Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2008.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Adventure games task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nintendo task force.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Japan (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:23, December 20, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


References about directors and miyamoto[edit]

User:Dr90s Sockpuppet edits (removal of Miyamoto)[edit]

Hello again. I'm sorry to bother everyone about this matter again. I have filed a report now with WP:AN/I. An admin there has blocked the most recent Dr90s sock, User:Akane7000, and has suggested that he would be the go-to admin for issues involving Dr90s. This adminisrator is User:Tanthalas39. He will only do this, however, if he has admin as well as non-admin support for the idea. I just left a note there saying that I would ask for non-admin comments at a few talk pages that Dr90s has been involved with. Please, if you can spare the time, weigh in on the matter at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A campaign of systematic vandalism (User:Dr90s and puppets). I am open to all ideas, so I am happy to see either agreement or disagreement with what I have written and proposed there. I hope we can finally get a bit of respite from this matter and I thank you all for your patience. -Thibbs (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Shigeru Miyamoto did nothing creative in the development of Ocarina of Time[edit]

Sequel[edit]

Oblivion Engine Total Conversion[edit]

I will be starting a project (with the discretion of Nintendo of course) on a massive total conversion for this game to the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion engine. Should details concerning this project (should it be allowed to be worked on and released) be added to this page or compiled unto a new page? Dbrown1986 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither. Unless your work receives any notability and coverage, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, both within this article and most certainly as its own article. DKqwerty (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The Ultima 5 remake for the Dungeon Siege engine got its on article, because of coverage. If you manage to complete such an undertaken, then you should have no trouble getting coverage for it. An intention is irrelevant though, except on various forums where you might be trying to get some help. After you have something to show the world, then submit it to various notable sites to review it. Dream Focus 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

@ DKqwerty - Well considering Nintendo approves (I sent off the e-mail last night), I will hopefully spread word of the project and with any luck, it should bring a considerable fanbase to work on it. Black Mesa Source has there own wiki page, if this spreads like a bonfire, I will commission our own page and provide resources. Dbrown1986 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Dream Focus - Exactly what I was thinking. Dbrown1986 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Character list[edit]

I don't know if anything actually needs to be merged (from what I can tell, probably not), but the list shouldn't need to exist either way. Most of the characters are very unimportant or they have very brief roles, so they don't really need to be mentioned. Any that are important to the plot should be mentioned in this article already anyway. TTN (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on merging, though I'd rather see a mass merge of all the lists into one, and trim anyone who doesn't have sufficient notability. I've already written up a couple paragraphs about Epona (one paragraph detailing that she was originally nameable, and why she was included in the series, and one of her reception), and I've written three reception paragraphs for Midna. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's take some info of the character's list and then redirect to the main article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, if it leads to a unified list, sure. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other single game characters that would benefit from being placed within the main list? Other than maybe Navi, which I'm pretty is the only other single game character that could amass any sort of reception, there really isn't anyone else important. There isn't much of a point in merging all of the lists together when only a couple characters need to be plucked out. TTN (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, as listed, Midna and Epona I've found adequate content to warrant mention. Navi, Zant, Skull Kid, Happy Mask Salesman, Dark Link, Kaepora Gaebora, Din/Nayru/Farore, Deku Tree, Great Fairy, Impa, King of Hyrule, Malon, Postman, Twinrova, Ruto, Saria, Marin, Mikau (due to his guitar being a collector's item), Ezlo, Ilia, and Linebeck may or may not have sufficient content existing to warrant including them. I'm slowly trimming a final list down here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Slightly agree. I don't really think notability rather than verifiability should be used to remove certain articles. Of course, I agree to some extent because, I agree that these:

Navi, Skull Kid, Happy Mask Salesman, Kaepora Gaebora, Deku Tree, Great Fairy, Malon, Ruto, Saria, Mikau (due to his guitar being a collector's item)

aren't very notable characters in the series besides their own N64 game (and ports).
But make sure to make a slight description for each character in the plot. Like for the Happy Mask Salesman, at least glean a possible description of him, that lets people know he is bizarre. (Sounds a lot like original research though, since it is a personal opinion, despite the the fact its obvious.) Just a small description in Majora's MAsk plot wouldn't hurt.
I'll save the page to my personal archive so that if the need to return any information/descriptions comes up, it'll be available. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I included each of those for a reason - Kaepora appears often and is annoying (a fact which I believe may be found in reviews or articles mentioning him, allowing for some out-of-universe content); Happy Mask Salesman is modelled after Miyamoto and has found some reception; Navi has some reception, certainly; Skull Kid has both reception and multiple appearances; and the others possibly have adequate amounts of verifiable content to warrant mention. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reception towards rereleases were mixed"[edit]

