Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Miyamoto and credits

Mind telling me why you're putting Miyamoto AFTER the directors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.242.194 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's several things wrong in here. First of all, NINTENDO decides who the director is? Not really. Miyamoto, being in the position that he is (or even was back then) would have the ability to choose to credit himself as director if need be. The reason that he didn't do that for OoT was most likely because he didn't direct the entire game like he did with Mario 64, so he probably felt it wouldn't be fair to the other guys. Second of all, did you even read that article I posted? It does not state that Miyamoto just 'gave some direction'. He took control of the reins and saw to it through the end. Third of all, why do I think that he had more to do with directorial work that just a mere producer? Well, read the following:

http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/102701.shtml

"F: Excuse me (laughs). Was this the first time that you joined the development of a title since Ocarina of Time?

M: That's right. I was the director of Mario 64, and half producer, half director on Zelda. As for Pikmin, I'd say half producer, half director. "

http://www.gamecubicle.com/interview-legend_of_zelda_wind_waker_miyamoto.htm

"This time around, [b]I'm not actually the director of the game. I'm the producer.[/b] Mr. Eiji Aonuma sitting here to my right is the director. It's actually been nice to be able to work as the producer on this game. I've been working with Mr. Aonuma since the Ocarina of Time. [b]On Majora's Mask he was pretty much independent in moving that project along. So it's been very easy for me as producer on this game.[/b]"

http://archive.gamespy.com/interviews/july03/aonuma/index2.shtml

"GameSpy: Was Majora's Mask the first game for which you served as director?

Aonuma: I directed the development of enemies and dungeons for Ocarina of Time. But for overall direction, Majora was my first. "

Now, it MAY just be me, but that last comment by Aonuma makes it sound like *gasp* he wasn't the overall director for Ocarina! I know I'm reaching here, what with the lack of any corroborating info and all that, aside from the testimony of Miyamoto and heck, even the alleged director Eiji Aonuma himself, but I think we can safely say that Miyamoto had more of a directorial role than you're giving him credit for.

And FINALLY, the last thing I would like to add is that, if you're going to not give Miyamoto any directorial credit at all, at least put his name in the right order for God's sake. His name comes up first, then the sub directors. Not to mention you have several credits for the other directors wrong as well. Yoshiaki Koizumi was the 3D System Director, not Yoichi Yamada, who was also Game System Director. Also, Toru Osawa is the first director to be credited, then Aonuma, et al.

Now, if you don't mind, quit messing with the page please. Have a nice day. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.146.2 (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok he was half director.there is a sourse for this.Do not touch this item anymore.--133.2.9.161 (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Shigeru Miyamoto

This source[1]does not mean he was the director.Producer is a higher position than director so producers sometimes give direction.If he had been the director,nintendo would have announced he was the director.He was the Producer and Supervisor.This is officially announced.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

NINTENDO does not admit miyamoto was the director.It is not Aonuma but NINTENDO that decides who is the director.And even Aonuma does not state shigeru was the director of oot.he just state shigeru gave some direction,The fact shigeru gave some direction does not mean he was the director.oot has several directors,and why on earth do you say shigeru was the lead director even though NINTENDO announced he was the producer and supervisor?That shigeru was the director of oot is your speculation, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia.--Handsome elite (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

I just want to thank everyone who made Ocarina Of Time a featured article and I only wish I could have contributed more. What I can do is keep the page like this. But again, thank you. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

Good job! When it disappeared from the FAC, I was scared for a moment that it was demoted. So I immediately came to this article and saw the pretty little star. Good job, you guys! I know I wasn’t an active editor on this article, but I liked the game a lot and am very proud of the editors who managed to make this an FA. (Especially since Majora’s Mask is already one… --haha169 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can help keep peacock terms and unsourced information out of the article, that will be thanks enough. This article is particularly bad for attracting them. Pagrashtak 03:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have contributed to this article, you've all made a great effort by improving Wikipedia on a whole! Good job!--David Igra (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to clean up the "fuck you kid" on the front page, I dont know how.

Seems to be gone now. Clark89 (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Back on top

OoT is back on top of gamerankings. May want to wait a couple days to make sure it sticks but it will so may want to mention it again on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.153.141 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's what you can do: If Gamerankings has changed their rating of Ocarina of Time, then you can change the number currently in the article. Just make sure it's sourced. (like it should already be) Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Back on top again! (as of30th May)

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp?rankings=y Autonova (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm

{{helpme}} Why is the article protected? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 10:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of a recent edit war, see the edit history of the article and the relevant policy. This is also explained at the template which is at the top of the page. Cenarium (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} I'm trying to edit the page by giving Shigeru Miyamoto the proper credits and by listing him first as he appears in the video game credits. I am not sure why whoever keeps unediting it doesn't want that to happen since that is supposed to be how it was shown in the video game. There should be no controversy. Here's the youtube link and see for yourself. http://youtube.com/watch?v=0t272ikEwWc&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.48.100 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 May 2008

Not done for now: The reason why you can't edit the page is because it's fully protected due to an edit war. Can you be more specific about what change you want made to the article? It's currently not very clear what it is you think should be changed. Happy‑melon 15:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

seriously, who the hell cares? The names are all listed, so why does the ordering matter so much? The administrators don't have time for trivial crap like this. Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Press this button to drain your stress and stay cool--Twicemost (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request for revision of GameRankings

Below is what should be updated in the article:

Game Rankings, a review collection site owned by CNET Networks, ranks Ocarina of Time in first place on the greatest games ever made list. Metacritic, also owned by CNET Networks, ranks Ocarina as the highested-rated game with a critic metascore of 99 out of 100.

If it's worded poorly, then edit at your judgment.

If an admin could just reword those in the article that'd be great. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look. Someone beat me to it. You'll find more reasons for removing below, I suppose. I didn't notice that I just placed an {{editprotected}} request that was already requested... --haha169 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the template because it is now unprotected again. Gary King (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you guys delete it from the first paragraph? On GTAIV's page they have it, so you have no ******* excuse to take it out. Jerkoffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.247.178 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aonuma is not the director via OoT's ending credits

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EP7zULA63Ek&feature=related OoT's ending.

He's not mentioned under directors. If he's not listed under credits he should not be mentioned at all. Miyamoto should be listed as Supervisor/Producer. I've read it the interviews.

Does Wikipedia take into consideration the direct source, in this case, the game or a GameSpy interview? --HeaveTheClay (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Eiji Onozuka is the same person as Eiji Aonuma.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protected

The last paragraph in the lead concerning Game Rankings should be removed, because it:

1. Uses poor ref formatting
2. Poor ref locations
3. Especially Outdated information --haha169 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the template because it is now unprotected again. Gary King (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What are the poor ref locations? It's only one site, GameRankings. It's on the top ten and that achievement, for years, is something that warrants mention. Whether you like it or not. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref locations are as follows: must follow directly after the text with no spaces in between. And if they are after a comma, there is also no space between, but rather a space after the ref tag. Please assume good faith and don't accuse me of disliking what you did. I also must ask you to check out ref templates: <ref>{{citeweb|url=|title=|publisher=|author=|accessdate=|date=}}</ref>. Please do that instead of bare references, it saves a lot of time fixing it. --haha169 (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Allgame review

Why do you keep reverting this? It's cited and relevent. Plese stop removing it without reason! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable website. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why is it in the in the template? What declares it a notable site? Allmusic and allmovie relate to their articles, allgame is just as notable. Give more information99.246.1.192 (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Power review NOV 98_VOL_114

For those who wanted to see it:

The wait is over. Zelda has arrived!

Graphics (20%): The cinematic scenes and atmosphere in Zelda will set a new standard for video game adventures. The animations convey emotions as well as a sense of reality. Some of the areas are almost photorealistic, while others are more fantasy-based, but all areas are filled with rich, graphic detail.

Play Control (20%): Analog movement and control response is excellent, so link's moves and use of weapons and tools is first rate. Every controller button has a function, though, and that could be the most trying part of Zelda.

Game Design (25%): Miyamoto doesn't disappoint. Ocarina of Time includes all the best elements of previous Zelda games, such as multiroom dungeons, colorful characters, clever puzzles, frightening monsters, and an heroic theme. New elements include 3-D battles, horseback riding, the realistic passage of time, and cinematic scenes with dramatic camera angles.

Satisfaction (25%): You've gotta love this game.

Sound (10%): The music and sound effects help add to the emotional impact of the game.

Comments: Scott-Variety and exploration on an unprecedented scale. Andy-Say goodbye to your friends and family before you start to play. Paul-Deep. Mysterious. Thought-provoking. All games should be like this.

Graphics=9.3/10 Play Control=8.8/10 Game Design=9.9/10 Satisfaction=9.9/10 Sound=9.2/10 OVERALL RATING 9.5/10

Individual staff scores: Armond-8.0 Jason-10.0 E-9.0 Ed-9.8 Scott(SP)-9.5

It's short, unspecific, and littered with grammatical errors, so I don't think there's much we can quote from it. But at least this satisfies the curiosity of those who wondered what the NP review said. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't this some kind of copyright violation? --Ryajinor (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Master Quest

I know that this information used to exist in one of the articles and I can even get sources for this. Master Quest certainly isn't the full version of what Ura-Zelda was supposed to be. This can be verified by interviews with Miyamoto who implicitly states that the expansion would include new content beyond rearranged dungeons, such as brand new dungeons, enemies and items. Not to mention the fact that the Ura Zelda patch was bigger than OoT itself (while MQ is the same size as OoT, and it's highly unlikely that rearranged dungeons would take up over 32mb). Miyamoto also mentioned that there was also going to be an expanded mask trading quest and that players would be able to create custom masks using the Gameboy camera and Mario Artist. This certainly isn't in MQ. I'm not saying we need to go into great detail, but a few sentences about this would be ideal. --.:Alex:. 11:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know where these interviews are? Pagrashtak 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On IGN. I'll dig 'em out. --.:Alex:. 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So why the heck did you whoever change the credits back to what it was?

Why is Shigeru Miyamoto listed all the way under the directors? If you're going to not give him any credit for directing, then at least put his name first, as it is the order it appeared in the OFFICIAL CREDITS.

Also, why the hell is someone constantly scared if I add more information on the development on Ocarina of Time? I think people who are looking for info would appreciate being as specific as possible. Don't change my edits this time, especially if you think they're trivial.

Because he never did much hands-on work. Since the N64, he's always been the supervisor guy who gets 99% of the credit for everything his individual team members do. Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, please don't say things if you have no clue how things work. Is there some strange disease going on with some of you that makes you unable to read the mountain of substantiated evidence that was posted on this page?

Fact: Eiji Aonuma only was responsible for directing dungeons. He was not the main director. Look up on this page where I posted the goddamn interviews. So then that brings us to our next question. If he's not the main director, then who could that be? Yes, that's right. Whether you don't want to believe it or not, whatever the reason, Miyamoto killing your puppy or whatever, he was responsible for a lot more than what you're thinking. Yes, you are correct about Miyamoto not having much hands on work during the N64 days, but that was AFTER he finished Ocarina. Here's some more proof since some of you appear to be really daft.

Q: How much of your job is now hands-on, and how are you involved in current games?

