>>4575432
>-VERY easy game: easy combat, easy exploration, easy puzzles. Definitely not very engaging unless you are into babby games
I've never seen anyone use the word "babby" who wasn't legitimately retarded so you're off to a great start.
>-slow paced and with some empty areas; it has a bad quality/time ratio
Slow paced? It's probably one of the quickest, best paced games in the series. Within minutes of the game starting you're already exploring for a sword and shield and then right off to the first dungeon. And what empty areas are you talking about? The only "empty" area is Hyrule Field which has about a dozen secret areas to find, poes to hunt, and primarily serves as a hub to access other areas anyway.
>-that frame rate is not acceptable at all, I don't care that the game is from 1998, we were used to 2D games playing smoothly, why settle for this shit
Bullshit. I have never once been playing this game and suddenly been removed from the experience because of a locked 20fps. If this kind of thing bothers you, go play Overwatch.
>-pretty formulaic stuff, particularly inside the dungeons: look for the path that leads to keys (be them literal keys or the new item), then backtrack so you can use them to advance. Not very satisfying stuff, I'd say.
A retarded oversimplification which could be similarly applied to basically every game in the series and most games in general. If anything OoT is one of the less formulaic Zelda games.
>It's not a terrible game, just overpraised due to being babby's first game in a lot of cases. It does a good job in that regard, I guess, except that it isn't a game that leads into liking non-babby games later down the road but rather sticking with them, unlike say Batsugun Special Version which is also easy but can ease you to get into cooler stuff afterward.
Lmao, now it all makes sense. You're a typical retarded shmup player who thinks any game which doesn't require autistic devotion is "babby". Nah, it's called having fun.