily linear game where you simply "do the next thing" for no other reason than "you're supposed to." It also seems like the game has glaring plot holes, because of its time traveling in particular. For "one of the best games ever made" according to any number of Wikipedia articles, I'm very unimpressed. I am thus left to conclude that either a.) people love this game in spite of its story (quite possible, as many games feature "porn movie quality plots") or b.) the story summary sucks and the game isn't as dumb as this article makes it sound. :) RobertM525 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RobertM525, to be plain, it's option B. The story summary here is terrible, the Zelda games are not. I must tell you, they are very good, perhaps the best I've ever played. The summary, however, makes this game, and in effect the whole series, look like a cheaply knocked-together low-budget title... Basically, the summary makes the game look hundreds of times worse than it actually is. -Cat Lover

I'm not at all surprised. It's inaccessible to people who haven't played the game before, and it needs to be cleaned just a tad. LOZ: OOT 06:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers without any spoiler tags?

While you expect spoilers from the plot section it is not tagged with a spoiler warning. Not that most would need it but it is standard on pretty much all articles that reveal plot. Should it be included?Bride of lister 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is generally not considered standard in sections that are clearly labeled as "plot", "story", or anything else that would clearly have spoilers in it. And some Wikipedians are against spoiler tags altogether because Wikipedia is not censored, and spoiler tags are un-encyclopedic in tone. There is much debate about it, so read on at places like Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning. Sraan 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not standard on "articles that reveal plot" at all. Lower-quality articles are normally given spoiler tags because they are not moderated by an editor familiar with consensus. Take a look at any video game featured article - it probably won't have spoiler tags. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
EmulatorGuy, while you're here, where do I find the manual of style for CVG articles? I looked on the WP:CVG page, and it gives some guidelines for content, but nothing I could find stated a definite order of sections. I've looked at a lot of featured articles, some place Gameplay first, then Plot, others do it othe other way around (though not as many, admittedly). Personally I think the plot section being first helps set the reader up for what the gameplay is about. Anyhow, I was just wondering. Sraan 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is one. However, WikiProject Final Fantasy has one (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy/Manual_of_style) and they've contributed the bulk of CVG Featured Articles. The reason gameplay is first is because (as noted by video game) it is most important. For a non-specialist to understand (which is a requirement for articles) it'd be a good idea to have gameplay first. Fans and players of the game will obviously not want to know about gameplay first, but the article is not written for them in mind. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to warn you, I just made some changes to the section you were asking about. What was previously there was by no means true - none of the articles use it. Regardless, Gameplay was alreadu placed before Story which (I believe) was the problem. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Good info, thanks. I noticed that you mentioned the it is consensus that trivia sections not be added. On the WP:CVG, it actually says that trivia should be kept to a minimum depending on the circumstances. I wondered if you could tell me where the consensus against trivia sections was decided. I'm not trying to argue in favor of trivia, I just want to know what the true consensus is. Sraan 23:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sage of Wisdom?

Sorry if this is an obvious question or has been previously discussed, but has it been stated anywhere that Zelda is the Sage of Wisdom? Seeing as Wisdom is one of the parts of the Triforce, and Power and Courage are not represented by Sages, it seems more likely that she may be the Sage of Time (due to her being able to see into the future, as well as being close in proximity to the Temple of Time, as the other Sages were rather close to their Temples). However, seeing as she has not gotten an official title in how many years, she is probably just a Sage with no affinity, and is simply the leader.

67.149.100.26 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Zelda was reffered to as the "Seventh Sage" in-game, though I can't remember when that was exactly. Another thing to note is the six sages were sages of some type of element. Can "wisdom" be considered an element? I can imagine the sage of fire blasting fire at enemies, but can one shoot "wisdom"? Just a random thought. Then again, if she is the Sage of Wisdom, that would mean there is also a Sage of Courage and Power (ie Link and Ganondorf). 67.142.130.24 21;23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, here's some relevant lines from a text dump of Ocarina of Time. It's a great source for getting information direct when you need to know what was said in-game. There's one such text dump at http://www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rlid=74465&rid=68842 - I'm sure it'll make a perfect article source as well. It's out of order, but searching for specific words or phrases from memory works fine.
But to answer the question above - according to the text dump, at no point in OoT is Zelda given a title - so unless a designer has revealed it somewhere, I'm afraid her title is speculation, original research, and can't be included in the article. But here are the main lines that reveal her as a sage:
"If all six Sages come together, we can imprison Ganondorf, the King of Evil, in the Sacred Realm. But, in order to make a perfect seal, we need the seventh Sage. Someone you know must be that Sage, Link..."
and later on:
"The one who holds the Triforce of Courage is... You, Link! And the other, who holds the Triforce of Wisdom... is the seventh Sage, who is destined to be the leader of them all... It is I, the Princess of Hyrule, Zelda."
Hope this helps! --Terpoma 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

first in timeline

shouldnt it be noted that this is the first in the timelime as told in an interview with a guy from nintendo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.231.69 (talk • contribs).