I think this statement (as it appears in the lead and the Reception section) is misleading. As seen in the Reception section, the rereleases have a GameRankings score of 89.7% and a Metacritic score of 91/100. As a case in point, I draw your attention to the Portal reception section, which is featured content. The section leads with "Portal has been well received by critics", and lists its GameRankings and Metacritic scores as 89.2% and 90/100 respectively.

In other words, another featured article describes reception of 89.2% and 90/100 as "well recieved", while this featured article describes 89.7% and 91/100 as "mixed". This is illogical and inconsistent. I have hereby changed reception to the rereleases as "well recieved".Autonova (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The fan movie based on OoT[edit]

Wikipedia doesn't have an article about The Hero of Time, the nonprofit fan-made adaptation to Ocarina of Time. Perhaps a section could be created in this article to discuss the film? It's important to note that Nintendo stopped the producers from distributing the film online, but it's still available on file sharing networks. --Andorin Kato (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it warants an article yet, but it may warant a section in the series article, if not here. What would help is if you can find some coverage of the film by someone unnafiliated with the film, like a newspaper/news site or something like that. Do you know of any such coverage? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"One of the greatest games of all time"[edit]

End of story[edit]

Not quite[edit]

I added the date and souce name.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Those last reverts were done by me. I forgot to sign in. Apologies. The Fwanksta (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And you have not shown a refutation at all. You know critical reception always needs the source name and when the statement was published is also important in this case. "It is consiedered~" is the writer's personal opinion and he never knows it holds true in the future. It is very likely his opinion has changed. And "overwhelmigly" is obviously peacocky term.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I don't see how I need to provide a refutation to some Wikipedia policy that you've seemingly made up. Reference it and we can discuss.
Second, clearly it is the writer's personal opinion. However, what is important about this writer's personal opinion is that they are considered an expert because they are from a reliable source. Thus, we can reference them.
Third, any statement ever made by anyone can be made false in the future; that is no reason to never cite anything as fact. Furthermore, that information is available in the citation. There's no need to clutter up the sentence with it. It makes it very ungraceful
Fourth, you have absolutely no evidence for your claim that "very likely" his opinion has changed.
Fifth, I believe "overwhelmingly" is an accurate term in this case, based on how much dang praise this game received. Just look at Metacritic and GameRankings. The Metacritic site even says "Universal acclaim," which is an even stronger word than "overwhelming."
Finally, although I know that Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus rather than majority, I think the fact that we have such a majority is grounds to put the onus on you to prove these statements are in error. Until then, the original statements stay. We've gone past the point where WP:BOLD applies. Now discuss the issue with us before you make the changes. The Fwanksta (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Haipa dragoon's latest edit. It is absurd to cite one review as evidence that the game is generally conceived to be going downhill by today's standards. Furthermore, it doesn't belong in the lead as it's contrary to WP:UNDUE. The Fwanksta (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure It is absurd to cite one review as evidence. I agree.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the edit you made was surely WP:POINTy, now wasn't it? If you want to talk, then let's talk. But continuing to edit war (which, broadly construed, you are doing so, as consensus is clearly against you) will only result in (possibly administrative) action against yourself. /shrug. --Izno (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not edet war at all. I just add new informtion unrelated to this matter and he happend to remove it.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We have come to the conclusion/consensus. It is absurd to cite one review as evidence. --Haipa dragoon (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Izno is violating WP:POINTy. He reverts the edit WITHOUT MENTIONNING REASON. Reverting edits always requires reasons and he never shows his opinion at all. He rejects talking or discussion and trying to edit war. I repeat We have come to the conclusion/consensus. It is absurd to cite one review as evidence.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the basic distinction between the role the two references play. The IGN article is appropriate because it is a reliable source presenting a fairly objective, quantifiable fact: that many critics consider the title to be one of the greatest games of all time. IGN is playing the role of a news source here. It is not as if we cited an IGN review that, for example, gave the game a 10/10, to substantiate the claim that it is widely considered to be the greatest game of all time. This is what you just did with the statement you advanced and referenced. You took one reviewer's opinion that the game does not stand up to today's standards and inferred from it that that is a widely held view. There is a huge difference between these two statements and references. The Fwanksta (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
And the reason why we're reverting your edits is because there are a large number of people who disagree with your position, so it is up to you to start the discussion. Just look at WP:BRD. I quote: "The BRD cycle does not contain another "B". It stops after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors." The Fwanksta (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RPGamer is also a relible source and "many critics consider~" is just his personal opinion. He never showed the evidence. It'S just his opinion and same as the editor of RPGamer.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I think you should try to re-read my post, I don't know how to express it differently.
A thought: I'm fine with putting up a few more references for the statement. I've found two in the past 20 minutes of searching: http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=20397 and http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157459
These are both news sources cited an objective fact. The Fwanksta (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A thought: I'm fine with putting up a few more references for the statement. http://cube.ign.com/articles/387/387479p2.html http://www.destructoid.com/aonuma-nowadays-oot-is-not-that-good--155808.phtml http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/urazelda/reviews/z5mqstrev1.html they are saying the game is going downhill by today's standards--Haipa dragoon (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't including these violate WP:SYNTHESIS, something you've so strongly argued against in this article? These sites aren't doing what the IGN article does. They are single reviews or opinions about the quality of the game, and to put them together and conclude that it is widely held view would be what we've decided is WP:SYNTHESIS. The Fwanksta (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

