The Ocarina of Time Remake Has a Nostalgia Problem - Article
by Evan Norris , posted on 14 September 2026 / 3,860 Views
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is one of the best games ever made. No, that isn’t my 15-year-old self talking. I replayed the legendary game five years ago, and came away with nothing but love and admiration, even if it did drop several spots on my list of all-time greats. I can say with complete confidence it remains a brilliant example of the medium, three decades later. Thus, when Nintendo officially announced a Switch 2 remake of Ocarina back on June 9, I was instantly excited, even though all we had to lean on was some vague narration and a cinematic shot of a sleeping Link. Last week, Nintendo treated us to a much fuller, more detailed look at the upcoming game, thanks to a slick trailer and a hands-on video with the game’s producer Eiji Aonuma. Now that we know the general scope of the remake, I'm less enthusiastic.
Before we dive into the specifics of Ocarina of Time, I want to talk about remakes. Unlike a lot of fans, I don't think there are too many remakes. Every year, the industry provides us with hundreds of notable games (and thousands of games in general). Who cares if a handful are remakes? Actually, I’ll take it one step further. I look forward to remakes. Well, not every kind of remake. There’s only one kind that gets me truly excited: the transformational remake. This is a project that recognizes and respects the original release, but which veers off in different, unexpected directions. It doesn't replace the source material; it sits beside it as a complementary offering. Think of the 2023 remake of Resident Evil 4, or, much further back, the GBA remake of Metroid. These are unique experiences that stand on their own.
This is what I wanted for Ocarina of Time. Last week, as I continued to watch the hands-on footage, I gradually realized that's not what it is. Despite the glow-up, it appears to share the same level designs, layouts, and plot points as the original. It's certainly not an exact 1:1 transfer, which is good news (the closer a remake comes to a remaster, the less interesting it becomes), but it's far more loyal to the earlier work than I had hoped. In a way, that loyalty comes with a certain sense of security. The Ocarina template from 1998 remains brilliant, so this remake, by cutting the same general path, should also be brilliant.
It should also handle and perform much better than when gas cost $1.04 per gallon. It appears to render at 1080p and run at 60 fps, a giant leap above the specs on N64. Aonuma confirmed a sprint option, a jump button, gyro aiming, streamlined item swapping, and, of course, dual analog controls, all of which make the base game more accessible, nimble, and efficient. I'm grateful for all of this. I'm grateful for the game in general. I only wish it were less slavish to the source material.
I also wish it looked different.
I know what you're thinking. I'm well aware the Zelda series has a reputation for art styles that initially turn off fans, but which become beloved in the years that follow. Personally, I've never experienced this. Believe it or not, I adored the cel-shaded cartoon graphics in The Wind Waker from the get-go. I was fine with the drabber, earthier visuals in Twilight Princess. I enjoyed the painterly aesthetic in Skyward Sword. I've never begun a journey with a new Zelda game with trepidation over its art style. Until now.
There are two main issues at play. The first is the focus on extreme realism. Personally, I gravitate toward stylized graphics. The most beautiful games, I find, are cel-shaded, or constructed from pixel art, or somehow out of sync with the real world. I adore, in equal measure, the stylish, semi-realistic look of a game like Monster Hunter Stories 3 and the chunky, vibrant sprites of something like Mina the Hollower. As mentioned before, I greatly admire the visual identity of Skyward Sword, which at times looks like a Cézanne come to life. Yet I never get truly excited by graphics in the realistic style. For me, the closer a game appears to real life, the less enchanting it becomes.
To be fair to Nintendo, the Ocarina remake, despite its hyper-realistic approach, doesn't look like one of those ghastly DLSS 5 experiments. In some places, in fact, it's jaw-droppingly gorgeous. The Great Deku Tree is an absolute show-stopper, both outside and inside. There's a moment when the camera pans up as Young Link first enters the dungeon that took my breath away. You see a ring of gray-brown desiccated wood draped in spider webs and, above it, a cone of endless light wreathed in wispy gossamer. It looks like a painting. Then there's the Deku Baba, which is simply a work of art. It has a frill of purplish fibrous roots at the base of its head, a row of crooked teeth, and a thick carrot-like root for a tongue. It's the perfect example of a remade enemy — recognizable but reimagined.