FA push

I'd really like to see this article featured. Anyone else interested in an FA push? It's already in above average shape, it just needs to cleanup, research, and expansion. — Deckiller 03:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite shocked that nobody wants to improve this article to Featured Article status. — Deckiller 12:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well. — Deckiller 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this article ever will reach FA status. However, I would like to help you improve it. It is a shame to se this article in this condition, as it's a great video game. We should first of all find some more sources, as the article's lacking references in both the gameplay and plot sections. The Prince of Darkness 22:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Never say never. It's quite possible to surpress fanboy editing (like WP:FF has done). — Deckiller 07:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We can improve it to featured article status. We must band together and fight like warriors. LOZ: OOT 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Title screen music

"The opening theme is a remix of the "warp whistle" theme from the original 1986 title Super Mario Bros. 3." Um, the warp whistle music was first used in the 1986 title The Legend of Zelda. SMB3 came out in 1988 and happened to use the same music for the whistle/recorder/whatever. :P --Guess Who 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Europian/PAL Early Release

There was a very early released version of the game for PAL (European) territories that had some differences between the rest versions. As far as I know this version was given to magazines (for reviewing/walkthrought purposes) and the very first people who bought the game.

As far as I can remember the differences of this version are: 1. Some heart pieces are placed on different places (one of these places is the roof of the kokiri shop). 2. Link sometimes holds the master short differently when he draws it from the pedstal on the temple of time.

IT is certain that there are other differences too but I obviously don't recall them all. I have played and finished this version of the game since a friend of mine's owns it and lent it to me before I got my own (ordinary) copy of the game.

Editing the article with information about this version would lead to the deletion of my changes so I found it a better option to post about it instead. This might help finding more people who have some information about this version, plus it will help the regular editors to verify this piece of information. 87.203.175.75 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Songs

Hey guys, is there a way we could list the names of all of the songs in the game here? Specifically the names of the Ocarina Tunes played in the game? I was looking for this information and I thought this would be a great place to get that info, but it wasn't here. :-/ Thanks. AnujSuper9 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out Songs from The Legend of Zelda series#Ocarina of Time. Pagrashtak 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Image for the versions?

I feel that an image with the Mirror shields from versions 1.0 and 1.2 compared side-by-side would help the Versions section, would anyone be willing to do that? Or perhaps maybe two screenshots of gannon's blood from the two versions

Master Quest/Collector's Edition controls

The article notes that these two versions of OoT are emulated rather than ports, but what about the controls? Are they remapped specifically to the 'Cube controller, or is there some fudging going on, as with the Virtual Console release? For example, does the top-right in-game button layout still show the N64 layout, or has it been changed to reflect the 'Cube's layout? Kelvingreen 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more clear? What's wrong with the Virtual Console version? On the Gamecube, the only changes made to the game was dialogue; mentions of the Z button has been changed to L, I don't see any other changes to the ROM image. No HUD changes or anything. Still shows the C-buttons. - Zero1328 Talk? 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the Virtual Console Talk page, the controls have been remapped for that version, so I was just wondering if they'd been remapped on this version, and if so, whether it was something worthy of inclusion in the article? Kelvingreen 09:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the first topic, no. The button remapping is done wrong. X, Y, Z, and C stick Up, are now used for the songs. This had me very confused for at least the first two dungeons when attempting to play a song. Nintendo kinda failed when they emulated this game. Oh and I'm talking about the GCN verison rather than the Wii. Kou Nurasaka 2:27, 23 May 2007

Plot Summary has demographics.

The Plot Summary in this article has a very well written description of the demographics of Hyrule. Is this the place to put this, or would it be more appropriate for it to simply have links to the articles on the races and places of Ocarina of Time? Bucky 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've let this go for 13 days now, with no response. I'm gonna go ahead and remove the section in question. If you don't like it, feel free to revert it, then let me know of your objections here. Bucky 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arwing is Real

The Arwing enemy is very real. It is a complex hack, but can be done with a gameshark. The enemies in Zelda 64 are called "actors", and there is an Arwing actor in the game that can replace another actor. In the case of the video, I believe it replaces the child trying to pull weeds. Reguardless, it is real. I've seen it in action first hand. 65.96.46.49 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Subscript text

It looks like someone removed it recently. I went and put it back in. - Zero1328 Talk? 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed it again, but when I try to do it the game freezes 68.38.135.139 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed again. It's very easy for someone to make a typo in entering the code. Also, make sure you're using the correct code. - Zero1328 Talk? 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Temple