True, so I claim the source name "IGN" and when the statement was made are should be mentioned. It's just his personal opinion.--Haipa dragoon (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, as that information is easily available (in the footnote), and it clutters up the sentence. To an extent, any statement is personal opinion, so do we have to put all the citation info in the every single sentence that has a reference? No. That would create some pretty awkward writing. If you can point to a Wikipedia policy page that suggests otherwise, then we can and should discuss that, but you haven't.
Also, I propose to add the two other sources I found. I'm will also try to find one or two more. These are all reliable sites reporting this statement as an objective fact. The Fwanksta (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I added them. The Fwanksta (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of avoiding further disputes and hopefully contributing to the end of this one, as well as, in my opinion, greater accuracy, I think we should change the statement to "considered one of the greatest games of all time." (Not that the italics would go in the actual article.) Sure, Oot really is up there, but there are lots of other critics and "Best game" lists that put it only in the top 5 or something. I also personally think that's happening more recently. I think this would be a good move to help with consensus here and in the long-term, and I also think it's likely appropriate for accuracy. The Fwanksta (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done this. I am very open to discussion, however. The Fwanksta (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the comments above. But if someone disagrees, he should specify what sources said so in this article. We should avoid vagueness according to wikipedia's policy.--Vesperydia (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Epilogue[edit]

See the newest entry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr90s. -Thibbs (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your involvement with this issue. I really appreciate it. The Fwanksta (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, your vigilance is much appreciated. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sequel[edit]

Yeah, pretty sure this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vesperydia is another sock puppet. His only contributions have been on Zelda articles and he's reverted changes on this article that we agreed upon here, which Haipa Dragoon was against. Autonova (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI agrees with your analysis. -Thibbs (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Idea to help stop future problems with Dr90s[edit]

I have seen Consensus templates used in other article talk pages when there are contentious issues that are often the subject of edit-warring. These templates work well because they serve as a quick place to direct new editors who are editing against consensus and if the template contains a link to the subsection in talk or a talk archive where consensus was reached then the new editor can quickly catch up to speed. Consensus templates look like this:
{{Consensus|A consensus has been found to indicate that... Consensus was achieved in [[link to discussion subsection leading to consensus|this thread]].}}

There seem to be a few contentious issues which Dr90s and his everlasting stream of sockpuppets are intent on altering (who was the main director, whether or not the game was considered the "best ever", etc.). These issues come up again and again and consensus forms and then all involved parties drift away and only Dr90s returns over and over again to edit war with new editors who are unsure of the current consensus. I think it would be useful to try to identify the current consensus on the issues (possibly here or at WP:VG) and then add Consensus template at the top of the talk page.