A: It's very hard for me to say now. Three years ago I was director and producer of Super Mario 64. Then I only worked on Mario. Now I'm a producer on almost every game except Zelda 64. On Zelda 64 I'm half director and half producer.

http://ign64.ign.com/articles/060/060925p1.html

Miyamoto is an incredibly modest person, so when he says he directed something, then one should have no friggen reason to doubt him. He's gladly denied not having been involved in other games, so why not this one? Am I going too fast for you? I can type slower if that will help.

And here's something else in case you don't believe Aonuma was the main designer on Ocarina.

Eiji Aonuma has worked at Nintendo since he entered the videogames industry in the late Eighties and become one of its most important employees. He was assistant Director of Ocarina Of Time and has been in charge of every Zelda game from Majora's Mask right up to Phantom Hourglass.

http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/article.php?id=2633

Now I'm going to go back and edit the page, so please do not change it to something inaccurate, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.48.166 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That miyamoto was the main director is just your speculation, which is not suitable for wikipedia.The interviews do not say miyamoto was the main director.Ocarina of time has several directors, and does not have a main director.The man who designs the game system should be on the Designer section of an article.Miyamoto did not design the game system, he just supervised the game.Actually, the interview that says he was half director and half producer means he was half supervisor and half Producer.Directing is being involved in designing a game directly, supervising is being involved in designing a game indirectly.Official credit shows miyamoto was producer and supervisor.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill out of this? If Miyamoto was simply a supervisor, then why does every interview on the planet dealing with Eiji Aonuma mention he was main director starting from Majora's Mask? As for you saying he didn't design or do anything, well...

Q: How much of your original design made it into the game?

Miyamoto: When it comes to the core or main portion, I think more than 30% comes from me or my ideas. When it comes to the main game system, it's 100% -- so my ideas have been fully realized and recognized. When it comes to the scenario about 50% reflect my ideas.

http://ign64.ign.com/articles/060/060234p1.html

Scenario and Planning - both very necessary. The team discussed the position of this title in the whole series, and included myself and several dedicated script writers.

Link's action and 3D improvements of items found previously in the series: This team included myself, Mr. Yoshiaki Koizumi who has worked on player characters since the days of Mario, and the head programmer.

http://ign64.ign.com/articles/067/067394p1.html

He did a lot more work than just merely managing the game. Listen, think about this logically. Miyamoto has been credited with being a producer for dozens of games, so why does he only bother to mention that he's also a director for Ocarina? Because unlike most of the other games he produce, he was actually involved in development. It's not speculation! It's in the interviews and is plain as day. What you are doing with giving Aonuma credit for the whole game would be like giving the cinematographer the whole credit for Jurassic Park instead of Steven Spielberg. Seriously, this is a non-issue. Don't change it ever again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.48.166 (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, venom is starting to fly. Try to calm down and be civil. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It's just slightly irritating that I'm being accused of speculating, when I have provided a mountain full of evidence that corroborates what I've been saying. Plus it would seem hypocritical to give Aonuma the credit of a designer even though he was listed as game system director. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.48.166 (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Peach's Cameo

Why is it not stated in the article that Princess Peach is viewable on a portrait in Hyrule Castle? It's credible trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.202.127 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, Mario's picure is right next to Peach's. Its factualness is not in debate. The problem is the fact that it's trivia, thus trivial. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Eiji Aonuma a dungeon designer?

Hi guys. How yall doing? :)

I don't get why Aonuma is listed as a dungeon designer. He's a game system director I thought? On the credits it says "Game system director" not "Game system director and dungeon design". Why are you people polluting this site with lies? :( :( Wikipedia has no use for speculation, right?!??!?!! :)

Oh and same with the other credits. Yoshiaki Koizumi is the 3D system director I was thinking. He didn't have anything to do with event planning, speculation aside. Have a nice day! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.164.177 (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Aonuma didn't design the dungeons. He's a game system director. And Koizumi was not responsible for Event planning. I don't know where this information was gotten from. I'm gonna go edit that extraneous stuff out. Hopefully there will be no issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.164.31 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm sick of this infobox. I have half a mind to just blank the Designer field completely, since it seems to get edited more than the rest of the article combined. Anyways, before Eiji Aonuma's GDC 2007 speech, Bill Trinen introduced him as Ocarina's dungeon designer.[2] Pagrashtak 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, Bill might have mentioned that. But is there any actual proof, though? I mean, do we know for a fact that it might not have been a mistranslation or something? Sounds a lot like speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.53.225 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you want, a video of Aonuma at work? Bill Trinen specifically said that Aonuma designed the Water Temple. If that's a mistranslation, it's a pretty specific one. And no, I don't have any proof that Bill Trinen is not lying. Fortunately for us, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. Aonuma being a dungeon designer—is it true? Who knows. Is it verifiable? Yes. Pagrashtak 19:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just saying. I mean, yeah sure under NORMAL circumstances, one would think that if you have an interview documented by a well established site, such as IGN and whatnot, that would be enough to verify something. But as you can see from many of the quarrels above, that the 8 thousand interviews (including stuff straight from the so called true visionary of OoT, Eiji Aonuma himself) posted corroborating Shigeru Miyamoto's role as something significantly more than a mere PR monkey haven't been enough to convince this page's webmaster(s), then I think one could assume that the logical conclusion is that mere interviews, no matter how many there are, no matter from who it's conducted with, isn't good enough to base facts on. Do you not agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.53.225 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The interviews seem fine with me. Personally, I don't care about this field that much and would be just as happy if it was blank—I'm not part of the infobox edit war. I'm just tired of this article constantly popping up on my watchlist every time the infobox gets reverted. Pagrashtak 17:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen! Preach it Brotha! You think it's bad enough that it should go on WP:LAME? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pagrash, I'm sorry if this issue keeps popping up on your watch list. I know it can be annoying, but alas, I will continue to edit this page with the accurate information, until whoever keeps changing it stops. I'm not doing this to be a jerk, or because I don't have anything better to do. If you don't have information that contains the truth and just decide to put in whatever, then Wikipedia is not achieving it's goal. It's also very annoying that the same person who keeps changing it, also seems to delete the interviews that I post in the development section too. Yet for some odd reason he/she decides to have some random comment by Makoto Miyanaga, which doesn't say anything insightful about the development at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.53.225 (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There, I even added the interview (again). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.53.225 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this is one of my FAs, I feel the need to check edits when I'm active. Larry's right that this is quite a lame edit war. 76, I'd like to make you aware of WP:3RR if you're not already. Since this is a content dispute and not vandalism, you (or anyone else) can be blocked for excessive reverting—whether you are reverting to a correct version or not. I'd also like to invite you and 208 to create accounts. You can read Wikipedia:Why create an account? for some of the benefits of having an account. For starters, I find that it makes talk page conversations like this easier. Even if you don't want to create account, please sign your posts (on talk pages, not in articles) by adding ~~~~ to the end of your post. Thanks, Pagrashtak 01:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you do not understand what is producer. Producer is PR monkey? DO NOT INSULT SHIGERU MIYAMOTO. Most of the credits of the games he took part in are producer, producer is the highest position in game development. PR is a very important thing for games, other than that, the most important role of producer is commanding director. In an interview he said he was half producer and half director. The roles of director and supervisor are similar. The role of supervisor is commanding game staff(not only director) in an indirect way, and no game designers are credited as director and supervisor because one man can never be director and supervisor at the same time, and if he had been the director, the credit would have been so, but the credit shows he was producer and supervisor. Miyamoto was the producer of many games, so he had a few time and was not able to do hands-on work enough. Anyway, official credit is the most reliable source and do not insult his job as producer and supervisor. The credit of producer and supervisor is a sign of high status.--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pagrash, sounds good. I will sign up for an account later today. Also, I did not know about the 24 hour thing, thanks. As for the person above me, first of all, I wasn't insulting him. I was trying to DEFEND him. I know a producer is a very important role, but as far as how a game creatively turns out, more often than not, much of the glory should go to the director. The roles of supervisor and director are NOT similar, by the way. If that was the case, then the real supervisors (in this case, Takashi Tezuka and Toshigio Nakago(sp?) ) wouldn't be listed so far down the list. The reason I'm making an issue out of this is because most people don't see the producer as the creative force. Yes, in some cases they are (like this one), but people will commonly assume that if a person is a producer, then all they do is handle the money and office work, stuff like that. That's why I want to make the distinction. Aonuma, Koizumi, and all those people have been responsible for parts of the game, but it was Miyamoto's job to be overall responsible for it. Miyamoto was working on Super Mario 64 during the first half of OoT's development, and when that was done, he worked back on OoT. It's not the first time something like this has happened. Eiji Aonuma was originally producer for Twilight Princess, but he came back as a director midway through the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.53.225 (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The word director should not be used for his credit because it is not official and one man can not be director and supervisor at the same time. I Added lines about his role (someone may remove it), and this issue should be finished.--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But Miyamoto said so himself. Several times. How much more official does it need to be? Also, who says you can't be both a supervisor and a director? People can have more than one role in a project. Also, don't you think his name should be listed first, if you're going by official credits? Cause that's how it's listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megax5000 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, now. How can you eliminate Miyamoto from the Designers list? It's been stated god knows how many times above. Miyamoto designed the scenario and much of the game system, and several other things. Why are you people leaving him out, and leaving level designers and artists in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megax5000 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what the hell? At first I thought somebody modified the page again because they reverted it to a previous state because of the gamerankings issue (see below), but it's back to the way it was. It was fine for a few days and then somebody borked things again. What is the fricken deal here, people? Stop leaving Miyamoto out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.53.225 (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So we're just gonna start ingnoring disputes ENTIRELY? If you guys don't care about factual information, you might as well mention that Walt Disney or Bill Gates directed Ocarina of Time. God what is the point of wikipedia anyway. I thought it was supposed to INFORM, not cover up facts like a school that teaches intelligent design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GameRankings in the lead, Prince.

Your first revert was that not everything needed to be included. When games like include the ranking on GameRanking in the lead: Grand Theft Auto 4, Halo 3, Soul Calibur, and yes even Super Mario Galaxy mentions it's the most critically acclaimed all in the lead. It's a notable achievement to be uncontested for many years.

I also want to address that "Just because another article does it doesn't mean it should be included' counterpoint. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists

Specifically, When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

And I can't see any problems with the wording, please address them. If that's your only problem, then why are you removing it entirely? It's a silly reason. --HeaveTheClay (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You added this information:", excluding ports and re-releases.[1] On Game Rankings, a site which collects and averages game reviews, Ocarina of Time holds the highest average review score of all time. Its Gamecube re-release, which includes the original game and a new "Master Quest" with reworked dungeons, holds an average score of 90% based on 24 reviews, ranked #190 among all games. [2]"

1. The game is one of the most critically acclaimed games ever, and I think only mentioning the major points of its reception is necessary.
2. It's kinda assumed that the game's sales (7.6 million copies) excludes ports and re-releases, and is therefore, IMO, not needed to mention.
3. Including GR is fine and all, but why give a long description on what GR is, when a link to the article explains it so much better. That's what links are for. And why not include MC as well? The site is at least as popular as GR.
4. Video games, movies, CDs etc need to be in italics, which "Ocarina of Time" isn't.
5. Gamecube -> GameCube.
6. "Master Quest" -> Master Quest. Saying that MC has "reworked dungeons" isn't relevant for reception. Also, I believe the original title's reception is sufficient for the lead. A good lead must summarise the article's content adequatly, without superfluous details. And "ranked #190". Is this really an achievement?