I have heard from numerous people that Shadow Temple was supposed to come after Spirit Temple. Is this true? When I played the game I beat Shadow Temple first, then the Spirit Temple. Also, the Shadow Temple medallion comes before the Spirit Temple Medallion. So which temple was intended by the creators of the game to come first? Rayman123 23:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Shadow Temple is actually supposed to come before the Spirit, but you can play them in whatever order you like if you've got the skills to. Anyways, the Shadow Temple comes first because if you play through the game and listen to Navi's hints after you beat the water temple, she'll tell you to go to Kakariko Village. This of course leads up to the scene with Sheik and the darkness from the well, and you learn the Nocturne of Shadow. Add in, that the Shadow Medallion does come first, and it's obvious that the Shadow was meant to be first. It IS possible to beat the Spirit Temple first though. The only thing that you would need the Hover Boots for is to collect a floating silver ruppee in one of the first rooms of the Spirit Temple. However, you can still overcome this obstacle, by carefully timing your jump into a rolling boulder giving you a sort of boost when it hurts you, sending you straight into the silver ruppee and allowing you to go on. Link's Awakening 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that Shadow Temple was supposed to come before Spirit Temple. And I do recall all that you have stated, which leaves me with one question. Why did the Spirit Medallion come before the Shadow Medallion? If you look at this screenshot you can see the gold medallion before the purple one, the purple medallion being of course the Shadow Temple medallion. http://internal.tbi.net/~max/tf-2.jpg. Rayman123 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Saira suggests that spirit comes first becuase she'll tell you about it as a child after you beat the water temple.

its interchangable. ive beatin it both ways and saira will tell you as a child that the owl says 'the child must go to the desert orcarina in hand'. had24get --63.239.78.94 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1.1 Gold Cartridges?

Is there a source for the claim that 1.1 gold carts were produced that could be added to the article? If not, is it okay for me to add a fact template? 24.159.39.11 04:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Talon/Ingo to Mario/Luigi Relation

I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection between these two sets of characters except that they have moustaches. Who put this in? Zakwiz 16:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there has been no response to my comment and there was no reference for the statement in question, I have deleted it. Zakwiz 13:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Found a citation!

I found a website that talks about the Wind and Ice Medallions (http://zso.krahs-emag.com/ > Beta Zelda 64 > Beta Items/Medallions), but I don't know how to make a citation. 67.164.35.55 18:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

here's what needed to be citated.

Rumors

Image:BetaTriforce.png
The Triforce appears before Link in an early promotional video of Ocarina of Time.

An early work-in-progress screenshot of Ocarina of Time shows Link receiving the Triforce from a treasure chest. Such a scene never occurs in the final game, and the plot does not allow Link to gain the complete Triforce at any point,[1] although Link houses the Triforce of Courage when Ganondorf first enters the Temple of Time and receives the Triforce of Power. Despite this, the screenshot has fueled speculation as to whether the Triforce exists in Ocarina of Time as an obtainable item, as it does in other Zelda games.

Ocarina of Time contains development code and text that is not used in the finished product. Leftover Japanese text in the item banks reveals that there were two extra medallions called the Wind and Ice Medallions at one point in development (it appears on the item selection screen and in different slots).[citation needed] The data for all six elemental medallions to be used as items exist, without any assigned spell effect. Several early screenshots show medallions equipped to C-Buttons. A fully coded Arwing enemy exists, but is not used in the final game.[2] The enemy has a full attack and movement AI programmed, shooting at Link with lasers with original sound effects. When destroyed, it crashes to the ground resulting in unpolished explosion and flame effects, similar to the game StarFox 64. There are also pictures of Link wielding the Master Sword in his hands on Epona, and the C buttons are colored selectable on Epona as well, implying that it is possible that in earlier versions never released to the public let Link use items on Epona's back.

please include my citation of the bolded sentence, I really don't know how to make a citation. 67.164.35.55 03:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section as it is not within Wikipedia guidelines. Things such as "rumors" do not belong on Wikipedia. Much of this seems to be your opinion, or the opinion of a fan site. Things of this nature should be referenced by a reliable source, not just any fan site you can manage to pull up. Much of it was speculation as well, and no matter how many fans decide how the untold stories go, that doesn't make it true or verifiable. Some things could be added again, possibly under an "easter eggs" section, but only if you can cite a reliable source. Thanks, SpigotMap 12:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fire Temple Song

I'm concerned about the link to the "original fire temple" song I think it was. Direct link to an mp3 file [1]. This may be copyright material. If no one checks in to it I will remove the source. SpigotMap 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Things to improve on

Hi, my name is LOZ: OOT 07:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC). I am a huge fan of Ocarina of Time. I recently joined Wikipedia after several months of occasional edits. I've been editing this article here and there, and I just wanted to address a few things that could use improvement. The following are generalizations of things which we could improve on.

