Sumez, Baton and I briefely discussed Egoraptor's 'Sequilitis' video in which he slams Ocarina of Time with various criticisms. https://youtu.be/XOC3vixnj_0
.. I assume you meant that you can't argue against it being on point. Little quirk of English there.Sumez wrote: As far as I remember, I agree with most of the Zelda one. At least I'd say you can't really argue that it's very much on point, even if you disagree with the conclusion. If we have a Zelda thread somewhere, I'd love to hear your rebuttal.
Well here is my rebuttal:
I’m going to do the best I can to avoid the obnoxious insertions of ‘humour’ into the video and try and engage it on its points, which apparently hold some credulity across the internet and even on this hallowed chumpsfarm of fellow sperglords.
Spoiler
Caveat 2: I didn’t think there would be so much. The soul of wit can fuck off; the more I watch the video, which is to say, I haven’t made it to the end since it was first uploaded, the more I have to write about.
Caveat 3: I don’t care to fight over which game is better, my issue is with Hanson’s points. ALttP is a magical game, as Finalbaton says. I’ll refer to it as Z3 hereafter.
Yes, I understand saying “X IS Y” is a lot punchier than saying “In my opinion X is Y.” Pre-amble over.
I will be timestamping his video where I want to talk about it.
Part 1: Da Real Zeldo.
0:00 – 0:35 In which Egoraptor pre-emptively portrays any counterargument to his video as troglodyte ramblings.
Ironically the caricature of his detractors looks more like Hanson than his animated avatar in this video ololol. I’m meeting the video on its own petty level, don’t judge.
0:35 – 1:20 - Empty waffle. Claims you don’t know who Link even was in zeldo 1/ just an adventurer. Nope, exposition was often done in game manuals back then. Though I suspect reading something may be above raptor’s intellectual pedigree.
The argument that all Zelda gameplay is defined by Zeldo 1. “THAT’S ZELDA.” Heavy implication that all sequels must follow these precedents or they aren’t the real Zelda.
This premise is flawed; as Zelda 2 departs from the original formula, and the 3rd game also does not follow the same boundless exploration as #1. Hanson’s definition of the real Zelda isn’t followed by the games themselves or Nintendo, so the definition cannot stand.
1:20 – 1:28 - “..and whether or not Zelda is what it is now..”
Hanson makes a nonsensical assertion that despite the series not following his definition, this self-same definition is what led to the series success and monumental sales. C’mon guys, this is garbage.
1:47 – 1:54 - Despite claiming that the adventurer has no identity in Zeldo 1, after apparently missing the manual + story, Hanson then shows images from the manual of Zeldo 3 to demonstrate “Changes” to the game’s story. Asserts that Link is named here and given a purpose for the first time. Again, rubbish.
1:54 - 2:39 – Recap ramble of Z3. Okay. Dislikes being told what to do in an explorable overworld. Okay, I don’t care to argue this point either way.
**
I’m getting bogged down in little details, so I’m going to skip ahead to the actual Ocarina criticisms.
Part 2 – Waiting Targets.
7:00 – 7:18.
Hanson claims Z-targeting splits the game into two distinct halves; exploration and combat. Implies that it would’ve been better to have a ‘whole game’ based on the combat. So let’s follow that to its logical conclusion. Can you imagine a game based entirely on OoT’s combat? What would that be exactly, per his definition? Always being locked on? Nothing but combat? I’m sure that would’ve been MUCH better than the game we got..
As for the two halves; this is more of a subjective point than you might think. My child mind adapted to both situations on the fly with ease. There isn’t a great disconnect in my opinion but hey, subjectivity and all that.
Hanson misses out first person aiming when talking about fighting bats, something which isn’t particularly hard but admittedly may take slightly more getting used to than walking up and wildly slashing ala Zelda3
7:31- 7:40 - In Z3 ‘there were sections where you had to fight off enemies and explore the room simultaneously.’
This comparison between games is both flawed and unfair. Z3 does not have rooms where you have to fight enemies and simultaneously explore.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I can’t think of any examples where these two things were linked in Z3. Surely you’d walk into a room and fight the enemies first, either for self-preservation or to get items, or because fighting them may lead to progress. How is that any different than exploration and combat being split from each other?
Unless you define exploration as being able to see everything in the room immediately upon entering thanks to the top down view showing you everything at a glance. This doesn’t account for scrolling rooms however; if you’re moving far enough to scroll the screen and see what else is there you are not engaged in combat, Link cannot move and slash as far as I’m aware.