In general, I think the lead was fine the way it was, and it was unnecessary to change it in accordance with your own personal preference. But to be honest, I won't be fighting about this anymore. If you're so desperat about the content being there, then so be it. I just think it's a shame that an FA gets littered with such useless information, but I guess there's nothing you can do when you're dealing with one of the most popular games ever created. FYI, I'll take both OoT and Ganon off of my watchlist, as I can't be bothered partaking in any more lame discussions. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

The image in the infobox was the Player's Choice re-release box, so I have uploaded the original box. Paper Luigi ^{Talk • Contributions} 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Every image I try to upload is "corrupted" or has an "unknown file extension". I upload like I always do and JPG is about as common as you can get! Paper Luigi ^{Talk • Contributions} 19:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If needed I have an origional box tthat I can scan and put up. rdunn 12:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I just joined Wikipedia so I'm not completely sure what this discussion page is for, but I signed up because the last paragraph in the reception section was terribly negative! OoT is an amazing game. For the article to end with the quote "...replaying the title will likely be distant in your mind" felt just wrong and contradicting. So I included a quote from the GameSpot review to remind everyone how great this game still is even with it being outdated.--Merveilles (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer your first question, this is precicely what the discussion page is for, discussing how to improve the article. Many new editors make the mistake of trying to use the talk page as a forum for discussing the subject of the article, rather than how to make the article itself better, so you're already one step ahead of the curve. As for your addition, I have no problem with the reception section ending on a positive note. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I support it; the majority of reviews of this game were positive, so it makes sense to round the section out with a positive. Of course, I'm not as up on this stuff as other people are (Wikipedian06 for example), so take it with a grain of salt. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So where can we actually discuss the topic then? (I'm assuming you're referring to my comment up there in the Aonuma section) Cause when I think of ways to 'improve' an article, I would THINK that having some accurate information about the subject would be a great place to start. That's just me, though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.48.100 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Let me clarify. The spirit of the rule is that discussions on talk pages should be geared toward improvement of the article, "improvement" being defined by the rules and guidelines set down by the lords of the wiki concerning what constitutes encyclopedic content, which, as I said earlier, I am not as familiar with as I would like. Discussion of the topic, as long as it ultimately leads to improvement of the article, is generally allowed; what we don't want to see is discussions of which game is the best in the series (Twilight Princess, though I can accept other viewpoints), or who would win in a fight between Ganon and Sauron (I'm not sure, their both pretty spooky). There are millions of forums across the Internet, in every conceiveable language (possibly including a dialect of Hylian), where you can discuss these and similar topics, but this isn't the place. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. But that's the thing, I'm not arguing about whether OoT is better than Final Fantasy 7 or whatever. I'm strictly sticking with solid, quantifiable, verifiable, info. But eh, I won't harp on this too much anymore, I can see it getting annoying for something so trivial (granted, it's BECAUSE this is such an otherwise trivial issue that vexes me, greatly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I bet you're thinking of the discussions further up about how people's contributions to the game should be labeled. I'm staying out of those for two reasons:

1. That's one of those things I'm unfamiliar with.
2. They tend to devolve into lame edit wars. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree edit wars tend to be lame. The issue that I have is that this should be a cut and dry thing, since it's not like I haven't provided (MANY) sources. There should be no room for any other interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. Is this your page, Larry? I mean, are you the one that started this? If so, then by looking at all the stuff that's been posted above, I think you could make a reasonable decision on how to handle the credits. I mean you stated that you don't know much about the background on this, but I do, and we should probably do our best to make sure we provide accurate info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't start this page. It was around long before I began editing to any degree. Even if I had, though, (It time for another episode of...LET'S...GET...TECHNICAL!!!) it wouldn't be "my" article.

1. It differs significantly from the way it looked days after it's initial birth. Like a human baby, it has developed into a fine young article, a contribuiting member of society, and the original author should be proud of the featured specimen he hath birthed, whoever he/she may be.
2. Wikipedia frowns on ownership of an article (the claiming of an article as one's own, refusing to allow others to "tamper" with it), as it prevents the article from normal development, leading to a mentally or physically underdeveloped article that is unable to contribute as much as it would like, ultimately being a drain on network resources that, in totalitarian websites, would be euthenized with extreme prejudice, the original author being stripped of his/her ability to produce any more articles.

As for the possibility of knowing what to do, here's my thoughts (PLEASE take this with a grain of salt; I don't really know what I'm talking about). Since the two big dissagreements seem to be how to label the contributions of the developers and, indeed, which developers to include, I say we just have the most important developers (maybe restrict it to three; when choosing what movies I go to, I look at Director, Executive Producer, Writer, and Actor, so we put them in the box, minus the actor), then go to the original end credits for how to label them. Or find these jobs in the end credits and post their names. Whichever is easier on us all. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So is there a moderator or administrator that can I can address this issue with? I agree with your criteria, that a few should be enough. Though I really don't mind if more is posted since the more info available, the better. What's particularly irritating is that the people who seem to bother disputing this issue seem to not care much about Ocarina of Time to begin with. Why these guys don't bother spending all of their time on something like Majora's Mask or Wind Waker wiki pages, where the assumption that Aonuma and Koizumi WERE the main designers for that game and thus would be legitimate, I have no goddamn clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, for everyone else (not you, Larry) here's yet ANOTHER interview with the so called director of OoT, Eiji Aonuma from Nintendo Power. You girls that have had your cats run over by Miyamoto need to pay specific attention to this. Note the way Aonuma mentions how much Miyamoto was involved in the game, which make it out to be far more than Aonuma himself was involved.

http://www.giantbomb.com/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time/61-12572/celebrating-10-years-of-a-legend/35-218891/

Now, I'll be changing it (again) to reflect the more accurate roles, so you know, kindly piss off please.

I would avoid getting a moderator involved until it becomes truly lame, ie. it makes it into WP:LAME, since those poor people have enough to do as it is. Also, the use of the phrase "p*** off" is contrary to Wikipedia's civility policy, and generally will only serve to rile up the opposition. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're somewhat right, Larry. I don't like to flame, but this farce has gone on long enough. Daisuke needs to focus his efforts on the other 3D Zelda wikipedia pages where his incessant denial of Miyamoto's directorial leadership actually has merit. This is getting annoying, but I do think it's worth discussing with a moderator, because while it may seem insignificant, to not properly give Miyamoto credit (at least let's leave his name this for pete's sake!) for Ocarina is like not giving Einstein credit for relativity. Once you view it in that fashion, I think you'll understand the seriousness of this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008

Not to get involved in this dreary debate, but, just to clarify, the administrators (there are no "moderators" here, nominally) of Wikipedia are people given special privileges to do tasks normal users cannot perform, not arbitrators or figures of authority in discussions. Disputes such as these are decided by consensus only. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bleh, that's a shame. Anyway, I'd be more than willing to go with the whole consensus thing if it wasn't for the fact that, you know, the ones who I'm arguing with don't bother actually conversing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

More info on reception in head paragraph: the Greatest Game Ever Made?

Since this article just got FA I don't want to make a change like this right away, but what are some thoughts about including how it's viewed as one of the best games of all time and extremely influential in the opening section? It seems to me that since it's so widely understood as being a solid contender for best game of all-time that that has become a defining characteristic of the game. Here are some examples from other subject areas to support my idea and explain what I'm suggesting:

• War and Peace
• The Communist Manifesto
• Pacman

-- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you can keep your opinion out of it, because some people don't think it's (one of) the best of all time. Let's stick to objective facts like sales figures and awards won. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is to keep your implied belief that the Fwanksta is a butthead to yourself, stating logically why you think it's a bad idea, without the use of venom. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point of me posting those other articles (and that really only took a minute, so I'm sure there are plenty more) was to show that such statements seem to be common practice on Wikipedia, if they're warranted. Certainly you can agree that the industry consensus is that it's a contender for greatest game of all time. I don't believe what I'm proposing would be at odds with NPOV, because the article isn't stating that the game is objectively the greatest of all time; rather, it's stating that it's a fact that many people think it's the greatest of all time. There's a crucial difference. And thank you for your defence, Larrythefunkyferret. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are some possible references to corroborate my assertion. It only took me a minute by Googling "ocarina of time best game":

• http://top100.ign.com/2005/001-010.html
• http://play.tm/news/11382/ocarina-of-time-best-game-ever/
• http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/legendofzeldaocarina
• http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp
• http://www.gamestyle.net/news/3174

To reiterate, I'm not trying to prove that OoT is objectively the best game of all time, merely that it is widely considered to be. WP:NPOV seems to say that's acceptable. I quote: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." -- The Fwanksta (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's already a whole paragraph in the head section about it recieving "wide critical acclaim and commercial success." That's more than enough. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RPGamer editor said "Sadly, the game goes steadily downhill by today's standards after the well done menus, battle system, puzzles, and localization. Because of the frustrating nature of the game in general, replaying the title will likely be distant in your mind." Thunderbolt Games editor said, "When I try to describe how I felt whilst playing this game, the words arduous or labourious spring to mind most often. I spent much of the time being bored, running from one dungeon to the next and cursing the game's sometime lack of direction and often vague 'hints'." Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Man, some of the contributors on this page object to the most trivial shit. OoT IS considered one of the best games of all time, as has been stating by its review scores and from nearly every major reviewer. Also the fact that we have the qualifier 'One of the best" should be enough to give it some leeway. Nobody's saying it IS for a fact better than GTA or Halo or whatever. I don't particularly care too much, but like many insignificant issues on this page, I don't see this as anything worth popping veins over. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.132.168 (talk • contribs) 04:01, November 22, 2008

Personally, I'd use the word "influential" rather than "best." It's less of a POV statement. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true, it is less POV, but I don't think it conveys the same idea. Something can be influential for its badness, or could have once been considered great but now it's out of date. Even today I think people consider Oot to be magnificent. I appreciate the quotations you provided, but I don't think that they disprove the widespread belief that OoT is a contender for best game of all time. Indeed, I'd be willing to bet that those reviewers would agree that many people think that it is, even if they disagree with their assessment. I'd also like to note that I think the review you quoted from RPGamer was about the Master Quest reissue, not the original game, but that's a sidenote. I still think it is warranted to mention something about this topic in the head paragraph on its "wide critical acclaim and commercial success," because it's iconic status is such a defining characteristic of the game. I'd like to again refer you to the examples that I've provided. I don't like War and Peace all that much (I couldn't finish the damn thing, although I was a lot younger when I tried it), but I still recognize that many people view it as one of the greatest novels of all time. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that both the RPGamer and Thunderbolt reviews were "officially" written for the OoT/MQ re-release. However, having read through quite a few OoT/MQ reviews, I couldn't help but notice how many of the criticisms applied directly to the original game, instead of issues related to the porting (such as controls) or concerning the advancement of technology (such as graphics and sound quality).