1) The article's neutrality is debatable. For instance, saying that it is frequently ranked as The greatest game of all time is saying that this game is better than every other game in existance, and whether or not you consider it to be true, Wikipedia is for representing fact, not opinion. What you say is true, OoT is a favourite of critics and fans alike. But the fact that there are other games that are frequently ranked as the greatest game of all time such as Resident Evil 4 would mean that, to be less weasel wordish, it should say that it is one of the greatest games of all time. I personally changed it to "It frequently ranks number one on greatest game of all time lists." There are plenty of other weasel words in the article, though I have noticed a marked effort in lessening them.

2) The article is not referenced well. There's not a lot of citations here.

3) The article is hard to understand for those unfamiliar with it. While I commend your devotion to making this a good article, it just won't be living up to its fullest potential if people who want to know more about OoT will read a few sentences and ultimately decide it is overrated without trying it, or won't understand a word of what the article's saying. Sadly, it feels somewhat like a fanasite's article in Wikipedian article style. Not everybody knows what the triforce is, or who Link, Ganondorf, and Zelda are, or what Hyrule is. And yes, some people don't even know what the great master sword, the blade of evil's bane, is. It's best to edit an article with the assumtion that the reader in question knows nothing about the game.

Just wanted to throw that out there. If you have any questions, please leave them here or on my talk page. To get there, just clicl on OOT, OK? LOZ: OOT 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

fansite

I've removed the fansite tag. Please provide reasoning and examples before adding it back. SpigotMap 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just forget I even posted it. I was being a dick, even though I wasn't trying to. LOZ: OOT 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's no big deal, many of us did the same thing when we joined Wikipedia. Keep helping the project, you've done a lot for this article already. Thanks! SpigotMap 04:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted vandalism for the first time ever. Cool! LOZ: OOT 05:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you stick around articles like these, better get used to it, there's some strange people to waste their time vandalizing. SpigotMap 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I guess I'll just revert it on sight. LOZ: OOT 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the best way. SpigotMap 05:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, do you think it's possible that this article may become a featured article? LOZ: OOT 06:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably, but only after the edit wars stop(I don't there are any right now), the article reaches a "conclusion" whereas it is complete, and it is properly referenced and holds a steady good article. SpigotMap 06:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. They always debate over whether or not OoT is "one of the greatest games of all time," or, "THE greatest game of all time." Wouldn't the latter be somewhat against WP:NPOV?
Yes, I do not believe that it is possible to "prove" that OoT is "the greatest game of all time". It might be permissible, for instance if Gamespot did something like "In a poll by GameSpot, OoT was ranked the greatest game of all time" to put that in the Article, but that is just the opinion of Gamespot and its Users, not a fact.
Exactly. It's totally subjective. Wikipedia is factual, not opinionated. By the way, what do you believe needs improvement? LOZ: OOT 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, for starters, everything from "Release" down is basically unreferenced, I think I saw one or two references. Also, I believe important items in the game should be mentioned in the article, it's not even mentioned that the Ocarina is important to many aspects of the game. SpigotMap 06:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll look to see if I can find any references. In the meantime, I'll just edit certain parts of the article and then I'll go to sleep, for I am tired. LOZ: OOT 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that if an editor reverts your changes more than three times, you are blocked instantly, no questions asked? LOZ: OOT 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I just looked up WP:3RR LOZ: OOT 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your somewhat innacurate.EVERYTHING is unreferenced. LOZ
OOT 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. I've done three things:

1) Got rid of "Greatest Game of all time" weasel words/peacock words.
2) Referenced Story part of Plot section.
3) Randomly edited certain parts of the article tthat needed improvement.

Anythng that needs more improvement, besides the lack of references? LOZ: OOT 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkish symbol on crates

Anyone notice that the emblem of Turkey is emblazoned on most of the crates in the game, the crescent moon and star? Anyone know why these are in the game? Valley2city 19:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but it caused some controversy. Which is why Nintendo changed the symbol for every rerelease since. LOZ: OOT 07:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so it's not my imagination... Hmm, looking at various forums, apparently people were also offended by the Fire Temple music. I have the original version of the game, so I don't know if it was in fact changed, but apparently it sounded too much like religious chants and was changed in later versions. Interesting... Valley2city 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, whatever. The N64 original is the definitive version, whether or not it was politically correct. LOZ: OOT 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this already in the article? It was there last time I read it. Also, there are three N64 versions. The game got bugs fixed as the years went on. 1.0 should have the original emblems/music, while 1.1 and 1.2 don't. - Zero1328 Talk? 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there a version 1.3 as well? Haipa Doragon (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The Gamecube version is sometimes called 1.3 or 2.0, but I don't think that's official. The last N64 version was 1.2. SpigotMap 10:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever we do, we cannot base it on the Gamecube version as it is basically the same as an emulation port, even if it was put out by Nintendo. Far from the original in terms of quality...

