If you love Zelda, especially if you love Ocarina of Time, then I really suggest you watch the 30 minute long critique of OOT done by Ego Raptor. While I don't agree with some of his criticisms, the ideas and analysis he applies to the game cultivate a robust conversation surrounding what the purpose of a Zelda game should be. Many people have been trying to mechanically debate Ego Raptor's argument, by refuting his entire video point by point. I can tell you that those attempting to do this did not understand the main argument that Ego Raptor was trying to put out there. Ego Raptor's video is not only concerned with Zelda, but an overall philosophy regarding video games.
Before you engage with Ego Raptor's critique of OOT, you need to address his quasi-critique of Link to the Past. He argues that a shift occurs from the original Zelda and LTTP. Zelda in his opinion is oriented around free exploration. This free exploration is inhibited in LTTP because there is a clear order one must follow in the exploration of dungeons. He laments in the end about the conundrum of the shift, claiming that he doesn't know which philosophy is better, but this sounds a tad disingenuous. It's pretty clear from the video that he feels gameplay in Zelda should be as unrestricted as possible. Given that bias, he enters into OOT with a critical framework which equates freedom with good game play.Those who are attacking his point by point are doing so incorrectly. When he discusses the fragmentation of the exploration and the combat sequences of Zelda, he is making an argument within his original framework that one should be free to experience all facets of the game at the same time to have the best experience. People routinely argue that the fighting was: "not boring", "not repetitive", "did not have that much waiting" and so on. But what people fail to realize that the overall issue with the Z targeting system is a lack of freedom. The camera's fixed and restricted paradigm runs antithetical to Ego Ratpor's framework.
One Zelda fan uncovers a difference in philosophy between himself and Ego Raptor when he tries to refute him point by point. In this post, he says, "story is fine as long as it doesn't replace gameplay." He doesn't realize that all of the hard work he put into his post was misdirected and instead he should have spent more time focusing on the notion that when a story acts as a supplement to game play, it is fine. This argument runs counter to a freedom framework. This argument says one can restrict the imaginative contours of the video game's narrative to derive more meaning as long as those restrictions don't serve as stand ins for the intended game play. I personally don't think this argument goes far enough. Regardless, if he can convince EgoRaptor that games can and should be restricted in a narrative sense in order to derive more meaning, then he would be well on his way to converting him into an OOT lover. But just plainly saying "the combat wasn't as bad as you think it was" isn't very convincing.
The philosophy given by Ego Raptor is fascinating because it seems to be following a trend we can see in the Video game literature. The notion that video games intend to be simulations rather than representations is the vein of thought Ego Raptor is drawing from when he argues that players make their own narratives through game play. He isn't opposed to story, plot, etc. He just doesn't want those things defining his experience. He wants them to serve as sturdy metal skeletons, which he will flesh out with his own actions and achievements. I'm going to suggest a new critical framework. Enter new criticism.
The notion that the text dictates the meaning of a text is one that has ushered in the wave of "close reading" and other scrutinizing activities we see in the classroom. I believe that video games should be criticized in a similar manner. Formal elements and specific game play details need to be taken into consideration. From there you need to ask what kind of experience does this make? The question of whether a game intends to simulate or represent is answered by the game, not by the critic. Some games will simulate and try to recreate the experiences germane to the game (e.g. Skyrim). Other games exist for representation and really are just peddling a story that you passively shape (e.g. Ace attorney at law). There is no better between them, they come from two different philosophies. I personally enjoy narrative oriented games, while my little brother enjoys simulation oriented games. OOT tries to do both and is very successful, but for purists it will never pass the test of unrestricted free game play. Link is the every person here, but he is still Link, He still has his own destiny and you playing through it in an attempt to live vivaciously threw him constantly become torned between wanting to be the hero and seeing the story unfold for Link.
Before you engage with Ego Raptor's critique of OOT, you need to address his quasi-critique of Link to the Past. He argues that a shift occurs from the original Zelda and LTTP. Zelda in his opinion is oriented around free exploration. This free exploration is inhibited in LTTP because there is a clear order one must follow in the exploration of dungeons. He laments in the end about the conundrum of the shift, claiming that he doesn't know which philosophy is better, but this sounds a tad disingenuous. It's pretty clear from the video that he feels gameplay in Zelda should be as unrestricted as possible. Given that bias, he enters into OOT with a critical framework which equates freedom with good game play.Those who are attacking his point by point are doing so incorrectly. When he discusses the fragmentation of the exploration and the combat sequences of Zelda, he is making an argument within his original framework that one should be free to experience all facets of the game at the same time to have the best experience. People routinely argue that the fighting was: "not boring", "not repetitive", "did not have that much waiting" and so on. But what people fail to realize that the overall issue with the Z targeting system is a lack of freedom. The camera's fixed and restricted paradigm runs antithetical to Ego Ratpor's framework.
One Zelda fan uncovers a difference in philosophy between himself and Ego Raptor when he tries to refute him point by point. In this post, he says, "story is fine as long as it doesn't replace gameplay." He doesn't realize that all of the hard work he put into his post was misdirected and instead he should have spent more time focusing on the notion that when a story acts as a supplement to game play, it is fine. This argument runs counter to a freedom framework. This argument says one can restrict the imaginative contours of the video game's narrative to derive more meaning as long as those restrictions don't serve as stand ins for the intended game play. I personally don't think this argument goes far enough. Regardless, if he can convince EgoRaptor that games can and should be restricted in a narrative sense in order to derive more meaning, then he would be well on his way to converting him into an OOT lover. But just plainly saying "the combat wasn't as bad as you think it was" isn't very convincing.
The philosophy given by Ego Raptor is fascinating because it seems to be following a trend we can see in the Video game literature. The notion that video games intend to be simulations rather than representations is the vein of thought Ego Raptor is drawing from when he argues that players make their own narratives through game play. He isn't opposed to story, plot, etc. He just doesn't want those things defining his experience. He wants them to serve as sturdy metal skeletons, which he will flesh out with his own actions and achievements. I'm going to suggest a new critical framework. Enter new criticism.
The notion that the text dictates the meaning of a text is one that has ushered in the wave of "close reading" and other scrutinizing activities we see in the classroom. I believe that video games should be criticized in a similar manner. Formal elements and specific game play details need to be taken into consideration. From there you need to ask what kind of experience does this make? The question of whether a game intends to simulate or represent is answered by the game, not by the critic. Some games will simulate and try to recreate the experiences germane to the game (e.g. Skyrim). Other games exist for representation and really are just peddling a story that you passively shape (e.g. Ace attorney at law). There is no better between them, they come from two different philosophies. I personally enjoy narrative oriented games, while my little brother enjoys simulation oriented games. OOT tries to do both and is very successful, but for purists it will never pass the test of unrestricted free game play. Link is the every person here, but he is still Link, He still has his own destiny and you playing through it in an attempt to live vivaciously threw him constantly become torned between wanting to be the hero and seeing the story unfold for Link.