For example, Thunderbolt's complaints about the game being too dungeon-heavy, about Navi being too in-your-face, about the lack of direction at certain points in the game, about the Z-targeting mechanism being occasionally clunky, etc. are all very valid, and these COULD easily have been N64 criticisms. As I recall, the Thunderbolt staff were concerned that their site's integrity would have been compromised if they were to give the original an exceedingly negative review (due to the general public perception of this game), so the associate editor assigned another reviewer -- one who was a major fan of the game -- to critique the original, while he took the GCN version himself.

I realize that this game has a large, rabid fanbase. I remember the fiasco when Cubed3 changed its score for this game from a 9.9 to a 9.0 due to a new rounding system, causing Grand Theft Auto IV to be listed #1 on GameRankings. The GameRankings editor noted that dozens of angry readers emailed him about how it was an outrage for sites to change their scores years after publishing their original reviews. He then arbitrarily set a policy that only original scores could count on the site -- even though he had contradicted this policy in the past -- just so that people wouldn't complain about it. It was a move to appease the fanboys. However, having a rabid fanbase does not mean that this game is universally believed to be great.

Personally, I think OoT is an above-average game (I don't think it's "best ever" material, but it's not "bad"), but I'd still like the site's POV principles to be adhered to. There are plenty of people who think Grand Theft Auto 4, Mario Galaxy, or Metal Gear Solid 4 are among the greatest games ever. Their articles don't use peacock-y language like "best ever," but instead refer to sales and reception to make the point. And I think the 7.6 million copies and achievement awards in this article's lead do just that. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You make some excellent points about some of the problems with the game itself, and the importance of NPOV. However, I still think that the crucial distinction must be made between asserting as a fact that the game is the best ever made and asserting as a fact that many people think it is the best game ever made (or one of them). I am advocating the latter, and would vehemently disagree with the article stating the former. Again, I quote from WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." I think some of the websites I have provided can sufficiently back this statement up:

• IGN's top 100 games: "Considered by many critics to be the greatest game ever made..." (http://top100.ign.com/2005/001-010.html)
• News article on Edge's list of top 100 games polled from readers and industry experts place Oot at the top. (http://play.tm/news/11382/ocarina-of-time-best-game-ever/)
• Metacritic page on OoT: "Considered by many to be the greatest single-player video game ever created in any genre, Ocarina of Time..." (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/legendofzeldaocarina)
• The gamerankings site with OoT at the top (even if it got bumped down to #2 by GTA4 again it'd still be valid) (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp)

In addition, I've provided a number of other articles in other fields that use similar "peacock-y" language, and it seems fine there. I understand that this is not conclusive evidence, but it certainly helps my point. (And one last point added after my original post: I think it would be fine to add to other articles like GTA4, or Galaxy, or Halo, or StarCraft, or FFVII or II, or Civ II, that they are considered to be contenders for greatest game of all time -- because they are. Provided, of course, we have sufficient references :) ) -- The Fwanksta (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And actually, as Autonova has pointed out two headers below, the articles on Halo: Combat Evolved, Super Mario 64, and GTA IV do in fact make those assertions that you claimed they have not. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Fwanksta's right, put it in. It's not POV to reflect the opinions of critics - that's one of the most accepted mechanisms of wikipedia. The recognition and strength of Ocarina of Time's "one of the best games ever" status is such that this won't be a hard thing to convey. Indeed the sources above alone look good enough. Autonova (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To be ranked high on IGN's top 100 games list is not equal to "Considered by many critics to be the greatest game ever made...". You should write "the game was ranked high on IGN's top 100 games list.". And If you want to write about these facts you provided, you should write in the reception section, not in the lead section because current state seems smart and adding "It was ranked high on a website's top games list" in the lead section is not smart and can make the article worse. You referred to other examples such as Super Mario 64, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to include it.--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point to raise WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if you'll notice, the policy page does explicitly say that such an argument can be used correctly. I think in this case I am, per this quotation from the policy page: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Regardless, I think it's important to note that I've provided more references than just IGN, including metacritic, which is an aggregate site of video game reviews. If I were to put my suggestion in the article I would include all of those references that I have provided, which I think -- in sum -- show a sufficient amount evidence. I still think it should go in the lead section because it's such a defining characteristic of the game. It would be like not including in the article on WWII how it's the deadliest and one of the most important conflicts in human history, and rather including it only in the impact of the war section. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And indeed, a further point. It is not the fact alone that OoT is high on IGN's Top 100 games list that makes it widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time; it is the fact that IGN in that article describes it as such. As do many of the other references I have provided. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is a poor argument against a comparison to Mario 64. The guidelines state that if it is a -valid- comparison it can be used as a basis for the new article. Since Mario 64 is very similar to OoT, a comparison is valid. Mario is a 3D progression of a 2D videogame franchise, so is OoT. Both are made by Nintendo, indeed by the same man. Both are for the same console. Therefore, any content that's in Mario 64 and that's true for OoT, should be in OoT. Autonova (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

IGN's top 100 is a reader's poll (here is the one for 2008). Metacritic is missing several important reviews, such as Nintendo Power's own 9.5/10, CVG's 9/10, netjak's 9.5/10 (all of these are on the allowed publications list; with these included the metascore would be a 97 or 98. GameRankings had the aforementioned controversy with the Cubed3 review, as well as data tweaking concerns (if you look at archived versions of the page, you'll notice that several low(er)-scoring reviews, such as Happy Puppy's, were deleted without explanation.) But even then, it is a highly-acclaimed game. I stand by "one of the most influential games" in order to minimize disputes from either side. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, The IGN top 100 list that I referenced is not a reader's poll. I quote: "This list represents the thoughts, sweat and tears of over 20 IGN editors, all long-time gamers" (http://top100.ign.com/2005/index.html). Even if it was, that would still help prove my point that many consider it to be one of the greatest games of all time. Metacritic may be missing a few reviews, but that does not discount the fact that it is a reliable source in the industry that says, I quote: "Considered by many to be the greatest single-player video game ever created in any genre, Ocarina of Time..." (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/n64/legendofzeldaocarina). With regards to GameRankings, even if it isn't number 1, just the fact that it's near the top helps prove my point (which is that it's considered to be one of the greatest games of all time.) Finally, I would like to reiterate my point that "influential" and "best" have very distinct definitions, and merely substituting the former for the latter would not convey the same idea I believe the article should impart. The first video game was obviously extremely influential; however, it is not considered one of the best games of all time. Similar examples could be made ad nauseam. I would actually like both statements to be included. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, influential doesn't mean great - two qualities which this game is considered to have, by many respected sources. Both adjectives should be put in the intro section. Autonova (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. how about adding "of its time" just to be clear? Games have come a long way since 1998. Wikipedian06 (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your point, however for example Toy Story is heralded as one of the finest animations ever, and that was made, by today's standards, by pretty average computer animation. I think game design is timeless. Autonova (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the praises for the game come from the fact that the game was the first 3D zelda game. In terms of game design, mm, ww and tp are much better.--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, however I would suggest that OoT's praise came from the fact that it had a lot to live up to as the first 3D Zelda. I can't remember critics praising the game simply because of this fact. Look at the first 3D sonic! I'd say the fact it was the first 3D Zelda made its feats even more impressive, but this fact alone means nothing other than Nintendo's ambition at the time. Autonova (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Fwanksta is correct, agreed? The two main arguments being, there are plenty of strong sources (including BOTH review aggregator sites) to back this up, and it has been done elsewhere on featured videogame articles. Plus, as an aside, I think it would be a minor tragedy if it didn't gain the recognition it deserves before it's wiped forever from the wikipedia front page.

How's this for a sentence in the intro section?

"The title is widely regarded as being among the greatest and most influential video games ever." Autonova (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's perfectly acceptable, although I guess you wouldn't be surprised, eh? :) -- The Fwanksta (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

:) Excellent! Edit the paragraph at your discretion sir. Autonova (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"The title is widely regarded as being among the greatest and most influential video games ever." -See, this is ALL we needed. Because since we have the qualifier 'among' we satisfy both the fans of the game that want it to receive the acclaim it rightfully deserves as well as the people who have an axe to grind with Ocarina, such as Wikipedian06 (because now that leaves room for people thinking Halo or GTA or whatever to also be great and influential games without feeling insulted). By the way, some of you should know that even Eiji Aonuma doesn't think that his post Ocarina games are better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And also, remember a very important fact. You are all discussing Ocarina as the greatest game ever made, based on American and UK reviews. You should remember other countries too. The true game that would be considered the greatest would be the one that would be the most renowned and loved game around the globe, which the two games are Ocarina and Super Mario 64 (it's difficult to say which one is the most loved due to the fact that there are certain things that these two titles have in common, that are important for a game to have, but Ocarina is gaining ground recentely because of a bias of the gaming industry, which is going to be discuused on Youtube soon). So before jumping to any conclusions, I think we should just put Ocarina as ¨one of the greatest games ever made¨, not as ¨the most¨. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Done! -- The Fwanksta (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems we're having a bit of difficulty deciding on whether or not it's warranted by the references to say that OoT is one of the most influential games ever. Here are my points for arguing that it is:

• The IGN Top 100 Games references states that OoT "helped pave the way for 3D adventure games"
• The play.tm article argues that Oot "made revolutionary use of 3D"
• the gamestyle reference (which Eisai Dekisugi strangely removed) states that the game "help (sic) usher in a new era of 3D gaming."
• Most importantly, if the reader goes down to the reception section, there is much more detail on OoT's influence. It's "a new benchmark for interactive entertainment", it has set "industry standards" and become like "a walking patent office." It seems reasonable that the reader would have to look into the rest of the article for further detail in order to truly see the massive influence that Oot had. The opening section is sort of like an intro paragraph in an essay -- like a thesis -- and the reader must explore the body of the article in order to truly see all of the evidence. That's why we have a more fleshed-out section on the game's reception. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"helped pave the way for 3D adventure games" "made revolutionary use of 3D" "help (sic) usher in a new era of 3D gaming."