Placement in Timeline

I would like to mention that even though that this game was stated first in the timelineyears back in an interview with Miyamoto, that it is no longer true, with the introduction of four swords. it was basically stated that the evil sorcerer Vaati, was sealed long before Ganon ever became a prominent figure, and with the Introduction of the Minish Cap, which Features Vaati before being sealed as well as the creation of the Four Sword, that it would be first in the Timeline, and no longer would Ocarina of time.Tensa Zangetsu 21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

European N64 release date

I've searched on Google for the correct date of this, and it seems pretty unclear whether it is the 11th or 18th December 1998. Does anyone have a reliable citation? Haipa Doragon (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay vs storyline.

This is a game. Why is there far more coverage for the story than the gameplay? Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the story section is so long because there is someone out there that 1. Agrees with me that this is a frickin' awesome story, 2. Wanted to convey this story on a medium that he thought would get lots of traffic, and 3. Didn't understand Wikipedia's policies. You're right, Wikipedia is the wrong place for an epic novelization like this. I've begun trying to think of ways to shorten this thing to a reasonable length, but if you can do it first, all the better. Out of curiosity, does anyone here know if there is a policy on Characters and Settings sections? Because this one is of epic length in its own right. Larrythefunkyferret 09:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I love the game too. I will respond about your post to me on your talk page later. Remember, the story does need shortening, but the ganeplay does need expanding as well. Thank you. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I finished the reworking of the Plot Summary and Settings and Characters sections. I did all I could think of to expand the Gameplay section, but it still needs work. I thank anyone that can think of ways to improve any of these sections. Larrythefunkyferret 07:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


IGN reader's choice

I am confident this finished 1rst in the 2006 list, anyone has a link? --70.82.201.140 05:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a direct link to the poll, but am too tired to find the results. -- ReyBrujo 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The reception section has little punch

The article as awhole is very well done and I commend the people that helped write it. Nevertheless the reception section I believe should be let loose a little. I realize calling this the greatest game of all time may be inappropriate because I am sure you want to keep it as fact. However when reading it I do not get a sense of how special the game truly is. If I was not a huge fan of the series reading this I would just pass this game off as another good Zelda/ Nintendo game, when of course it is very much more then that. I would like to see it re-worked a bit to show how important the game is. The section could talk about how it changed the action/ RPG genre, which can all be easily back up with comments from industry insiders and developers. A little more about how the game is one of the highest, if not the highest rated game of all time. One line on the subject doesn’t seem to be enough.

What of pc

This game was released on the pc too, but its impossable to find and its never mentioned. I have a magazine comparing the 64 and pc versions with a screen shot, i'll find the issue and get a scan of it when i can. If anyone knows how to get a copy of one email me wondersquare @ yahoo.com

I HIGHLY doubt this is true. A group made a 2d version of OoT which ended up failing and was never released past a demo. Other than that, you saw an emulator. SpigotMap 23:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there were two "OoT 2D" games, actually, although I think at least one of them has since been cancelled. Haipa Doragon (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There has indeed been wuite a few fan-based OoT games, mostly 2D remakes. None of them has been released though. And no, the game was never released on PC. You might have seen a picture of an emulator. --90.184.165.134 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Gameplay Section

As mentioned further up this talk page, the gameplay section needs improvement. Here are some tips I got from Ashnard:

  • It says that it has RPG elements, yet it doesn't sufficiently clarify what these are or explain them
  • The third paragraph can applies to all Zelda games, make it clear that this function isn't exclusive to OoT. Actually, the whole paragraph isn't needed.
  • Same for the last paragraph.
  • What about Epona?—this is actually a revolutionary feature in the Zelda series.
  • What about the eponymous Ocarina?
  • Maybe mention some specific side quests
  • How 3D affects gameplay
  • The use of stealth
  • Basically, anything that is specific to Oot.
  • The paragraph on time travel needs to be elaborated upon massively—it's the main theme of the game.
  • Mention combat system

