Jesus Egoraptor we get it anything after the mid-90s is crap to you. Oh, this is going to be painful, people. Fair warning for lengthy whining.
What really gets me is how he blatantly ignores some of the issues of the original LoZ and LttP. In LoZ, there is so much cryptic garbage for a newcomer that if you played it with a guide (as most people will at some point or another) you lose that mystical sense of adventurism crap that he goes on about, but if you were to try and play it without a guide you'd either get hopelessly stuck or spend mind-rattling hours meticulously trying any old thing in any old place until you get to progress through the game, and even LttP is occasionally guilty of this, such as the Ice Rod not being blatantly hinted at, at least not until you absolutely need it later on* (and he bitched about pretty much the same goddamn thing in Castlevania II fucking "oops"?). That's not real "exploration". That's tedium. Also, as Eno already said, LttP does also have a certain "set" order itself.
*I honestly can't remember if LttP does later on hint at the Ice Rod; I just remember that it doesn't early on.
Also, the bitching about the story in LttP vs. OoT. Christ. All he focuses on for LttP is the Master Sword aspect but bitches about OoT giving you a different motivation, that is to save the world and other people along the way, rather than aimless exploration (god forbid, right?). Never mind the fact that LttP makes a big deal about the Dark World and the Seven Maidens after getting the Master Sword. Oh, oh, oh, I almost forgot, his complaints about the Gorons "needing rocks" in OoT: that much is true, but the biggest reason Link was made to go into Dodongo's Cavern by Darunia in exchange for the Goron's Ruby was to prove that he wasn't motivated by evil for wanting the Ruby (unlike Ganondorf, who had tried demanding the Ruby from Darunia beforehand).
And the letter in OoT was from Zelda, not. Fucking. Impa. Ugh. (Nitpicky yes, but Egoraptor makes this mistake like two or three times at least.)
I really love how he says that they should've changed the Zelda formula for 3D with OoT, completely forgetting how he already talked about how they already did so (i.e. with more focused combat). In addition, he made a huge point in the Castlevania series about CV1 being a "high class dessert you take your time with" and the Metroidvanias being "snacks that you mindlessly munch on repetitively". Wouldn't the simple mowing down of enemies in LttP be those repetitive "snacks" and the more strategic enemies of OoT such as the Stalfos be that "high class dessert" you take your time with? Which damn one do you want, Egoraptor?
The issue with the bosses in 3D Zeldas almost always needing the "dungeon item" is legitimate to a point, but again you can have problems like Trinexx in LttP needing the Ice Rod despite its acquisition not being directly put on your path. And the Silver Arrow isn't hinted at much either IIRC. I think the bigger issue is if items start to become massively useless after their "core" dungeon like Twilight Princess.
I can agree that some of the eye-switches and such in OoT aren't really "puzzles", but then again they're not really meant to be "puzzles"; the reason they're there is because the whole point of a 3D world is to take advantage of the opportunity to look around and observe your surroundings, especially for an adventure game. I do hate the treasure chest cinematics of 3D Zeldas (especially for Skyward Sword where they even happened for fuckmothering small keys).
I might have some additions to this rant later, but god this pissed me off. My problem isn't that he doesn't like OoT (hell, I think it's a flawed game myself and I consider Majora's Mask to be a far superior title). My issue is that he went in with such a blatant bias that it both affected the depth of analysis given to 2D/3D Zeldas and it made him contradict points made about games in general in earlier Sequelitiseseses. He does bring up legitimate issues at points, but he really could've given this better care, especially in the what, two years(?), he took to put this out. Basically, it really shows that despite trying to make himself out to be some wise guru of game design he clearly sometimes doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
What really gets me is how he blatantly ignores some of the issues of the original LoZ and LttP. In LoZ, there is so much cryptic garbage for a newcomer that if you played it with a guide (as most people will at some point or another) you lose that mystical sense of adventurism crap that he goes on about, but if you were to try and play it without a guide you'd either get hopelessly stuck or spend mind-rattling hours meticulously trying any old thing in any old place until you get to progress through the game, and even LttP is occasionally guilty of this, such as the Ice Rod not being blatantly hinted at, at least not until you absolutely need it later on* (and he bitched about pretty much the same goddamn thing in Castlevania II fucking "oops"?). That's not real "exploration". That's tedium. Also, as Eno already said, LttP does also have a certain "set" order itself.
*I honestly can't remember if LttP does later on hint at the Ice Rod; I just remember that it doesn't early on.
Also, the bitching about the story in LttP vs. OoT. Christ. All he focuses on for LttP is the Master Sword aspect but bitches about OoT giving you a different motivation, that is to save the world and other people along the way, rather than aimless exploration (god forbid, right?). Never mind the fact that LttP makes a big deal about the Dark World and the Seven Maidens after getting the Master Sword. Oh, oh, oh, I almost forgot, his complaints about the Gorons "needing rocks" in OoT: that much is true, but the biggest reason Link was made to go into Dodongo's Cavern by Darunia in exchange for the Goron's Ruby was to prove that he wasn't motivated by evil for wanting the Ruby (unlike Ganondorf, who had tried demanding the Ruby from Darunia beforehand).
And the letter in OoT was from Zelda, not. Fucking. Impa. Ugh. (Nitpicky yes, but Egoraptor makes this mistake like two or three times at least.)
I really love how he says that they should've changed the Zelda formula for 3D with OoT, completely forgetting how he already talked about how they already did so (i.e. with more focused combat). In addition, he made a huge point in the Castlevania series about CV1 being a "high class dessert you take your time with" and the Metroidvanias being "snacks that you mindlessly munch on repetitively". Wouldn't the simple mowing down of enemies in LttP be those repetitive "snacks" and the more strategic enemies of OoT such as the Stalfos be that "high class dessert" you take your time with? Which damn one do you want, Egoraptor?
The issue with the bosses in 3D Zeldas almost always needing the "dungeon item" is legitimate to a point, but again you can have problems like Trinexx in LttP needing the Ice Rod despite its acquisition not being directly put on your path. And the Silver Arrow isn't hinted at much either IIRC. I think the bigger issue is if items start to become massively useless after their "core" dungeon like Twilight Princess.
I can agree that some of the eye-switches and such in OoT aren't really "puzzles", but then again they're not really meant to be "puzzles"; the reason they're there is because the whole point of a 3D world is to take advantage of the opportunity to look around and observe your surroundings, especially for an adventure game. I do hate the treasure chest cinematics of 3D Zeldas (especially for Skyward Sword where they even happened for fuckmothering small keys).
I might have some additions to this rant later, but god this pissed me off. My problem isn't that he doesn't like OoT (hell, I think it's a flawed game myself and I consider Majora's Mask to be a far superior title). My issue is that he went in with such a blatant bias that it both affected the depth of analysis given to 2D/3D Zeldas and it made him contradict points made about games in general in earlier Sequelitiseseses. He does bring up legitimate issues at points, but he really could've given this better care, especially in the what, two years(?), he took to put this out. Basically, it really shows that despite trying to make himself out to be some wise guru of game design he clearly sometimes doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.