It is obvious these do not say the game is "among the most influential games ever." "the game is among the most influential games ever." is your personal opinion, which is not suitable for wikipedia--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, you seem to have ignored my point about the discussion of its influence in the "reception" section. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What? How is saying it's influential not accurate? That's not an opinion! Saying "I think Majora's Mask is the best ZElda evur!111' is an opinion. Saying that Ocarina influenced many things, especially with Z-targetting and context sensitive buttons, is NOT an opinion, because that's what it did. Dear god, some of you need to stop trying to correct things without being able to distinguish facts from opinions first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and support for my position, but the issue at hand is whether we can properly provide sufficient references to warrant such a statement. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I point ou that if you Google "ocarina of time best game", you are going to get sites that say it is regardless whether it is or isnt. rdunn 10:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'm not 100% sure about what you're getting at. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, Google search results aren't reliable sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to comment on the recent edits regarding this topic. The sentence that I wrote clearly reflects the source material. For example, the IGN article says clearly: "Considered by many critics to be the greatest game ever made..." The Metacritic reference says: ""Considered by many to be the greatest single-player video game ever created in any genre, Ocarina of Time..." I'm not going to repeat myself and quote the other articles again; I'm a little weary of repeating these points. The sentence I wrote reflects the source material. The fact that IGN and Metacritic say that it is widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time provides sufficient evidence to warrant that statement. If you want to say that there's a Western bias, bring it up here and show me some references. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, geez...Famitsu gave it one of their few perfect scores... -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Both the statements of IGN and Metacritic were written years ago. So let's add "of its time".--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, prove to me that the Metacritic one was written years ago. I look at the website today and it tells me that it's widely considered among the greatest games of all time. Second, the IGN's Reader's Choice poll reference that placed it #1 is 2008. Third, the play.tm reference is from 2007. Fourth, the Gametrailers reference is from 2007. Most importantly, I would argue that putting "of its time" connotes that it is no longer perceived as such, and there is no evidence that you have provided that suggests that. Hence, I'm changing it back. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I originally provided a number of more recent IGN top games lists, but you removed them. If you want more evidence that it's still considered among the greatest games of all time, put 'em back up. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd argue that "of its time" actually connotes that it's perceived as such considering the standards and limits of gaming at that time, rather than it being no longer considered a great game. Either way, I still think having such a statement is not neutral. Like I said before, the way it was written before this whole debate was more than sufficient for the head paragraph. The rest can go in the reception section. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is you that said "I wrote clearly reflects the source material.""The sentence I wrote reflects the source material. The fact that IGN and Metacritic say that it is widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time provides sufficient evidence to warrant that statement." But based on the statement you made at 01:45, 3 December, the sentence does not clearly reflects the source material. These things should be mentioned in the reception section as "the game was ranked high on a list" or like that, not in the lead section.--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, but you're going to have to elaborate on that point because I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm arguing mainly that because reputable sources specifically say that it's seen as one of the greatest games of all time, we are justified in putting that referenced statement in the lead section of the article. In addition, I mentioned that a number of the other references provide supplementary evidence that indicate that even today it is still considered by many to be one of the greatest games of all time. Therefore, I don't think it's reasonable to want to qualify the assertion with the statement "of its time." -- The Fwanksta (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As a response to Zero1328: These are excellent points you raise. Referring to your first point, I think that maybe that gets too detailed for our discussion here. This discussion relies on differing conceptions of what (one of) the greatest game of all means. It could be that it's influential, or that it's still great. So it's a great point that you raise when you say that maybe it's being judged by the standards of its time. However, I have a few responses to that. First, I think that maybe we shouldn't get into that in the article here; instead, we should just leave it up to the reputable sources. We have sources that say it's widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time -- let's report that. Second, many other video game articles do not seem to need that qualifier. Third, even if there is reason to interpret the connotations as you suggest (and there certainly are), I don't like the ambiguities that could cause someone to infer the connotations that I have warned about, and thus think that it's not worth putting in at all. To your second point, I will repeat that it seems to be very common practice in other articles (not solely limited to video games), and also that OoT just has this aura about it that defines it as widely seen as one of the greatest games of all time. Many people may disagree with that normative statement about the game's actual qualities; however, I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that a fundamental characteristic of the game involves it conception as being a contender for greatest game ever. So that's why I think it's important enough to warrant putting it in the head section. I used this example when I first started this discussion: The Communist Manifesto. A fundamental characteristic of the document is its huge importance, so a statement describing it as such shouldn't be buried in the "legacy" section or something. Same thing goes for War and Peace. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's alright Fwansta. For some utterly bizarre reason, this wikipedia page is plagued with people who outright refuse to acknowledge any facts whatsoever. Look no further than above with the whole issue of giving PROPER credit to the Shigeru Miyamoto where it rightfully belongs. Have the thousands of reputable sources posted above proved this is the case? Sure, but hey, who needs facts when you have an agenda?! I'll never understand. Denying facts and making up stuff that's not true goes completely against what Wikipedia SHOULD be for.

But as for the topic at hand, maybe I can explain. Can somebody tell me why something like Majora's Mask isn't the considered the best game ever? Well, it happens to be because no one on the planet has ever considered it that way. Here, let's try another one. Like Majora's Mask, do you know why E.T. isn't considered the best game ever? Again, same principle. Nobody cares about those games enough to label it with such praise. Unlike say, Ocarina of Time, where it's been called such by hundreds of reviewers from all over the world. Rarely many games get that sort of recognition. Now am I saying Ocarina IS the best game in ever? No, however it has that aura and brand recognition about it that makes people call it the best game ever. It's not some random game that people just thought 'oh hey let's call this the best game ever okay guyz?'. But again, seems facts are a naughty word around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2008

Arbitrary section break

I thought that I should try to clear myself, and I decided to take a look at WP:LEAD to make sure of what I was talking about. I think I'll stick to my initial idea that the way it was before was good enough. I wasn't against the mention that it's one of the greatest games ever per se, but instead thought that the third paragraph, and the sentence "The game received wide critical acclaim and commercial success.", was sufficient to convey that idea, and didn't require any more elaboration, since it's just the lead section. Even though I'd agree that it's certainly one of the greatest games ever, blatantly pointing it out in the lead section may make it appear biased, and we should really just summarise the facts instead of the opinions. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think we need to understand the crucial distinction between opinion and fact about opinion. I think I've provided enough references to establish as a fact that many people widely consider it to be one of the greatest games of all time. I mean, IGN and Metacritic just come out and say it! And I took a look at WP:LEAD, and I think a lot of the stuff in there helps my case. "It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points": I'd say the context surrounding OoT is that it's widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time, and it's notable for being considered as such. And I still think the fact that so many other articles do it makes it more acceptable here. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was blunt enough: The game received wide critical acclaim and commercial success. sounds more like a fact. The title is widely considered to be among the greatest games ever. sounds more like an opinion. Both are saying the same thing; the game is popular. The difference is that the latter is written with a single fact in mind, and coupled with the first sentence, doesn't read very balanced or neutral. - Zero1328 _Talk? 20:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Two things. First, the second statement is simply not an opinion. I guess it may sound a little bit more like one...as you say...but it's still clearly not an opinion. And it's referenced. Secondly, I don't think they say the same thing. Many games receive wide critical acclaim and commercial success, but very few receive it to the extent that OoT did, which is why I think it's essential to say that it is widely considered to be one of the greatest games ever. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedian06 has removed the statement and again called its and my NPOV into question, I've asked for some assistance at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I thought you would all like to know in order to present your side of the issue if need be. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how more clearly I can put it, besides spelling it out. I already tried another angle. Instead of concentrating on the sentence alone, try reading the paragraph as a whole and see if it sounds biased. The two sentences indeed say the same thing. At the very core, "It is popular". I didn't elaborate further, and summaries shouldn't do that. Even if it didn't elaborate, to repeat a similar statement, and to place it at the end of a paragraph, increases emphasis and gives it weight. See also WP:ASF. It definitely sounds like an opinion. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then remove the first statement. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at WP:ASF and WP:UNDUE? - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:WEASEL. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE deals with not giving too much weight to minority viewpoints. The view that Oot is one of the greatest games of all time is clearly not a view held only by a minority (see the review aggregators.) I find your reference to WP:ASF puzzling because I think the first sentence supports my position: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." I am not saying that Oot is one of the greatest games of all time; I am saying that there is a widely-held view that it is. In regards to the last two policy pages, I quote from WP:WEASEL: "This page in a nutshell: Avoid using phrases such as 'some people say' without providing sources." I've provided sources. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It would also be nice if Wikipedian06 would continue to use the talk page rather than simply reverting the edits made to the article... -- The Fwanksta (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zero1328. Even if you cite 5-6 different sources claiming that OoT is the "greatest game ever," you're still injecting your POV into the article by choosing sources that align with your personal opinion. I could just as easily find 5-6 reviews about how OoT is lackluster (see Thunderbolt's 7/10 or RPGamer's 2/5) and make it sound like it's a "fact about opinion." There is nothing wrong with going into detail about how this game is influential and popular, but using terms like "widely considered" and "greatest ever" is a blatant violation of WP:PEACOCK. The sources you cited don't operate under the same editorial guidelines as Wikipedia does, and by taking those quotes and placing them here without quotation marks -- to make them sound as if they were endorsed by Wikipedia itself -- is not appropriate, in my opinion. Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(I don't like splitting hairs, but I would just like to point out that RPGamer actually has several reviews, none of which give OoT a score below 3.0/5.0 - unless I'm missing something.) That being said - is there any way that we can make this be less, well, weasel-y? Are there sources that we can point to that say, "X [really influential gaming site/person] has stated that Ocarina of Time is 'one of the best games ever to be released [using direct quote to add credibility],' but this view is not held by all; Y [other really influential gaming site/person] said that 'OoT is the most boring and lackluster games I have ever played, and the storyline stinks [again using direct quote]'"? Just a thought... Hermione1980 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be alright with saying something like, "According to Metacritic, the title is '[c]onsidered by many to be the greatest single-player video game ever created in any genre,' and it consistently ranks near the top of "best game" lists." I still just don't think that Wikipedian06 fully grasps my position. Showing me a few reviews that don't rave about it doesn't prove that it isn't widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time. I mean, by saying "it is widely considered" to be so I would say it is implied pretty strongly that there's a significant amount of people who don't think it's that great.Even the RPGamer review that gave it the lowest score says the game got "rave reviews." The reviewer is reviewing it from the perspective of debunking the myth that it's such a great game -- I would say he tacitly acknowledges how widespread the acclaim for the game is. Also, I don't think Wikipedian06 understands some of the nuances of WP:PEACOCK. I quote: "Peacock terms can be avoided when dealing with the third longest river in Rhode Island, but when it comes to the Amazon River, Wikipedia readers should be told just how big it really is. When a person or event is in fact important, the reader must be told that—tell them how important and why." -- The Fwanksta (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian, those examples that you gave are horrible. That's like saying Ebert and Roeper feel Citizen Kane is one of the best movies ever, but Maxim magazine disagreed because they thought it was boring. As if for some warped reason we should take Maxim's word on equal grounds. Not to give too much credit to the likes of IGN and such as highly respected games journalists, but they're the big players out there. This really can't be that difficult to grasp. Ocarina of Time is rare because there has never been another situation in which all the major reviewers agreed upon such a score before and since. Again, if this was something like Majora's Mask, your opinion would have more weight because it's NOT widely seen as the best game ever (yes, I'm sure there are dozens of people out there that feel it might be, but just in the same way that there are dozens of people out there that hate Citizen Kane). Why does the OoT page get plagued with the most retarded disputes, I have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Super Mario Galaxy and Grand Theft Auto IV are recent examples of games that received more critical acclaim than OoT. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I just checked out the RPGamer review list and the ones that DO have a lower score are fricken READER reviews, no less! I knew that dekisugi guy wasn't the only one here with an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Check again. [3] First one on the list. Before saying "hurr durr this is GCN port," read the complaints in the review. Most of them are 100% relevant to the N64 game. Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully no one takes it the wrong way, but checking out sites like Thunderbolt, is there any reason they're even worth keeping to be mentioned? The site's audience base is ridiculously low. Why should anybody care what a fansite like that thinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.139.78 (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet all of these sites are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. In fact, with all of these big, corporate media publications/sites shutting down -- 1UP.com and now EGM -- and these so-called "amateur sites" (but are they really amateur?) still sustaining themselves since a decade ago, it really makes you wonder, eh? Wikipedian06 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the recent additions by Wikipedian06 to the lead section are in violation of WP:UNDUE. We have dozens upon dozens of reviews aggregated in Metacritic and Gamerankings, and other notable websites such as IGN saying it's widely considered to be one of the greatest games of all time, and we're devoting equal attention in the lead section to two reviews done by small websites? The issues they raise are covered in the section on the game's critical reception; we don't need cover them as if they were that relevant in the lead section. If this practice were followed on every Wikipedia page, it would be ridiculous: "Many critics say War and Peace is one of the greatest novels of all time, but a small number of people disagree." "Many people say that WWII was one of the most important conflicts in human history, but a small number of people disagree." "Many people say the earth is round, but a small number disagree." - The Fwanksta (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember the page but it's generally not encouraged to suggest an idea by contrasting it with other articles as examples. It's best to judge each one independently. Anyway, he's trying to balance out the clause you added back then, referencing WP:PEACOCK, which is the same reasoning I gave you before. The removal keeps getting reverted, so it had to be balanced somehow. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to WP:OSE, but I could be wrong. If you'll give it a quick skim, you'll notice that it's an important aspect of argumentation, when used correctly. At any rate, the WP:UNDUE article itself mentions the flat earth example, so I don't see how me bringing it up would be invalid. Finally, I know you guys have brought up WP:PEACOCK, but you haven't seemed to taken notice of my response to your criticism. I'll repeat the quotation of the policy page that I believe supports my position: "Peacock terms can be avoided when dealing with the third longest river in Rhode Island, but when it comes to the Amazon River, Wikipedia readers should be told just how big it really is. When a person or event is in fact important, the reader must be told that—tell them how important and why." I think this can apply to a game that is ranked so highly by both review aggregators, not to mention the other references I've provided. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The length or volume of a river is quantifiable, and hence it is a scientifically-proven fact that the Amazon River is larger and longer than any in R.I. However, the quality of a media production, such as a game, movie or literary work cannot be so quantified. That's why the example you brought up is valid. Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