I will begin helping with the section as soon as I finish another project I'm already working on. In the meantime, good luck. Larrythefunkyferret 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. Please move the reviews box so that it doesn't scrunch the footnotes section! In its current state, it defeats the purpose of splitting the notes into two columns.
    Y Done
  2. ZeldaOOT Link Playing Ocarina.jpg needs sourcing information. Where did you get the image from? If you took the screenshot yourself, note that in the summary of the image.
    removed image
  3. I might suggesting removing one or two of the images, since fair use suggests only a limited number of such images. I would also look into whether your picture of the cartridge is a free image or not (I think it might be, ask someone at WP:Video Games who might be more knowledgeable)
    removed two images
  4. "Link traverses several large, labyrinthine dungeons, teeming with dangerous creatures and complex puzzles" from the lead is either POV or advertisementish and I can't tell which. In either case, it should be modified to be more neutral, unless you're paraphrasing from the manual at this point, at which case there should be a citation for it somewhere in the main body of the article.
    Y Done
  5. Some statements require in-line citations:
    "When using this technique, the camera will follow the target and Link will constantly face it. Projectile attacks will be automatically directed at the target and do not require manual aiming. Although much of the game is spent in battle, some parts encourage the player to use stealth—an uncommon situation for the series. Link must avoid guards at times in both Hyrule Castle and the Gerudo Fortress. If spotted, Link is thrown out or imprisoned." (Gameplay)
    "Link gains strength and new abilities through the collection of items and weapons found in dungeons or in the overworld. Not all are required — like all games in the series, Ocarina of Time has several optional side quests, minor objectives that the player can choose to complete or ignore. In one side quest, Link trades items he cannot use among non-player characters. This trading sequence features ten items and ends with Link receiving an item he can use—the two-handed Biggoron Sword." (Gameplay)
    "This mechanic was expanded for future games and is now common in the Zelda series." (Gameplay) (I understand that this one might be a bit tough, so I let it slide, even though it makes me a bit uneasy... might be something to look at it if you plan on going to A or FA though)
    "The Ocarina of Time is also used to claim the Master Sword in the Temple of Time. When Link takes the sword, he is transported seven years into the future and becomes an adult. Young Link and adult Link have different abilities. For example, only adult Link can use the Fairy Bow, and only young Link can fit through certain small passages. Link can travel freely between the two time periods by replacing and taking the sword." (Gameplay)
    "Each race generally stays within its region of Hyrule and is led by its own ruler." (Plot and setting)
    The "Audio" section.
    "In Gametrailers.com's "Top Ten Best And Worst Videogames," it was rated #1 Best." (Reception and Impact)
  6. "Development" and its subsections contain paragraphs that are less than three sentences long — they should be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
    Y Done

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed at any time. Also, after the above concerns have been address, I will be checking to make sure that none of the links are broken. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 05:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article need a lot more work in order to reach GA status. The "audio" section is too short, and the refs are quite messy. It probably also needs some copy-editing. The Prince 13:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, as I mentioned directly above your comment, I will be checking the refs after the original stuff is done. Secondly, I disagree about the audio section for two reasons. For one, there's links to other related pages, which means that the section can be a summary of those two Wikipedia pages rather than a word-by-word rehash of what's relevant on them. Secondly, the section is only a level three heading and, as with many of such size, there may not be enough information available to expand it beyond the bounds of OR. Cheers, CP 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Canadian Paul, would you mind striking any comments that have been addressed? Much of the Gameplay section is non-controversial and directly supported from the game. I don't believe statements like "Link gains strength and new abilities through the collection of items and weapons found in dungeons or in the overworld." need a citation. Pagrashtak 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
If my friend were to include the phrase "For example, Link can acquire flowers throughout the game that will allow him to shoot fire" at the end of your example, someone like you or I would remove it immediately because we'd recognize that that's from Mario, not Link (or at least, we'd recognize that it's not from this game). To people unfamiliar with the game, which is the audience in theory (although not in practice I'd imagine), they might read that and have no clue that that's wrong. There's no harm in adding citations, especially since you can just do an instruction manual ref for it — you don't have to find a third-party source for this kind of thing. Anyhow, I will go over the changes and strike those that have been completed and change the GA Review buttons accordingly. Cheers, CP 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that statement would be challenged, wouldn't it? The problem is that these examples from the Gameplay section aren't supported by the instruction manual—they're directly supported by the gameplay. Take a look at the Gameplay section of The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, which I took to FA in May. You'll see many similar statements that aren't cited and don't need to be. If it passed through FA without anyone asking for citations, I'm not sure why they're being required here at the GA level. The GA criteria require "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons", and this doesn't appear to fit any of these. I don't have much experience with GA—does it usually require citations to this degree? Pagrashtak 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it depends on the reviewer, really. I see a lot of articles that get passed and then quickly delisted at WP:GAR because the reviewer basically felt that it was "good enough" and that things can slide because it's not FAC. I have a fairly high standard. I'm particularly weary with this article, as it's been promoted and delisted twice, it's a high visibility article and, while I don't agree with their particular concerns, someone has already commented on this GA review that the article needs "a lot of work." Having said that, however, you have shown that there is at least one FA that got away with few citations in the Gameplay section and, since you fixed everything else, I will be promoting this to Good Article status. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work. Cheers, CP 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks to you, too. I know what you mean about being weary with this article. It attracts a lot of game guide material and original research constantly. Let's hope this GA can stick for a while, provided there aren't any ref problems. Just for the record, I think it's great that you have high standards. Keep it up. Pagrashtak 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Caveat: Wait, I forgot to check the refs. Hold on... Cheers, CP 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs checked, passing now. Cheers, CP 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Zelda no longer number 1.

