The Nintendo 64 is part of a very weird, revolutionary, and “of its time” era of video games. Gaming had just made the transition from two dimensions to three dimensions, and everyone was losing their minds in awe. Super Mario 64 had come out (setting the standard for literally every other 3D game to release), Sony made headway by entering the console market and revolutionizing the RPG with Final Fantasy VII, and consumers were waiting for the newest entry in the Zelda line: Ocarina of Time. The Legend of Zelda was not quite as well established of a series prior to Ocarina of Time’s release. With only three games, and all of them being pretty distinguished from one another and incohesive, Nintendo had to step up their game and go with what they thought was best, and that was building a world that was simultaneously familiar yet different. A Link to the Past had a giant overworld for its time, and players loved exploring it and finding secrets, so Nintendo had the idea of taking that game’s essential mechanics and giving them a z-axis. This piece will be about comparing A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time in how the second was influenced by the Super Nintendo classic and whether those influences were beneficial or detrimental overall.

In terms of story, A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are cut from the same cloth. A boy is woken up, gets a sword and shield, is told about his quest to obtain three mystical items, and acquires the Master Sword. After this initial chain of events, Princess Zelda is kidnapped, leading into the second phase of the game in which the hero is instructed to collect more fantastical objects, save Zelda, and beat the villain, Ganon. Some might call this lazy, but it is actually an ingenious way of familiarizing people to something foreign. If a new, strange story like Majora’s Mask’s or Twilight Princess’, which are later Zelda titles, was used in the first 3D Zelda entry, it would be more likely to alienate audiences in comparison to the tried and true formula. When one is already attempting to boldly transition to having three axes whilst still retaining the core gameplay along with making new ground (not an easy task by any means), it is better to keep things safe so that one does not alienate new and old fans alike.

One of admirers’ favorite aspects of A Link to the Past is the overworld and its secrets. It felt energetic and alive, with every screen having something hidden in it, whether that be a heart piece, some rupees, some fairies, or anything else. Ocarina of Time tried to copy this but failed. It managed to create a huge overworld to run around in, but it was completely and utterly barren. The player merely goes from point A to point B, with no substantial obstacles in Hyrule Field. There exists the occasional secret, but those are almost entirely found by simply bombing a random spot on the ground: no variety and no challenge. Once a hidden room is located, one walks to the end of the passage and opens a chest. There might be an enemy or two to fight, if even that. In A Link to the Past, one could be walking through the overworld, see a weird object or a bombable wall, and do a puzzle or minigame to get a reward. It was simple, fun, and rewarding yet still offered incredible diversity.

Another of the main gameplay elements in these adaptations is combat, with Ocarina of Time having a mixed bag of good and bad changes from A Link to the Past. In A Link to the Past, combat was a very fast-paced experience. The hero’s sword swung at lightning speed, and enemies were struck down in just a few hits. It was gratifying and satisfying. In Ocarina of Time, combat entails a large degree of standing around and waiting: waiting for enemies to drop their shields, to stop running around, to lower their defense, and so on. This “start/stop” quality often became quite annoying. Battles could go on for minutes, and unless it is a climactic boss encounter, this makes for poor design. Zelda games are not about combat; they are about using the brain to solve puzzles and to explore. Some would stop criticizing right here and would write the combat off as a complete negative, but the battle system in Ocarina of Time, even so, is deeper and more enjoyable in how it uses items.

In A Link to the Past, items were plentiful, and they were useful for travelling throughout the overworld and defeating bosses. In Ocarina of Time, however, they can be used in regular combat. Due to the differences in how fighting and item utilization work in 2D versus 3D, there is a lot more depth that can be added in the latter. Is a bat hovering over you, and you can’t kill it? Hookshot it down to your level. Enemy won’t drop its guard? Use a Deku Nut, and stun it. Lost your sword? The Megaton Hammer is a great substitute. Items were only particularly useful in combat during A Link to the Past in boss fights as a way to test what the player had learned in the dungeon, but in Ocarina of Time, items were also applied whilst in usual combat in order to make regular encounters quicker and more engaging.

Overall, the influences of A Link to the Past on Ocarina of Time are ever-present and ever-important. Had something in the nature of Majora’s Mask been the first 3D Zelda game, it would have been a dividing and experimental title that only a select few would be able to get into. Taking cues from a previous game was a necessity at the time due to how new and foreign 3D gaming was. Series such as Sonic the Hedgehog tried to expand vastly on themselves (in Sonic’s case between Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and Sonic Adventure) and ended up being failures as a whole. The N64’s successor, the GameCube, was the more suitable era for more exploratory titles like Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker, and 3D gaming even now still has yet to reach its full potential. Though with many faults and flaws, Ocarina of Time remains one of the most influential titles of all time, and the main reason it succeeded was due to how it copied familiar aspects from A Link to the Past.