But we're not dealing with the issue of the subjective quality of the game. We're dealing with the objective (I guess we could say sociological) issue of how the game is perceived by the public and the critical establishment. That's the difference I've been stressing for this entire discussion. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And something that's just been brought to my attention: neither of the sources you've used are on the list of reliable sources according to the Video games project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. - The Fwanksta (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RPGamer is a reliable source per the list you gave. Wikipedian06 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops. There it is. Apologies. Amd I like the new approach that Pagrashtak has done. Thoughts? - The Fwanksta (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article! Congratulations!

One of the best games in existance has now been featured by Wikipedia. Congratulations to all of the contributors! --coolbho3000 (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to re-iterate that kudos. I looked at the article before, and couldn't see anyway to improve it! You've all done a great job -- WORMMЯOW  08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, has been ten years since that day...heh. Yeah, good job, I love how it managed to hit the anniversary. (Now, how long until someone comes along and bitches about how uninportant this is?) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hell yeah!Autonova (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's been featured since May. ;) But, glad it got on the main page on its anniversary. Pagrashtak 14:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article say that this is the BEST FREAKING GAME EVER??? I'm pretty sure this is a well-known fact. Congrats to all the contributors, great article! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not best game ever but one of the good games that year.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert

Shouldn't this article have a spoiler alert?Iamme2008 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Spoiler, Wikipedia does not try to censor its content and some amount of spoiler information is necessary for an article to be comprehensive. The rationale of no warning is that a section labeled "Plot" or "Story" will inevitably contain spoiler information and the section title is warning enough. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

One of the greatest games ever?

Since many other videogame featured articles (e.g. Halo, GTA IV, Mario 64 etc) have statements in the intro section along the lines of "many critics consider X to be one of the greatest games of all time", why doesn't this article say this in the intro section? A bit tragic as it's already been Today's Featured Article. Autonova (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We're actually having a discussion about that about 3 headers up :) -- The Fwanksta (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The horse is a side quest?

Does anyone have proof you can complete the game without getting the horse, Epona? I was under the assumption you needed her to win the game. - Annul, 17:55 22 November 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.240.86 (talk)

You need epona to jump the gerudo bridge, thus completing spirit temple. You're right, ill check it out Autonova (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But how is this notable? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You can beat the game without Epona. You can also skip all medallions, beat nearly all the temples as a child, etc. etc. But these aren't notable because they exploit glitches that were never intended by the developers, and are not part of the standard game sequence. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's really interesting; I had no idea. So I guess that would imply that it's technically not a side-quest? -- The Fwanksta (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Safe bet there. If the game can't be completed without the horse (with the exception of cheats gliches, ect) it is not a side quest for obvious reasons. If there are no objections the part of the article calling the horse a side quest should be removed. --76.66.185.56 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Epona is required to complete the game, and IGN considers it a side quest here. Pagrashtak 19:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Epona isn't needed to complete the game. The only part that you need Epona for, as stated, is for crossing the Geruda Bridge, to get to the Spirit Temple, but this can be easily accomplished by using the "Long Shot". So therefore you don't need Epona to complete the game, so it is a side quest. Silver Wind Wolf (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Right! Forgot about the longshot....lol. IMO the article should say it's a sidequest with the IGN reference. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Defining 裏/Ura

Maybe it was missed in that partial revert, but I think it's important to clear up the fact that 裏/Ura doesn't mean "Master Quest", as it's implied right now. There are several synonyms but that was the most literal, unambiguous way I could put it. I'd appreciate comments to a better phrase but it shouldn't be left out. 裏 literally means reverse side; the opposite of something, or a side that's normally hidden. The Zelda Wiki has it as "Another Zelda", which is correct, but in English, "another" may also mean an additional and/or miscellaneous thing. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see that implication, I just saw it as the title in another country. The problem I have with its inclusion is that it could be changed between "reverse side" and "another", or someone might call it original research. I thought not stating a translation would be a better solution. Pagrashtak 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, even if it wasn't implied, the difference in the naming should still be noted in one way or another. At first I also considered the problem of it being changed, which is why I tried to use the most literal wording. As a translation I didn't want to take any liberties to improve flow, which I thought "another" would be. Looking at WP:NOTOR, a translation shouldn't be considered original research, and trying to stay literal is a good idea. That's why I also asked for comments on a better word if it could be thought up. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Placement of Miyamoto in infobox

Please stop reverting and discuss this issue on the talk page. Further reverts will result in nothing but an edit war and will likely result in the page being protected. Thanks, Hermione1980 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

this edit summary is "follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle he was not a director, http://youtube.com/watch?v=EP7zULA63Ek&feature=related" and the video clearly shows he is a "Producer/Supervisor", not a director. What Thibbs-san is talking about??? The edit summary is very true to the video. Thibbs-san does not even know director is different from "Producer/Supervisor"???--133.2.9.161 (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this perfectly demonstrates what sort of misunderstandings can arise when editors refuse to discuss things but instead persist in blindly reverting to achieve their preferred version. Here I thought Dekisugi-san was simply trying to remove all references to Miyamoto as a participant when in fact his problem was merely that Miyamoto wasn't the director. Unfortunately without reliable references like New York Times articles or University publication or interviews with the game-makers released by the game's publisher. The youtube video does support your view, Dekisugi-san, even if it is not a RS, but from what I gather, Miyamoto stepped in as co-director rather than being invested from the start so I think it is a little over hasty to remove all reference to his directorial capacity when it is supported by high quality sources.

PS-Thank you for responding. I would have preferred that you initiated the discussion yourself rather than having to be dragged to it after violating BRD, however the important thing is that we're now able to communicate. Already I understand your concern infinitely better.-Thibbs (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one additional note, the source currently in the article that describes Miyamoto as "principal director" is this one. IGN isn't really the same caliber as New York Times, but I think they are generally regarded as reliable third party publications around these parts. There are of course a number of articles demonstrating that Miyamoto took directorial responsibilities from similar quality publications such as GameSpot and 1UP. -Thibbs (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The ign source shows he was a principal director of mario 64, not ocarina of time. The statements of other sources are based on the writers' wrong impression, not Nintendo's announcement. It is obvious official credit is much more reliable than these sources. Nintendo officially announced he was a Producer/Supervisor, not a director.--43.244.132.168 (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh THANK YOU so much Thibbs, for at least being one of the few people to actually understand how inane this petty edit war is. I am not sure what Dekisugi has against Miyamoto being credited. There are multiple sources that have been listed above that corroborated his involvement, but Dekisugi just doesn't seem to care or is just willfully ignoring it all. The issue with Ocarina of Time is a very unique one because (as someone mentioned above) Miyamoto stepped in with directorial capacity later in development. He was responsible for the game to a severe degree, hence why he is given the credit for the game, whereas Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, etc. are rightfully given to Eiji Aonuma. It's mentioned above, but I suppose I can repost the many instances that corroborate Miyamoto's involvement.

http://ign64.ign.com/articles/060/060925p1.html

“ Q: How much of your job is now hands-on, and how are you involved in current games?

A: It's very hard for me to say now. Three years ago I was director and producer of Super Mario 64. Then I only worked on Mario. Now I'm a producer on almost every game except Zelda 64. On Zelda 64 I'm half director and half producer.

”

http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/102701.shtml

"F: Excuse me (laughs). Was this the first time that you joined the development of a title since Ocarina of Time?

M: That's right. I was the director of Mario 64, and half producer, half director on Zelda. As for Pikmin, I'd say half producer, half director. "

So why should we accept only one IGN interview posted above that states he was a producer (when he wasn't even being clear) yet reject the SEVERAL instances where he says he was also a director? Also, here' what Eiji Aonuma says:

http://archive.gamespy.com/interviews/july03/aonuma/index2.shtml

"GameSpy: Was Majora's Mask the first game for which you served as director?

Aonuma: I directed the development of enemies and dungeons for Ocarina of Time. But for overall direction, Majora was my first. "

http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/article.php?id=2633

"Eiji Aonuma has worked at Nintendo since he entered the videogames industry in the late Eighties and become one of its most important employees. He was assistant Director of Ocarina Of Time and has been in charge of every Zelda game from Majora's Mask right up to Phantom Hourglass."

You see that? Aonuma wasn't the main designer for Ocarina of Time. If he wasn't, then who would be responsible for the direction of the game? Yes, that's right, in this case it was Miyamoto. Dekisugi will probably not respond, but I honestly can't believe anyone would disagree with giving Miyamoto proper credit after seeing all these sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a call to the sock depaqtment is needed rdunn 12:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

also Wikipedia:MEAT#Meatpuppets could be applyed rdunn 14:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Y OK, I just filed a sock report. I also shared my worries that this may be the return of convicted puppeteer User:Dr90s (previously found to be using User:Handsome elite). I will hold off on allegations of WP:MEAT until i see more proof of that. -Thibbs (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eisai Dekisugi Pagrashtak 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought the issue was whether to include Miyamoto in the list of designers. Or is that the same thing? Please excuse my ignorance, Hermione1980 18:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no stated issue prior to this discussion. I think we have to take Dekisugi at his word that the designation of Miyamoto as a director was his issue all along. It doesn't completely explain his anti-Miyamoto edits at other pages but what the heck: AGF, right? -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems the only reasonable thing to do is ip ban Dekisugi. I wouldn't just casually suggest such a thing, but he doesn't seem to care at all about improving articles with additional or enlightening information, but simply downplaying Miyamoto's role. And to the person above who suggested contacting Nintendo? Why do we need to do that? I just posted several sources that verified Miyamoto's role from Miyamoto's AND Aonuma's own mouths.