I don't really know enough about the matters at hand to help determine where the consensus lies currently and anyway I'm supposed to be on vacation so if this seems like a good idea then I leave this to the editors who frequent this page. -Thibbs (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I really like the idea; however, I'm only acquainted with the consensus on Oot being widely considered the greatest game of all time. In this case, I think we've found a consensus that the statement in the lead is fair and very well substantiated by the sources we have provided. I could not speak to the issue of who was the main director. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Water Temple in reception?[edit]

After we see the president of Nintendo talking about how bad the Water Temple was, I think it may be in the article's interest to discuss it to some extent, possibly in a section discussing the overall quality of the game's dungeon designs? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When did he do this? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
At E3 2010 when displaying OoT3D. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I saw that in the article, used under the heading "Re-releases." Is that what you had in mind, or were you thinking something else? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I saw that, but I thought it'd be better served as grounds for some additional reception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Takashi Tezuka and Toshihiko Nakago[edit]

Apparently they were the supervisors of the support unit only, as shown in the credits. The only supervisor of the directors was Miyamoto (he is also the only one of the three to be credited in the directors block of the credits. If someone has additional reliable sources that confirm this is not the case, please give me a heads-up. Prime Blue (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up: Not too surprisingly User:Prime Blue had written this in response to edits made by yet another Dr90s sockpuppet. Dr90s' newest sock, User:Grassyboots, made his most recent edits to this page on October 14, 2010, and he was blocked October 28, 2010. Please be aware that this problematic editor is still interested in causing disruptions here. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Majora's Mask[edit]

At no point does Ocarina of Time allude to MM as its successor; the game is mentioned only twice - once in a "this is included in a collection with this" and "Majora's Mask and DK64 were bigger". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - added to the lead.Autonova (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuff to archive[edit]

http://www.zelda.com/ocarina/zeldaindex.html http://www.zelda.com/ocarina/art/headers/zeldamain3.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone who edited this was either a Fanboy or their arrogance showed in the form of their poor grammar[edit]

In the general description field, there was a portion regarding the many awards the game had won

in the last line of the general field, it read, "this game is considered by many critics as the greatest video game ever made"

although they used the broad "strawman" article "many critics" this implies to the readers that a group of established judges have place the title "greatest video game ever made" on aforemention game, through some sort of official process, such as a poll or referendum

this maybe true, but it does not cite multiple established and acredited sites as stating the aforemention

there is only one site a "1UP.com" that makes that claim, while the other sources are semi established, but not acredited, rate it highly

even if multiple websites were to use the bold and agregious statement "greatest video game ever made" that would be preposterous and a direct slap in the face to any semblance of neutrality, which Wikipedia aggressively encourages

in the context of this situation, I have altered the language of two of the statements in this page to state "this game is considered by many critics to be one of the greatest games ever made"

I think the change reaches the goal of elevating the game in the eyes of fans, but also leaves room for people to disagree with regard to taste, and opinion

I believe it is an effective compromise

132.38.190.29 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) SinclairTheLightningCount I can be reached at swod211@yahoo.com

Old argument made repeatedly in the talk archives. I have reverted the change, and would ask that you read through them. --Izno (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, heck, see #"One of the greatest games of all time", above. Please read the long arguments, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you may be Haipa Dragoon or a sock of him. This has been argued quite thoroughly. --Izno (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually Hapia Dragoon was actually a sock himself of Dr90s.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Acknowledging a work as being viewed as the greatest of its kind is not in violation of neutrality, it simply conveys the general critical consensus. See the article on TV show The Wire for another example. Autonova (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Among other things, Metacritic lists it as the highest rated game of all time. Many critics do consider it the greatest game of all time, misportraying this to the readers would be dishonest.AerobicFox (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
If you dislike the phrase "many critics", then why are you using it in what you wrote? It was that specific phrase that you disliked because you felt it was misleading to have such a broad category of unnamed critics. Yet your revised version still has the exact same problem of a broad category of unnamed critics. So this broad generalization is the problem, as you stated, then what does it matter what they said? It should only matter that such broadness is existent in the first place. Ultimahero (talk)

Splitting article in favour of 3DS version[edit]

I suggest there should be a separate article for the upcoming Ocarina of Time 3D, as it seems the remake has a significant amount of reception on its own, and despite the fact the game's plot device should be the same as in the original, there are greater differences to warner notability at its own right. I'm pretty sure there are many other video game remakes with their own articles on Wikipedia, and so this discussion should stand ground. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The standard set by The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords is that the subject must have a non-stub section of Development information. If you think there is enough development to support a split article, it can be split. I have a feeling it will be able to support an article in the future, maybe shortly before release, or maybe even now if more development is pooled together. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Review's for 3ds version?[edit]

Oddly can't edit the page, but IGN and nintendo offical magazine have now both posted very positive reviews for the game (9.5 and 9.8 respectively), if someone could add these with sources to the reviews that would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.51.196 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The 3DS version has its own page, so the reviews belong more there. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Genialimbecile, 19 July 2011[edit]

I request that in the fourth paragraph the hyphen in "relatively-unchanged" be removed.