7:39 – ‘It was much easier to manage it all’
Easier I think, is the operative word here. More on that later.
Hanson then proceeds to show a little clip of him being hit from above that does not illustrate anything to do with the Z-targeting point he was just making. It might’ve been useful to showcase an annoyance of transitioning to 3D, but alas, it’s basically a non-sequitur in his video.
7:47 – 7:56 - Bats aren’t fun to kill anymore. Subjective but whatever.
Bats may have been a ‘throwaway’ enemy in Z3, but other enemies in OoT step into the goomba role instead. Their role in OoT is to provide a 3D combat challenge from the air, giving the player something to aim at, literally. One could argue that the choices given to player of whether to snipe them from afar, or get closer in order to Z-target, or even closer to target and vertical slash with a sword are more interesting choices than Z3’s walk up mash sword approach. It’s also quite easy to imagine an OoT that lacked such enemies being slammed for not taking advantage of the opportunities afforded by the new 3D space.
8:23 – 8:40 - ‘The game’s idea of difficulty is waiting’
Say whatever you want about OoT’s combat and the points Hanson goes on to make, but this is a stupid comment. Having a point in which you’re looking for an opening to counter-attack is not an attempt to make ‘difficulty.’ It’s a fatuous statement aimed at making his points easier to argue and to just yell that same platitude. But meh, I can’t say it’s not snappy.
‘Every enemy has a period where they just stand around and do fucking nothing.’
It’s not every enemy. hurr exaggeration is funny hurr.
Why is Link just standing there pointing a hookshot at a Stalfos? Who points a hookshot at a Stalfos??
Okay, let’s go through the enemies he mentions needing to wait for.
Spoiler
Their actions are based on proximity, not time. They fire with reasonable frequency, allowing you to deflect their shots back at them if you’re far enough away, which is to say, not far at all. Or you can straight up shoot them as soon as they’re above ground, no waiting. This is not evidence to back up his point. Hanson either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s being intentionally misleading here, the man’s a charlatan.
Stalfos – Strongest example. However, we like games that reward experimentation, don’t we? Who wants to stand there pointing a hookshot at them like a fucking muppet, I certainly don’t. Deku nuts actually stun them long enough for you to get a hit in, like a jump slash! Think of it like throwing a boomerang to stun an enemy before slashy time in Z3.
Bash on their shield to provoke a response. The Biggoron sword annihilates them, they can barely block the stab attack. I can't remember if this last one works, but Try rolling, try getting around to their blindside.
‘Lizardmen’ – Really? Maybe when they fight as a duo and one retreats, you have to wait for the other one to join the battle, I guess that’s annoying.
So what’s the waiting for Lizalfos: They yelp, then they yelp and swing. It takes up barely any time at all, we’re talking a few seconds here. You block, then counterattack. I remember loving that relatively simple tactical addition into the games’ combat as a kid. I think it’s relevant to point out these games aren’t aimed at hardcore action gamers.
Anyway that’s just the prescribed method of fighting them, you don’t have to do it this way. You don’t have to wait, you can just attack them, you might take a hit to land one, but at least there’s no painful 3 seconds of waiting. Also, a less facetious example: Deku nuts stun them and allow you to land a hit.
Skulltulas – The only good example so far, but only until Link gets the Hookshot. Yes, as a child you have to wait for them to turn round and expose their back for a hit. Whether or not you find this annoying is subjective. Again, Hanson doesn’t know the meaning of the word. Personally if I were to replay the game for the 7th or 8th time I would find this annoying, yes.
It’s advisable to manage distance well enough to hit them with a jump slash for a 1hit kill rather than waiting for them to turn around twice. Spacing this is slightly harder as you’ll be hit out of the air if you’re too close. I’m sure if I were so inclined, I could make an asinine point about this being ‘inconsistent bullshit’ in a video and become a controversial youtube star! Seriously guys, sometimes the jumpslash hits them, and sometimes you get hit! What’s that all about!!
The skulltula waiting time is gone once you have the hookshot or bow; you can one-shot Skulltulas at any time, firing directly at their face. So Hanson’s example here is relevant for less than half of the game.