The realistic style isn't my favorite, but I can look past it. In fact, after watching the Nintendo Direct footage over and over for the purposes of this article, I've already begun to get used to it. The bigger issue is a lack of consistency within the new art style. It's hyper-realistic in places, but exaggerated in others. Consider Young Link. His clothing is remarkably detailed, with amazingly lifelike fabrics and textures. Yet his face is glossy and his eyes are unusually large. "We didn't just aim for realistic graphics," said Aonuma via a translator, "we were particularly focused on re-imagining them in a way that evokes nostalgia for the original game." This is the crux of the problem. By pushing the envelope technologically while remaining linked to the past, the development team ended up in an inconsistent middle area.
Young Link doesn't only look inconsistent on his own; he's also, at times, incongruous with those around him. When he's out in the wild or deep within a dungeon, everything looks cohesive. When he's in the same space as other human-looking characters, though, things start to break down. The scene in Hyrule Castle Town is the most obvious offender. Compared to the incredibly detailed and expressive Link, the town's citizens look like they were imported from an older, more cartoonish game. I realize that background NPCs are often less detailed and emotive than main characters, but the gap here seems unusually wide.
The problem that unites my concerns with the Ocarina of Time remake — that it follows the contours of the original too closely and that its art style is a sometimes uncomfortable mix of realistic and stylized assets — is a misplaced focus on nostalgia. If Nintendo were less concerned with honoring the past and evoking sentimental feelings among older players, it would be free to treat the source material as a springboard toward something different, as opposed to a blueprint to be closely followed. It would also be free to move forward with a realistic aesthetic without being tethered to character geometry from the late 90s. I know it sounds strange, but Aonuma and company are being too respectful with this remake. Heck, they even re-introduced loading screens to replicate the feeling of the N64 game.
Don't get me wrong; I'm still looking forward to this remake. I wouldn't turn down the chance to play through Ocarina of Time again, this time with modern amenities, new dialogue, and greatly improved performance. I just wish it didn't feel like I was playing it again, but for the first time.
More Articles
One of the most beautiful game reveals I've seen. I hope when they finally remake Chrono Trigger, I'm just as blown away by it.
agreed, Chrono triger next PLEASE!!!
Its definitely MM next. Its so easy since they can just reuse a lot of the assets from this.
Utterly bizarre that articles like this keep insisting that the game looks "hyper-realistic".
It looks like a fairytale, i.e. The LEGEND of Zelda. The art style is perfect.
yeah the original was not as detailed because limitations of the hardware.
That’s a fair point. Perhaps “hyper-realistic” is something of a misnomer. Maybe “maximalist” or “excessively detailed” would have been more accurate.
it's almost like most nintendo players are still stuck in the PS2 era, now they have PS4 game graphics they are uncomfortable, I don't know what they are talking about, the new Ocarina of Time looks perfect to me
Yeah, that's my main issue with art style as well - each of its two elements (realistic and stylized) look fine by itself, but when they are combined together, it just fells very inconsistent and clashes in quite a few instances.
It's fine. I think people are over analyzing things.
yes, im sure nintendo played close attention to this remake
Personally, the only things I would change is Link/Zelda's face design and I would have made the world about 50% larger
Other than that I think everything looks great
I don't think its a problem so much as it not being what you'd have preferred. And to be honest not what I'd have preferred either but I think I may be in the minority.
As for these graphics being realistic, please share whatever drugs you're smoking with the class if that is what your reality looks like.
To your first point, I can only represent my own feelings. If it's a problem for me, it's a problem.
To your second point, I mentioned elsewhere in the comments section that perhaps I misused the word "hyper-realistic". I think there are textures and models that are absolutely mimicking the real world, but those realistic assets are paired with more fantastical or exaggerated assets, which creates the uncomfortable feeling I was trying to articulate.
That is decidedly not how things work. I have a problem with x does not meam there actually is a problem with x.
Saying something has a problem implies an objective flaw, not simply that it is not to one person's particular tastes. If that is your reasoning we can say literally anything has a problem because nothing is universally beloved.
For instance, would it fair for me to say this article is flawed solely on the basis that I didnt like it? I'm guessing you'd think not.
Yes, it is absolutely fair to say this article is flawed because you didn't like it. It's a great article for those who found it educational and entertaining, and it's a lousy article for those who think it was poorly researched and unconvincing. It can be both things at once.
I never made a claim to anything objective. These are my subjective feelings about the situation. I believe that goes without saying. When I review a game and give it a 6 or a 7 or an 8, that's based on my personal tastes and priorities; it doesn't represent any objective truth or claim to speak for anyone other than myself. It's the same thing with this editorial. It is, by definition, the expression of an opinion.