Genialimbecile (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, when I first heard "hyphen" I thought, uh no, the hyphen/dash wars, but it wasn't. ^_^ Thanks for pointing out.AerobicFox (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Marking answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Best game ever made" POV - needs to be removed[edit]

Word.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not our opinion, but the words of many different sources. The title is widely considered by both critics and gamers alike to be the greatest video game ever made. That is not a lie. Sure, some people might not agree with it, but most do. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The text you misquoted was "The title is widely considered by both critics and gamers alike to be the greatest video game ever made", this is all accurate and sourced. Яehevkor 21:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this topic was discussed and settled a long time ago, as was the exact wording of the statement in the article. What happened? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay first, if I sounded ornery when I created this topic, I apologize. This isn't about me "hating the game", this is just about a POV issue. Because this would be like saying that Roger Federer is a "better athlete" than Michael Jordan. Even calling it the "best 3D adventure game" would be debatable, but the statement that it is "THE best game ever made" is in itself a falsehood, because there is no way to evaluate whether an adventure game is "better" than a 1st person shooter game, or whether a sports game is "better" than a role-playing game - because the are not even in the same genre. This is definitely a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Take a look at this wording from the Super Mario 64 article, this would be perfectly fine - The title is acclaimed by many critics and fans as one of the greatest and most revolutionary video games of all time.
On the other hand, there is no litmus test for determining a universal consensus for what "the best game", or even "the best 3D adventure game" is, any more than there is for determining whether Tiger Woods (a golfer) is a "better athlete" than Bret Farve (a football player). The statement in itself can't be verified.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The word here is "considered", the article doesn't claim the game is the best game ever made, claims it is considered (or in one case, voted) to be the best game ever made. There are multiple sources to back this up, so I have no problem with how it is in the article - it's ni better or worse than the wording in the SMG64 article. If you're disputing the claim altogether then you're going against the apparent consensus and the sources, if you have issues with the wording then what specific wording do you have issue with and what would be a viable alternative? Яehevkor 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's a proposal. Rather than make a blanket statement that "Ocarina of Time is considered the best game ever made", It would be better to state it as "Ocarina of Time is considered the best game ever made by (insert the reviewers and sources cited)" - there would be no controversy over this because it's a purely factual statement of what the sources say. However the current wording is too vague and ventures into NPOV territory.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the difference between that and what is already stated in the article. You continue to assert that the article makes a blanket statement, "Ocarina of Time is considered the best game ever made". However, that's not what the article says. It clearly states, "The title is widely considered by both critics and gamers alike to be the greatest video game ever made". So you are ignoring the part about it being considered the best game by critics and fans, as well as the citations to support this. All you suggestion does is rearrange the order of the words; it doesn't change the meaning.Ultimahero (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a spoiler alert?[edit]

Some people who haven't finished the game yet, may be reading this article. But there's no spoiler alert at the Story part. Could somebody add this? (BasRocks (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

If you are on the internet researching a game, expect to see spoilers. It's just common sense. See WP:SPOILERS. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No, the general policy is that Wikipedia doesn't allow the "spoiler alert" tag. If a person is reading the story section they should expect to see info on the story. It's just common knowledge.Ultimahero (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the story section[edit]

The section has recently been rewritten and is now over 2000 words from the old version which was over 900. I tried to fix it myself but the system would not let me due to large scale removal of content. Can someone else please fix this.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. If it happens again, you may want to inform the Project, especially if it's the same guy.Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Major Rereleases?[edit]

Should the Collecter's Edition and Master Quest rereleases of Ocarina of Time really count as "major"? Neither of them were available at retail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcan22 (talkcontribs) 03:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot OcarinaOfTimeBattle.JPG is broken[edit]

The screenshot OcarinaOfTimeBattle.JPG is different from the actual game. The Action Button is missing (probably because of the use of GameShark) and the shadows are buggy (probably because of inaccurate emulation).

