[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by cC@Zz

OoT seemed to me to be pretty much the same as the first Zelda game. Nothing about it really blew my mind. I still consider Majoras Mask the best Zelda game. It was very different from most Zelda games and the whole tone of the game just got me hooked.

Different != better.

OoT took the Zelda game style and perfected it; I don't think there was anything I thought could be improved as I was playing it. Majora's Mask was different, yes, but that does not mean it's better. It was a pretty good game in its own right, but not nearly as entertaining (I thought) as OoT.

This is the same reason I get angry at people who say things like "Halo 2 didn't introduce anything new from the original Halo, which is why Halo is a better game." Just using Halo as an example, of course; you hear that a lot for various games. It doesn't matter what new features a game introduced, if a newer game takes those same features and pulls them off better, then it's a better game even if it didn't introduce anything new.