I mean, not how language or logic works. But if you don't think that your opinions need to have any backing beyond "well just how I feel", ok I guess.
I see you edited your comment, so I don't need to defend myself against allegations of clickbait :P
As for objectivity, I truly believe it cannot exist in an article such as this one. My perspective is based on personal proclivities, emotions, and interpretations; it's not based on facts. You seem to feel strongly that an opinion can be objective. I'd genuinely like to know why.
Yes, after thinking it over for a moment, I thought my initial comment was overly harsh, and edited it. That was my bad and I sincerely apologize.
I do not think an opinion can be objective.
But, "The Legend of Zelda has a nostalgia problem" is not an opinion. It is a proposition. A proposition must be either true or false. There is a problem or there is not. That's literally one of the laws of logic (law of the excluded middle).
I would assume the point of the articles is that you (subjectively) believe that proposition is true. Insomuch as it is your opinion, it is subjective. However, a subjective opinion, particularly one that anyone else should care about, ought to be supported by some objective support. I would assume the article was about supporting that opinion, not just announcing it.
Take a game review for example. I would assume you agree the point of a review is not simply for someone to tell you how they felt about a game but for the reader to have an idea of how they might like it. So, the reviewer's opinion, while ultimately subjective, would have to have some kind of backing in objective facts. I.e. are the graphics sharp, how much content is there, do the game's systems have nuance to them, does the game provide a challenge, etc. There is no completely objective way to review something, but the writer does have to be able to think beyond themselves and analyze what would matter to their audience and speak to that.
And you pretty much agreed with that perspective above. You said that part of what would make this article lousy is if were unconvincing. Something being convincing would generally mean it is backed up by something more objective than "well I like what I like".
So, in the first four paragraphs or so where you are addressing the alleged problem. The only thing I see is you stating your preferences and that they are not met. What is convincing about that? Why would I come out thinking "yeah you know that is a problem"? Why does that make for a worthwhile article?
I think we're on the same page. I certainly agree I can't simply say X is good and Y is bad. I need to root that opinion in something measurable, and explain myself. I truly think I did that here.
Maybe we're just out of alignment when it comes to the purpose of this article. I have a strong opinion about the game, so I wanted to get that opinion out there, entertain my audience, and start a conversation. The title isn't meant as a ballot question; it's just a way to articulate my thesis and get people engaged.
I dont see where your opinion is rooted in anything beyond your personal tastes.
For the record I agree with this article on both accounts and its conclusion. It doesn't mean the game won't be great but it does take some of the excitement out of it.
IMO the environments look amazing, but the characters look weird and uncanny
Just because something is detailed, does not mean its realistic.
Your comment is well taken. That's on me. The intense, overwhelming amount of detail is what initially turned me off. I do think some reflections, lighting effects, and fabrics are realistic, but no one would ever mistake the overall picture for real life.
i never played the original, so i have no nostalgia towards it. Which is why i am getting this remake. My Zelda experience is the NES/SNES and GCN/WII. i skipped the N64 entries. They looked...... weird to me.
I didn't play the original either, so a remaster with some added content is just fine with me. If you change the game too much, then you end up losing everything that people liked about the original. At that point I think why even bother with a remake, just make a whole new game instead. While this has a lot more detail than the original, I would never call it "extreme realism".
I completely disagree on the cel shading artstyle. I think this games looks absolutely fantastic, and found wind waker to be a visual turnoff. Looking forward to this remake
I love Ocarina of Time.
And I think this new version looks absolutely horrible.
BUT
That's not a problem.
The game is not for me. It's for a new generation. And some of them might like it a lot.
I hope people have a great time playing it, if they enjoy how it looks.
Very much agree on your first point - I was looking for a game that wasn't a nearly 1:1 with the original. Looking more for something that would be what OoT would have been had it been made today. Same general world layout, but perhaps 10x bigger (still tiny compared to open world style BotW) with all the areas far more fleshed out and lots more to discover/do/explore/fight. Same story and basic plot points, but perhaps with new story points added in between the original ones to fill the story more for a much expanded game. Same temples but perhaps somewhat reworked/expanded and maybe even an extra bonus dungeon thrown in for fun. And completely reworked enemies so that it would feel like playing modern enemies rather than enemy design/ai from the dawn of 3D games.