Hermione: It's more or less the same thing. Even if we can't agree to what extent Miyamoto directed the game, he WAS crucial in several aspects of the game design. So at the very least, I feel he should be under the 'Designers' title in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP Sock, 43.244.132.168 has been awarded a 24-hour ban. I think that's why we haven't seen Dekisugi reverting the current version of the page yet again. If Dekisugi is posting from that IP he'd have to go elsewhere to post. Logging in doesn't stop an IP ban. That's to prevent IP editors from simply creating a dud account to hop the ban. If he comes back and immediately starts reverting again before engaging in discussion then I think we should seek a stiffer penalty than the 24-hour ban. -Thibbs (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, 216.112.32.18. Unless Dekisugi can provide a reliable (i.e., not YouTube) source clearly stating that Miyamoto was not acting in this capacity, then I believe we can clearly call this a consensus stating Miyamoto should in fact be listed as a designer. Would it be good to add a source for this to the infobox?

Thibbs: Agreed. Hermione1980 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hermione. I think that would be a great idea. :) Also might wanna keep an eye out for another user named Wikipedian06 who seems to have the same agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that this is the most reliable source (going back to what Thibbs originally posted), so it should probably be the source used. Is anyone here familiar with the reference tags? I'm, uh, not. If I were I'd put the citation in myself, but… Hermione1980 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, Hermione but why exactly use a Twilight Princess interview for this? I read over it, and it doesn't have any Ocarina related information. Just need some clarification, thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oy. Just goes to show I shouldn't try to multitask. Well, in that case, I'll just say that the source used should be from as reputable and reliable a site as possible. Hermione1980 19:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"I was the director of Mario 64, and half producer, half director on Zelda."

There is a japanese word 監督, let's check the meaning of the word. This web dictionary shows the use of 監督.

従業員の監督を厳しくする必要がある We should supervise the employees more strictly.／The employees need stricter supervision.

黒沢明監督の映画 a film directed by Akira Kurosawa

社長の監督の下に会社再建に励んだ Under the supervision [direction] of the president they worked hard to rebuild their firm.

Do you understand? 監督 means both supervision and direction. it is quite possible he said he was the half producer and half supervisor in japanese, because the official credit clearly shows he was the producer and supervisor, and this could be easily mistranslated into "half producer, half director". So this does not demonstrate he was the half producer, half director. Anyway, this is a personal interview, not a nintendo's official announcement, it is obvious nintendo's official announcements have priority over a personal interview. Miyamoto was a producer, so he should not be listed in the designers section.

It is true Aonuma was not the overall director of ocarina of time, but Miyamoto stated

"I have so many directors under me as the producer, so I think this game is rather improved because it represents the efforts of so many directors -- rather that one person's efforts to make this kind of game. "

There was no overall director of ocarina of time, and the efforts of so many directors created ocarina of time. Miyamoto stated he was the producer. On this discussion, it was confirmed that producers should not be included in the designers section.--Millionaire01 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I smelling another sockpuppet here? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oy vay. There's quite a bit wrong with your argument. First, let's see what the interviewer was asking.

"F: Excuse me (laughs). Was this the first time that you joined the development of a title since Ocarina of Time?"

So you're saying that Miyamoto is only reaffirming that he was ONLY a producer or just supervisor in Ocarina of Time. If that was the case, why would he bother mentioning Ocarina of Time at all. The guy asking the interview KNOWS he has been producing games mainly before, that's why he was asking if he had any hands on role (like an actual director, not supervisor). If Miyamoto was a supervisor, why would he mention Ocarina of Time? That wouldn't answer the interviewer's question. "Oh yes, after a long time of working as a producer, I decided to come back to the development team...as producer." Does that make any sense?

Then there's this interview:

Q: How much of your job is now hands-on, and how are you involved in current games?

A: It's very hard for me to say now. Three years ago I was director and producer of Super Mario 64. Then I only worked on Mario. Now I'm a producer on almost every game except Zelda 64. On Zelda 64 I'm half director and half producer.

http://ign64.ign.com/articles/060/060925p1.html

I think that sounds pretty darn clear. Unless he meant to say "Oh yeah, I'm half producer and half ALSO producer."

And finally:

“ GameSpy: My understanding is that during the last days of the creation of Ocarina of Time, Mr. Miyamoto was taken off the project.

Aonuma: It was the opposite. At the beginning of the project, his attitude was "Okay, guys, I will let you go ahead and make this game." At some point, he said, "No, no. I've got to get in here." He jumped in and took control of the direction. It was not him beginning then leaving, it was him watching and then taking over the reins.

I think maybe we were moving a bit slow for him. Obviously, Mr. Miyamoto had a large passion for Ocarina of Time. He could not hold back anymore. He jumped in and started giving direction.

GameSpy: Any idea what percentage of the game was complete when he took over?

Aonuma: Tough question. Maybe 50 percent, I guess.

”

http://cube.gamespy.com/gamecube/the-legend-of-zelda-the-wind-waker-2/520166p3.html

That last bit (the 50% completion) thus explains the half producer/half director thing. Seriously, you are really reaching. Stop interfering with this. It's not a big deal. Give Miyamoto the credit he truly deserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, we can't use the source above because it's a "personal" interview and not an "official" Nintendo one? Find me an "official" Nintendo interview then. Also, I love how you ignore that particular "personal" interview and yet decide to base your opinion on a different "personal" one from another site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.112.32.18 (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolution? (aka arbitrary section break)

Does anyone object to unprotecting the article? Ideally, a source would be added to Miyamoto's name - possibly this IGN interview? Hermione1980 00:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think most would have a problem (I know I sure wouldn't). Though the only fear would be seeing Dekisugi return with his old antics again (oh, forgot to thank you, Thibbs for helping with this situation). Oh, and that that you have is perfect for this, Hermione. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem necessarily, although I agree with 76.174.47.156 that Dr90s is probably going to return. No problem about the help with the article, by the way - I tend to get exasperated by unapologetic vandalism.

Luckily you've been a witness to this whole thing Hermione. Would you mind if we report to you when he comes back so that the appropriate remedies can be administered if such remedies be required? Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protection removed. I'll be happy to step in again if Dr90s comes back. I'm getting ready to take a look at the formatting for the reference and try to insert that. Hermione1980 14:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thibbs, you are totally wrong. "The guy asking the interview KNOWS he has been producing games mainly before". What part of the interview shows this? This is your speculation. The interviewer asked "how he was involved in current games", and miyamoto explained "how he was involved in current games". That's it. Most importantly, it is not an employee but Nintendo that decides credits. If yoshiaki said he was the producer in a interview, it does not mean he was the producer because it is not yoshiaki but Nintendo that decides credits. In the same way it is not Miyamoto but Nintendo that decides credits. Furthermore, the interview was quite possibly mistranslated as I showed above. If miyamoto was truly a director, why on earth is he not credited as director while he is clearly credited as director in the case of mario 64? He is credited as director because he was the director of mario 64, and he is credited as producer and supervisor because he was producer and supervisor of ocarina of time. It is a very simple thing. Do not distort the OFFICIAL credit as you like.--Millionaire01 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn, how many accounts do you have?! What do you mean "what part of the interview shows this?" The interviewer knows he was producing because the question was about actual game development. As we know, producing is different from directing, right? So when he asks about development, he's asking about actual directing/designing. Are you saying he didn't know he's been producing games? Then if that's the case, what has he been doing? Is there some third option here that's not producing OR directing? And he didn't credit himself as director because he didn't direct the whole game, but came in halfway. He probably thought it wasn't enough to properly credit himself in that fashion, but he still stated it, AND he contributed significantly to it. My god, this is getting stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thibbs, what you said is based on original research.

"when he asks about development, he's asking about actual directing/designing." This is original research. The interviewer clearly asked "how are you involved in current games?" not "how are you directing" Furthermore, supervisor DO actual game development(not so much as directors). Especially miyamoto has contributed to actual game development on every zelda game such as WW and TP. But he is not credited as director of them.

"He probably thought it wasn't enough to properly credit himself in that fashion"

Then respect his thought, why are you attacking his thought? He himself thinks he deserves to be supervisor. When you are attacking this, you are insulting his job as a producer and supervisor. He was proud of his job as producer and supervisor. Stop insulting shigeru miyamoto.--Millionaire01 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't Thibbs that's talking. Second of all, it's reasonable to assume that the interview is talking about directing because Miyamoto is generally credited as the leader of Nintendo's big games. Third of all, look at what Miyamoto says. In the same sentence he mentions he was director of Mario 64 and half director for Zelda. Are you telling me that the translator assumed that Miyamoto meant supervisor for Ocarina of Time, and NOT Mario 64? How would he tell the difference if he used the same word? How do we know he didn't mean he was a supervisor for Mario 64? Fourth, the "official" title alone doesn't tell what role a person had in development. For example, Aonuma was OFFICIALLY credited game system director in both Ocarina and Majora's Mask, yet he was only responsible for dungeons in Ocarina, but he was overall director in Majora's Mask. Do you see how we can't rely on just reading the credits to understand what a person was responsible for? Fifth of all, YOU'RE the one insulting Miyamoto by not giving him the proper credit. At the very least, why don't you list his name first if you're going by the official credits? You are such a hypocrite. Stop changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but just to throw this out for EVERYONE, are my arguments making sense? I merely ask to make sure I'm being clear. I don't care so much about people agreeing, but I hope I'm at least getting the point across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.47.156 (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Peacock in lead?

Regarding the addition of this to the lead—is this a peacock or NPOV issue? Adding a negative criticism will not remove a peacock statement, but it could be beneficial toward establishing neutrality. To discuss that, though, I have to know which one we're dealing with. On a separate matter, Thunderbolt and RPGamer were not in this article during the FAC, and there is talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources that they might not be suitable references. Pagrashtak 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Peacock. The game was obviously well-received (generally speaking, at least), but "widely" and "greatest ever" are not appropriate phrases for Wikipedia. Since someone keeps reverting me whenever I try to rephrase that sentence, I added a bit of criticism to offset the peacocky language. I'm perfectly fine with not mentioning minor criticism in the lead, but the glowing praise needs to be toned down.