The game has been beaten by super mario galaxy[2] [3]

VGChartz isn't a reliable source, and the GameRankings rating is already in the article. Haipa Doragon (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please fix this now.OOT is now #1 again. -Asakurahao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.180.201 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Water temple

I was just curious if we could add the water temple in as a criticism for the reception section. That seems to be the most hated level in the game, so surely someone notable as complained about it, right? --SeizureDog 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

thats just a matter of opiniom--Greenday21 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Greenday21

Reception section rewrite

I trimmed this down because quite frankly, I don't think it's necessary to list every single trivial award OoT has ever won. We get the point: OoT is one of the most critically-acclaimed games. We don't need to go into a big laundry list of awards, nor should we focus solely on its strengths and not highlight its weaknesses (the -2.4% from Gamerankings critics clearly shows possible areas for improvement), per WP:NPOV.

Below is the rewrite I've proposed:

Ocarina of Time met with both commercial and critical success. Reviewers praised the graphics, soundtrack, gameplay and story.

Good beginning

The game currently ranks first on Game Rankings,[3] a review aggregator site, among titles with five or more published reviews with an critic average of 97.6%.

Indisputable, noteworthy fact

In addition, Ocarina of Time was one of the earliest games to be inducted into GameSpot's "Greatest Games of All Time" list,[4] and is ranked fourth on the 2007 edition of IGN's "100 greatest video games of all time" list.[5] It is the first game to receive a 40 out of 40 from Famitsu.

List notable sources, i.e. top gaming publications. GameFAQs user polls are NON-NOTABLE.

In 1998, Ocarina of Time won the Grand Prize in the Interactive Art division at the Japan Media Arts Festival.[6] It also won six awards at the 2nd Annual Interactive Achievement Awards including "Game of the Year", "Outstanding Achievement in Interactive Design", "Outstanding Achievement in Software Engineering", "Console Game of the Year", "Console Adventure Game of the Year", and "Console RPG of the Year".[7]

This is actually important. These are pretty much the Grammys/Oscars/etc. of video games.

Despite being available for only the last 39 days of the year, it was the best-selling game of 1998, with 2.5 million units sold.[8] It went on to sell a total of 7.6 million copies worldwide.[9]

For sales section.

Criticisms for Ocarina of Time started to appear on the game's re-releases, with reviews for Master Quest and the Virtual Console version considering the graphics and sound technologies dated. The most recent Gamespot review awarded a score of 8.9 out of 10 for these reasons.[10][11][12]

End section with balanced perspective.

Why do you guys keep reverting this? Please explain. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Crap hat needs to go (and my explanations for getting rid of them)

When the game was reviewed by the UK's N64 Magazine, they delayed the full review by one month in order to fully appreciate the game and its nuances. After an exhaustive review covering every reviewer in the magazine's favorite moments and some coverage of The Best Game Ever, the game was awarded 98% by the N64 staff.

Why the hell does this matter? Do we need a backstory of how every single reviewer came up with his/her score? The criticisms (what they thought was good/bad) are far more important given this article's context.

Also, the magazine is no longer in print.

The Legend of Zelda is the only video game franchise to have more than one installment with a perfect score awarded by Famitsu.

Leave this to Legend of Zelda (series). It doesn't really have a place here.

Ocarina of Time was ranked first on the 2006 edition of IGN's 100 greatest video games of all time,[8] and also on the reader's choice list.

I updated this with the 2007 list, on which OoT is ranked #4 (which still isn't bad).

GameFAQs users chose Ocarina of Time as the second best game of all-time in 2005 (behind Final Fantasy VII).[49] In GameTrailers' "Top Ten Best and Worst Videogames," it was rated #1 Best.[50]

Both non-notable. User polls are non-notable. There are too many of them to matter.

Nintendo Power score

was a 9.5/10 as confirmed by GameRankings. Stop changing this. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much about rewriting this, but I do see you being uncivil. See WP:BRD for a solution to your problem. You are making bold edits against consensus right now, you now need to wait for responses (for longer then a few hours) instead of continuing to boldly revert it. SpigotMap 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GameRankings is not a reliable source due to webmaster bias

1. Today, Mario Galaxy got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time once more. The averages for both games were at 97.6%, with ties broken by the total number of reviews. Since Mario Galaxy had 52 reviews vs. Ocarina's 31, Mario Galaxy came out on top. The webmaster then proceeded to expand the decimal precision to three decimal places to change the ranking. Pictorial evidence here

2. In addition, the webmaster also DEACTIVATED a 10/10 GameTap review so that Mario Galaxy wouldn't rank above Ocarina with the new three-digit decimal precision. Notice how it's no longer in bold on this page, meaning it's no longer counted into the composite score.

3. A few years ago, the default cutoff for minimum reviews was 10. Then, Metal Gear Solid (GBC) got a review added that ranked it above Ocarina of Time. The webmaster then changed the default cutoff to 20.

Keep in mind that these kinds of ties are NOT new. For example, Tekken 3 and Resident Evil 4 had been tied at 95.8% for over two years. Previously, RE4 ranked higher because it has 104 reviews versus Tekken's 23. It seems more than coincidental that the webmaster would change the decimal precision just today, considering how many similar ties existed in the past.