Unfortunately none of that happened and instead it's nearly a 1:1 of a 28 year old game upgraded to today's best graphics and a few quality of life improvements.
However I don't at all get this gripe with the graphics. The graphics look insanely good. They are literally the thing that makes this game hyped up and exciting. By far the best looking Nintendo game ever, and probably the first S2 game that looks legit next-gen like a huge step above what the Switch could do.
Yeah the graphics are highly detailed as one would expect of a top notch next gen AAA game, but I don't see why that would make you complain about the character not looking realistic. Since when have characters in Zelda had realistic human proportioned faces? Literally never. OoT Link looks 100% how one would expect him to look, just with far better graphics than ever before.
Sure I can see the point about them not putting as much detail into the human NPC's as they did with Link (whereas the Gorons they clearly put in Link-level detail), they seem to have kept the humans NPCs a bit closer to the N64 simplistic style, but at no point is that jarring compared to Link. I actually like this choice that it preserves more directly the N64 look a bit, while still looking fine in the overall graphics of the game.
Complaining about the graphics is desperately searching for complaints considering the graphics are the WOW factor for this game. For people who just wanted a 1:1 graphical overhaul of OoT, this game is perfect. For those of us who thought they'd remake OoT as if it were a modern game with all the scope and advancements that comes along with that while keeping the core of the game the same, it's a bit disappointing but the one thing that 100% lives up to what we would want to see are the incredible graphics.
It’s a strange stance for sure (about the graphics) considering Nintendo went for the same visual philosophy this time around as they went when they made the original, which is a push for realism, lighting especially, with a stylized art style. They’re simply not as limited by the hardware’s capabilities as they were back then on the N64.
I just never like it much when anime tries to look too real. It's the main reason I dislike modern Final Fantasy. They just end up looking like weird doll people and I'm not a fan honestly.
60fps, first Zelda game made from scratch for 60fps, that affects gameplay and it is going to be a 10/10 game, I'm sure.
i'm always confused by this sentiment. I've never played a game in which framerate affects gameplay except for actual slowdowns which you actually start experiencing once games start dropping close to 20fps. 30fps works perfectly for the vast majority of games.
Only time I've ever noticed a difference is if you are quickly panning a camera around a large area, common in first person shooters but is also used in third person games to a lesser extent, the background is blurred a bit at 30fps but clear at 60fps. I suppose also really fast games like racing or flight games benefits from 60fps over 30fps. I get that it's nice to have slightly smoother feeling graphics, but I fail to see how this has ever affected gameplay in the history of gaming, outside perhaps competitive gaming competitions where there might be a slight difference in input lag between 30 compared to 60-120 when money/careers are on the line haha.
Anyway, not meant as an attack on your opinion haha, i just always find it interesting when people say framerate literally changes how good a game is or is some super exciting thing. The last time (so I guess only time) I was excited about a game's framerate was when Fzero X came out because Nintendo said it had to be at 60fps instead of the standard 30 because the game was just soooo fast it needed it. But very few games are as fast as Fzero games.
Maybe some people are just hyper sensitive to framerates, i dunno. Just reminds me of people who say any game less than 4k is unplayable haha. For me outside of fast racers or first person shooters I'm good with anything that has rock solid 30fps or higher. Just seems funny to point out a faster framerate as a significant reason why OoT is gonna be so good haha, the framerate is the least interesting thing about the remake. To me extra framerate speed above 30 is a nice to have like other graphical effects, doesn't remotely affect gameplay, but makes the visuals ever so slightly nicer.
Yes, some people are more sensitive to frame-rates than others.
Personally speaking, I’ve always had a hard time playing the N64 Zelda games for long periods of time for that reason, and yes, even back then when they originally came out on the N64. The 20fps (with dips) they ran at was just too stroboscopic to my eyes to make for pleasant lengthy play sessions.
Be glad you are not affected by that kind of things.
" I've never played a game in which framerate affects gameplay"
it dramatically affects the input lag... it's not just visuals
also affects precision and also reduces fatigue while playing
Most people i've seen online seem to have turned around on the artstyle already
There is no way to recreate the feeling of playing the original when it came out. Today, people have already experienced games that are far more advanced, far better looking etc. Back then, Zelda had only ever been, at best, a 2D, top-down cartoon with sprites. So going to OOT? Are you kidding me? You can't recreate that. The OG experience will always be unmatched. Always.