I could take a better screenshot of that part, but I don't know how to replace the actual image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.22.107 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The current image does its job of illustrating the combat in Ocarina of Time, so I say let it stay, at least for now. If you have your heart set on replacing it though, WP:IMAGE has all the information you need to have it accepted. Good luck. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Alt text[edit]

The use of alt text for images here is perfectly legitimate. They're meant as a textual replacement for visual images. If you can't see the images you can't even see the text under normal circumstances. It's doing no harm at all. If anyone has any problem with the text itself: edit it - don't remove it. I can't see how removing this can be in good faith at this point. Яehevkor 09:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no it's not. The text you have put in there is, quite frankly, insulting and childish, especially when aimed at someone with visual impairments. "A boy wearing green clothes"? "A man in green?" You're shoving stuff in there that sounds like it came from a two year old's popup book, and it's insulting to those with visual impairments. Clean it up and remove the not-so-subtle digs at those affected with VI, or don't put it in there at all. Oh, and stop shoving "warnings" on my page, too- you're the one who is "vandalizing" a page, if anyone, not me. I don't think that the VI community appreciates being patronized. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Which specific phrases in the alt text do you think are "not-too-subtle digs" - does the mere mention of a colour constitute a "dig" at visually impaired people? As Rehevkor says, if you think the alt text is patronising, improve it instead of deleting it entirely. What sort of phrasing of the alt text would you prefer? --Nick RTalk 12:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Please re-read the notice I issues you. I issued no vandalism warnings - I warned for blanking (nothing about "vandalizing"). Please read WP:VANDTYPES - nothing here is vandalism, calling it as such is detrimental to the project. If you have issues with the text just deleting is is counter productive. I'll happily help change it, but if you feel the wording is in some way insulting then the onus is on you to replace it. Яehevkor 14:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's go through these one by one, what is wrong with "A sword and a shield - bearing both the three triangles of the Triforce and the bird-like Hyrule crest - stand behind the game's title."? Seems perfectly adequate to me. Яehevkor 14:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  • These descriptions are perfectly fine. If the IP wishes to propose what they consider to be better wording then he or she may do so and we will listen. The tone that IP has adopted however is highly accusatory and an inappropriate way to voice a complaint here. Writing descriptions of graphics for the VI is much different than writing for people who don't have visual impairments because it has to be simplified to its most basic points so that they can visualize it, where as for someone who can see fine the caption is meant only to add to their understanding of the picture.AerobicFox (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Considering the lack of a response, I guess that's fine. I have no issues with it either. Яehevkor 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The way they have been changed is all right NOW. I have to reiterate- I am not against "alt" text, the text just should be something that doesn't sound like it's intentionally trying to insult the reader. Text like "The child version of the game's protagonist, Link, stands in Hyrule field wearing his distinctive green tunic and pointed cap" is descriptive and informative without making sound patronizing and cloying, like "A boy wearing green clothes stands in a field" does. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Image[edit]

I feel that the first image isn't very good at showing a lot of unique stuff. The second image shows most of what the first image does. I think that we should either remove the first one, or try and find a new screenshot to replace it that shows something else such as horseback riding or the first-person view. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Glitches and Speed running[edit]

This game is one of the most glitched gamed in history and is therefore incredibly popular in the speed running community. I believe this merits at least a mention in the article. Opinions? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support it? "One of the most glitched gamed in history" is certainly a grand claim that requires grand sources.. Яehevkor 09:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
speedruns A page listing WR's and exploits, may not be WP:RS but it is a start. Retartist (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'd say there are enough sources to at least mention it in the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Widely considered" line[edit]

"The title is widely considered by critics and gamers alike to be the greatest video game ever made."