Also, keep in mind how much freedom the webmaster has to bend the rankings to his personal likings:

  • which reviews to include (these are denoted in bold)
  • the ranking methodology
  • the default cutoff for a game to appear in the rankings
  • the decimal precision

and more.

I think the best way to resolve this would be to STOP citing GameRankings entirely in the reception sections. It's not reliable, since the webmaster has shown clear evidence of bending numbers and rankings to match his own bias. Plus, this isn't the first time in the site's history that something fishy like this has happened. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see you creating a talk post when GameRankings deactivated the GamesAlmighty 87% review (and now that they are back at 90%, it is still deactivated), or when they removed the 89% one altogether. And Galaxy dropped a bit in ranking today because they added GameCritics (or something like that) review, a 9. And by the way, GameRankings should be used to say "The game average score is withing the top games in the industry", not "The game is above Galaxy for 0.183 points yet, so it is the best of all time!" -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There is already a high-level discussion on the entire VideoGames wikiproject, so for now, this discussion is redundant and unnecessary. The GameAlmighty review was deleted for good reason: it had misinformation on it (claimed there was no camera control, then used that "reason" to dock points off the score) Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Something I remembered

I played the original N64 game, and the port on Zelda Collector's Edition on the Gamecube, and I noticed something, in the N64 game the symbol on the switches and the Mirror Shield was the crescent moon and star greatly resembling the symbol of Islam, but the port had it changed. I was wondering if this was due to some kind of controversy, or simply to prevent it. 62.31.68.253 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a single criticism?

Among reviews published back when the game was released, that is. Yes, there's a paragraph noting how reviewers found flaws in OoT's re-releases, but I don't possibly believe that 20+ reviewers back in the day all couldn't find a single fault with it. Wikipedia's mission is to provide a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, and this reception section is the most biased I've seen for any VG article. Nintendo Power gave it a 9.5, so there had to have been some complaints. What were they? Wikipedian06 (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is one flaw:

It ran at a low framerate because it pushed the n64 to it's limits at the time.

But that's not really a game play flaw is it. Technically, it was one of most graphically impressive games of 1998, and easily the most impressive console-wise.

To be honest, I have finished this game 4 times and there are no game-related flaws worth blabbing about. It really was the one game that came closest to perfect. I suggest you play the game with a 1998 level of standards in mind, then try coming up with 'flaws' of your own worth noting, and I guarantee you'll be talking out of your biased arse if you do find any.

Besides there are recent criticisms noted at the end of the reception section pertaining to 'dated graphics' 10 years after it's release!

Vlad Dracula (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly a valid response. OoT has flaws, just like all games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem might be a simple lack of sources. No one is able to find a critic that had a problem with this game. For some reason, everyone cited believed this to be the holy grail of video games back in 1998. All we have to do is find some brave soul who was willing to say something negative about this game, then use him as our balance. Does anyone know where to look for someone like that? (that is credible, of course; we don't want a guy that mercilessly bashed anything that wasn't Playstation) Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But is it worth mentioning? There were obviously very few criticisms/flaws in the game if we are unable to find any. Trying to sniff out that "one soul" who criticized the game is just that one. Is it giving readers the wrong idea to try to find the proverbial "needle in the haystack", the very few flaws amongst a game that has been widely accepted as perfect? Meh, these are all just observations. I just wonder if it's necessary, is all. Most criticisms that are given in an article should be one that many interpreted, not just one. 74.70.3.240 (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Because it ISN'T perfect. It's glitchy, for one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No game is perfect. That's self-delusional thinking. Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet no one can find criticism. Huh. 74.70.3.240 (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Find the ****ing Nintendo Power review, then. Someone out there has to have the issue. I can name at least 20-30 flaws off the top of my head, but it's got to be a critic's word. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to keep your cool; it makes it easier for logic to prevail. And thank you for the tip. I was actually hoping for an idea like that when I made my post earlier. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

US Soundtrack album

Why is this not mentioned. There is a US version of the Soundtrack album that could be ordered from a catalog in Nintendo Power Magazine. I have a copy myself, so i know it's true. It is the same as the Japanese version of the album, except for different packaging. The Great Morgil (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ocarina Songs.

Hey, should they be mentioned somewhere, pretty relevant to the game.

Its 13 songs and they are.

In the order you learn em (i think) 1. Zeldas Lullaby 2. Eponas Song 3. Sarias Song 4. Sun Song 5. Song of Time 6. Prelude of Light 7. Song of Storms 8. Minuet of Forest 9. Bolero of Fire 10. Serenade of Water 11. Nocturne of Shadow 12. Reqium of Spirit 13. Scarecrows Song

1-5 Learns as Young Link

6-12 Learns as adult link

13. Play as Young, learn as adult.

6-12 is the Warp Songs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.96.14 (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't include game guide content such as this. We provide a general overview of the subject, as with any encyclopedia, and not detailed gameplay information. Pagrashtak 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)