‘Wolf dudes’ – If you just stop spamming your sword like an idiot.. ie; wait for a second, a literal second: both variants of wolfos tend to run up to you and double slash, exposing their back for a 1hit kill. The trick here if I recall correct, is not to block the swipe but to step back and let him finish the move, leaving himself open. I can’t remember if a jumpslash is necessary or if a stab will do. The waiting is negligible here and not worth mentioning. The challenge in effectively dealing with the wolfos is not waiting for that attack, but having the wherewithal to step back out of its range, giving it enough rope to hang itself. It’s a slightly different approach to other enemies, cool! We like that.
Gerudos – A better example, they certainly leave less gaps. I want to say you can hit them to get them to open up with attacks but I’m not entirely sure. Again, Biggoron’s sword wrecks them, they can’t deal with it. Deku nuts work on them, at least they do in Majora which I’m playing currently. I’ll hammer the conclusion again: you don’t have to wait.
There’s other more useful criticisms you can make of the Gerudo fights, but I’m not doing his work for him.
Clams – Yeah you got me there. You gotta wait.
Let’s view it through the silly ‘difficulty’ filter though. The challenge, such as it is, is hitting them in the short window between them opening up and rushing you. You can argue that it’s boring or simple and definitely not a challenge, but have you ever been hit by one of those clams, ever? Don’t lie. ;]
8:45 - ‘Waiting is not a difficult thing to do, but it creates the illusion of difficulty, because it takes up your time.’
This is one of those comments that laymen can just absorb and assume the speaker is smart/on point without being analytical at all, it’s what really irks me about the video. Think about that statement, especially with regards to OoT, it is absolute nonsense.
It implies that the only reason there would be waiting times, if you’re not using the tactics I mention above, is to make the game seem more difficult? Why? Is waiting for a moving platform in some 2D game an attempt at creating ‘difficulty’?
This might just be a semantic point, you could say ‘waiting does not make good/deep combat,’ and fix the whole point. I won’t accept responses of “well that’s what he meant,” by the way, it’s up to Hanson to convey his points better.
‘… but it’s not hard.’
I don’t think anyone’s tried to suggest OoT is hard, like ever.
8:52 – 9:01 – Hanson asserts that long battles in 3 JRPGs aren’t hard but feel substantial due to their length. What the hell does this prove? The challenge in a JRPG is made in a completely different way to action adventures, it’s completely irrelevant.
9:24 - - ‘gives the impression it’s used as a difficulty supplement since none of these enemies are actually difficult to fight’
I don’t know man, he seems to be struggling and playing like shite in all the video clips he presents. There’s more of that hookshot pointing at a wolf this time.
Also ‘difficulty supplement,’ again, this is absolute garbage.
To be fair though, yeah it would’ve been nicer if Stalfos were more aggressive by default.
9:42 – 10:18 – So apparently the Iron Knuckle is a merging of combat and environment because it gives you an opportunity to break pillars for hearts. Let’s ignore the fact that this is not required to actually fight the enemy.
Look at the clip at 7:06, showing link falling into the hole while fighting a Stalfos, ostensibly as an example of the disconnect between combat and environment. What exactly is Hanson’s point here, if it was all about the Z-targeting making it hard to keep track of your surroundings when fighting, then surely targeting becomes a problem when trying to lead Iron Knuckle towards a pillar to break it. Why is it praised for the Iron Knuckle example and not Stalfos.
Or if Iron Knuckle is good because it rewards you for keeping track of your surroundings during the fight, then surely that Stalfos example is also good because you’re punished for not keeping track. The truth is most probably “Something good happen, good game! Bad happen? Bad game!”
Some examples of combat/environment merging that Hanson conveniently neglects to mention:
Spoiler
- Mad Scrubs in Sacred Forest Meadow
- Blue Tektites bouncing over the water, Red ones jumping off ledges at you.
- Poe sisters.
- Skullwalltulas being up on walls and blocking your path.
- The guards in the Sacred Forest Meadow.
- Sliding around an ice themed area to attack the freeze-cloud enemies.
- The same fucking aerial enemies he mentions before.
- A statue enemy landing on a switch in his own fucking video. Like or loathe the puzzle, it is a merging of combat, world and puzzle design!
10:25 – ‘The nature of Z-targeting forced Zelda to be more combat centric’
Another grand credible sounding statement that is wrong. You spend more far more time fighting in Z3 than you do in OoT.
Weeee! That's part 2!
I haven't got any further yet!