User:Noctis1436 seems to be on a crusade against this line, removing is several times. Never without explanation. Any thoughts? I've invited Noctis1436 to contribute here. Яehevkor 11:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably a WP:SPA and possibly a WP:LTA; have a look at the editor's other edits... --Izno (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't support the total removal, but I was under the impression that according to consensus, this as it stands is non-neutral; the correct phrasing is something along the lines of "The title is widely considered by critics and gamers alike to be one of the greatest video games ever made." I could be wrong, but that's what memory says. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Not familiar with the consensus on that aspect, but you'd have no objections here. Яehevkor 10:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dead Links[edit]

Using the Checklinks tool, I've gone through and updated the dead links. However, as I was editing I noticed at least one inline citation where the URL had been commented out (instead of updated) because the link was dead (and it wasn't tagged). I updated it and removed the comment tags, but there may be more I didn't catch, and if a URL is commented out the Checklinks tool won't catch it. Anyway, some notes:

  • Ref 50 (fixed) the URL was commented out. Updated with Wayback and removed commenting.
  • Ref 53 (fixed) updated with Wayback archive.
  • Ref 56 (fixed*) updated with Wayback archive. However, I'm not 100% sure that this reference actually supports a claim in the article. I can't read Japanese, but it looks like this article is about Metroid Prime.
  • Ref 80 (fixed*) the Wayback machine is being really finicky with gamespot articles right now, I think because gamespot recently updated their Robots.txt. Updated with archive.today snapshot of Wayback's archive.
  • Ref 104 (fixed) updated with Wayback archive.
  • Ref 105 (fixed) updated with Wayback archive.
  • Ref 111 (fixed) updated with Wayback archive.

--chrisFjordson (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed to "considered by many to be greatest ever"[edit]

I have changed the lead statement to this because I see it to be a happy medium of its previous two versions - "Widely considered to be greatest ever" and "Widely considered to be one of the greatest ever". "By many" just seems a more measured statement than "widely considered". I have adopted the note formate to accomodate the many sources, like in the lead for the Roger Federer article (where a similar statement is used. See also Citizen Kane). As we've previously discussed, and as the sources show, the statement is neutral in its point of view and verifiable. I hope you guys like it! Autonova (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Autonova: Hi. So if you read the previous discussions, perhaps you can explain to new arrivals such as myself, why that was specifically refuted and disincluded and why you personally suddenly overrode that. I'm still studying the elaborate discussions. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Smuckola: The impetus of the previous discussions was due to one particular user harbouring a problem with any statement in the lead section which referenced the game's reputation as "one of the greatest" or "the greatest". This user was judged to have been using multiple sock puppet accounts to revert edits and prolong the debate. Rest assured, I was involved in those discussions and have monitored and edited this article over several years so I'm familiar with the consensus regarding the sentence. The sentence has consistently alternated between various phrasings, including, as I've alluded to, "considered by critics and gamers alike to be the best game ever made". However it has never been supported by as many sources as it is now. Autonova (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Autonova: Oh, so it wasn't sudden. Ok. I was confused because the bulk of those discussions were collapsed up in a statement about a sockpuppet...but nevertheless, that's where the greatest bulk of the discussion took place on this topic, much of which is very elaborate. So I wasn't sure whether to dismiss it or what, but it was too impenetrably verbose for me to interpret it within a few minutes' time. It seems like a good review on the theory of such scenarios though, so I'll try again to read it. And yes my understanding is that we can't cite the general public ("gamers") as a reception source. I'm glad that someone with apparently a longstanding and neutrally benevolent position, has tracked an issue and undone the damage. But you're sure that the current phrase is according to non-abusers' consensus? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Smuckola: No worries man. The inclusion of "gamers" as a source actually occured after we had settled on phrasing previously so I wasn't involved in that part, however this was accepted by other editors. Since it is a poll from a reputable source rather than gamers directly I would tentatively consider it a varifiable statement, however I'd be interested to hear your take on it. And yes the current phrasing is the product of a legitimate consensus (previous abuse was directed at its omission altogether). Autonova (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Autonova: Yeah like you said though, the statement can't source "gamers" but rather "gamer polls", "reader polls", or "a poll of gamers", depending on the exact source. It's like the difference between "he thinks XYZ" vs. "he reportedly said that he thinks XYZ" or "according to X, he thinks Y". So I would tweak that one little thing. I'm not sure where in Wikipedia policy and procedure this is defined exactly, whether it's Wikipedia:Quotations or MOS:QUOTE or something about WP:RS, etc. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Smuckola: Ah I see. How about "considered by many to be the greatest video game of all time"? This would seem a more appropriate statement in that case. Autonova (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem we ran into there was that many on its own was considered too vague a word. That being said, you seem to have researched the case history more than I have, so you may be able to tell me if/why I'm wrong. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)