Regarding the two sources, they have been used for a long time and in multiple prominent CVG articles. Content matters much more than the popularity of the source, and in this case, their criticisms are 100% valid. Hypothetically, if a big-name source like IGN criticized this game for showing too much blood (it's rated E for Everyone, so you know this obviously can't be the case), would you include it in this article? Or would you rather have a less-known publication making fair and valid criticisms? Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't judge what's "fair", we can only judge what's reliable. Remember, the threshold for inclusion is verifibility, not truth. Since Thunderbolt and RPGamer were not in this article during the FAC, and there are questions about their reliability, I think you can understand why I'm hesitant to let them stay. The underlying issue with peacock phrases is saying something is important without explaining why. Would it take care of the problem if we reworded the last sentence to explain why it's commonly listed high on best game lists? Also, instead of "widely considered to be one of the greatest games ever", we could state something more objective, such as the perfect review scores received and its placement in "best video game" lists. Pagrashtak 17:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of potentially unreliable sources, I believe that the IGN reader poll (currently used as source #7) does not comply with WP:RS and WP:SPS. With a rating scale for each game [4], the votes could have been easily manipulated. I've seen GameFAQs polls removed as sources from numerous articles for the same reason. The Gametrailers video (note #10) was posted by a user named "thecreatorcoffe." Profile page here. This same user also posted a video called The 10 Gayest Video Game Characters; should we cite that as well? Official GameTrailers videos, such as GOTY 2008, are not associated with a user. I understand that as an administrator, you want to enforce the policies of this site, but you've also got to be fair: you can't just ignore the questionable sources that agree with one point-of-view, right? Wikipedian06 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

True. If you look back at the version I wrote and the version that came out of FAC, you'll see that those sources were not used. I pretty much exclude any sort of reader's poll or user's poll as a general rule. I've removed them, as well as Thunderbolt, and commented out the RPGamer quote while it's under discussion—none of those sources were present during the FAC. If there are any more questionable sources, please bring them up. I purposely kept the reception section of this article neutral when I wrote it; you'll see that each of the "breakdown" paragraphs—graphics, gameplay, audio, release—give both positive and negative criticism to present both sides. The awards paragraph has no NPOV problems, as it is a factual list of awards won. I'll come up with something better to replace what I removed in the lead. Pagrashtak 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've tried a new approach in the last paragraph of the lead. The focus is on more objective measures, and helps explain why OoT is considered good instead of merely stating it. Does this work better for everyone? Pagrashtak 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Just a comment, though: target lock is not THAT widespread outside of Nintendo's own games. For example, Okami does not use a target lock. Context-sensitive buttons, yes. Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the new approach. - The Fwanksta (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Since there have been even more changes, I say we go with a statement that includes the following points "widespread critical acclaim, commercial success, listed on many best-game compilations." Since there's too much contention over the statement "widely seen as one of the greatest games of all time" and other similar assertions, I'm happy with saying it's frequently listed on best-game lists. - The Fwanksta (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please no more wars!

This is getting so tiresome. This article is rapidly turning into a fanboy battleground. The game is, by the most objective judgements we can make, one of the greatest games of all time as ranked by the critics (who are the people whose opinion we are allowed to cite). The article has already been featured, and no more significant information is likely to surface. No one minds perfectionist tweaking, but editting or removing some of the more critical phrases which convey how well-recieved this game is just seems petty to me. The phrase "the game is featured on many lists..." was the result of a massive discussion (halfway up this page), and is perfectly valid because: 1. It is noteworthy to include something relevant to the reception of the game, as well as something featured in media outlets. 2. Other stuff exists. 3. It is clearly factual as it is indeed featured on more than two lists entitled "greatest game" or "most influential game".

Kukule has also removed the sentence referring to the game's first place on Gamerankings and Metacritic, on grounds that the scores are dynamic and so another game will surpass it. Now, assuming that another game will average out higher than OoT (which perhaps is quite unlikely), this statement is still worthy of inclusion because: 1. We include the scores of these aggregator sites on essentially every video game article in wikipedia. These scores will change when a new review comes along just as readily as OoT's first place. 2. Mathematics dictates it is completely factual. 3. Other stuff exists. Autonova (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, more like it's the other way around. The fanboys are the ones who are running this article into the ground, trying to shower the game with as much praise as they can squeeze in. We get the idea: the game was good. Other games like Super Mario Galaxy and Grand Theft Auto IV have received just as much, if not more praise (thanks to the ever-increasing number of gaming publications) than OoT, and I've never seen such passionate fanboyism on their articles.

Metacritic is missing a bunch of low-scoring reviews, such as

• Nintendo Power's own 9.5/10 [5]
• CVG's 9/10 [6]
• Netjak's 9.5/10 [7]
• RPGFan's 9.5/10 [8]

Check for yourself: all of these publications are included on MC's allowed list allowed list, and reviews from those sites have been posted to every other game's index, so why not OoT's? I emailed the editor and he never came up with a response.

Its real score should be a 98 or 97, or maybe even 96 due to the game's low review count. When you have only 20 reviews, a few lower-scoring ones can make a huge difference. The 99 is a fake. THAT's why other people have been deleting it.

Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, if you think there was too much praise "heaped" onto this game in this article, why don't you email the editors who promoted it to featured article?

The 99 score is not a fake, Metacritic themselves list it as 99. We can only cite our sources. There is no fanboy-praise in the article, it is all encyclopedic. The only fanboyism happening here is people who seem to have a problem with factual information being included relating to the game's reception.Autonova (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So because Metacritic published it we're supposed to accept it as fact, even though Metacritic blatantly bent its own rules for this one game? So if some math professor publishes on his web page that 1+1=3, we should cite it because of his authority? (and errata in academic publications occurs all the time!) Should we publish that pi is equal to 3, because it's mentioned in the Bible? [9] If anyone is the fanboy, it's YOU. I don't have any problems with injecting praise into this article, but not to the point where it's overdone, peacocky, and excessive. Every time I come back to this article after a few weeks, I find a whole bunch of 5-star reviews/game rankings and even unsourced personal opinions etc. inserted into the article. (Fortunately, the editors are pretty quick about removing the latter.) As long as the article conveys to the reader that this game is highly acclaimed and was commercially successful, it's fulfilled it's purpose. You really don't need to push the fanboy opinion that this game is the "best ever made" (there's no such thing in my book), which is what I've been seeing people trying to do. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've calculated the average on metacritic taking into account the reviews you listed and it comes out at 98.15, which would still be joint top if rounded down to nearest integer. What about Game Rankings? There are no personal opinions in the revisions I did! You're not reverting vandalism, you're just going against what you think is wrong. I personally agree that there is no greatest game ever- that's why it doesn't say that in the article. It says it is featured in "many lists of some of the greatest or most influential games", which it is! Other video game featured articles of greats such as Halo or Mario have almost identical phrases. You are overcompensating. Autonova (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Promoting an article to 'Featured' status is not a guarantee that the article is perfect. In fact, plenty of WP articles are stripped of featured status on a daily basis. I'm tired of people using it as an excuse ("since this article is FA, there must be zero problems with it!") This article was made FA nearly a year ago, and a lot has changed since then. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, featured articles are not perfect, but they wouldn't be featured if they heaped undue or subjective praise onto a game, which is what you seem to claim. It's all sourced and noteworthy. Autonova (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much fine where it's been left. I still personally think that "it is widely considered as one of the greatest games of all time" is fine, but since there is so much controversy I will relent. But in it's place there needs to be something that conveys the outstanding praise this game has received and continues to receive. "Wide critical acclaim and commercial success" is clearly inadequate because Fable II has received both of those but no one's calling it the greatest game of all time. It's not a violation of NPOV because we're sourcing our statements -- and we're not saying that it is the greatest game of all time, merely that it is widely considered to be (or that its featured on many best-game lists). And I don't care if you've got a beef with Metacritic, it's seen as a reliable source. How do you not see that not including Metacritic is actually a violation of NPOV on your part. It's also clearly not errata.

I think that it's important that you've included the reception of the re-release, but I think we should leave it at that. I see the lead as functioning very well right now. (Although some more sources to support Oot's praise might be good. I'll look.) -- The Fwanksta (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wkipedian06, you have accused Metacritic of manipulating the data to satify their own agenda. Such an accusation about one of our reliable sources should not be made lightly, because if it is true, then that makes them unreliable, and they should be removed not just from here, but from all articles that use them. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Some basic facts about Metacritic, for those reading this who might not know: Metacritic weights scores based on their perception of the quality of the publication. For example, if a "high-quality" publication gives a game 90/100 and a "low-quality" publication gives a game 100/100, the Metacritic score will not necessarily be 95. It could be closer to 93, depending on how heavily they weight. Metacritic does not reveal their assigned weights.

Metacritic says they limit the number of reviews used to calculate their metascore. They claim they "would like to have approximately 20 or so reviews per film, game, or album".[10] In addition, when calculating scores, Metacritic "tend[s] to prefer publications which provided reviews online."[11] You might take issue with the publications chosen in the case of this particular game, but there is an explanation. Whether you accept that explanation as reasonable is up for debate, of course. I agree with Larry that this debate should be about the suitability of Metacritic in general and not just this particular game. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The Metacritic score for this game is absolutely verifiable. The only remaining issue should be whether Metacritic is a suitable reliable source. For that, I would suggest that the discussion move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Pagrashtak 15:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bunch more "best-games of all time" lists that include OoT from various magazines. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian06 has made it blatantly clear that he has an agenda with the game. For some baffling reason he seems to have EXTREME difficulty comprehending why Ocarina of Time seems to be singled out as the so called 'greatest game ever'. It's not as if people had a wheel o' games and spun it to just randomly give Ocarina its title. No, it's because it's one of the few games to get perfect scores from so many major media outlets. Ocarina's reputation as the 'best game ever' is so widespread among gaming outlets and gaming circles that it's practically cliche. What other game actually HAS that reputation? I can't really of many games that do (let me be clear about this, I'm not talking about what games YOU feel are the best, or which I feel are the best, but which ones major media outlets seem to acknowledge as such). The only ones I can think about that even come close are probably Super Mario Bros. 3, or Super Mario 64. Hell, provide me any link that says there's a general consensus that states that GTA4 or whatever is the best game ever instead?

Also, the issue with the number of reviews being unfair, I can agree with you on that. However, if we limit the sources to only the most reputable sites (so no, sorry www.ocarinaoftimesucks.com isn't eligible), Ocarina will STILL come out on top. As I stated already, not many games have as many perfect scores as it does. And for the record, let me just say that even I don't think it's officially 'the greatest/best game ever' either. But you have to be obtuse to deny its status as it is viewed by people. You'll need a bit more of a convincing argument rather than 'bububu I don't like it' and posting lower reviews from lesser known sites to help your agenda. Does that make sense? Maybe I need to type slower so you can follow?

Oh, and CVG scored it a 10/10 too btw. http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=8350 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.135.65 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks. No one here is of sub-par intelligence.

Sites used for sources should be reliable. We should also avoid giving undue weight to one side or the other. Hermione1980 02:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Add soundtrack?

I've looked around but can't find what the general procedure is for adding entire sountracks onto articles? It'd be an ace addition to the article. Autonova (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that image legal?

I believe this screenshot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ZELDA_OCARINA_OF_TIME.jpg was originally removed, because someone got it from a website that reviewed the game, and didn't have permission of the one who took it. I then uploaded another image I took myself, which was fine by copyright laws, although perhaps not the best scene someone could find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ZELDA_OCARINA_OF_TIME_2.jpg When you click on the current image, the uploader even says he took it from another website. Is that allowed? Dream Focus 22:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)