You can't compare Zelda to Halo, or just single player games to multiplayer games. They are completely different. You can say you like multiplayer games better than single player games, and of course you can say you like Halo better than Zelda. But I don't think you can really say Halo is better because it has replay value (although it's perfectly fine to say you like it better because of replay value, that's just opinion), because it's comparing apples to oranges. Zelda OoT isn't supposed to be multiplayer; it's a single player adventure and it's very good for what it is. Multiplayer games are supposed to be replayed, where as single player games are only meant to be played through once (or a few times if it's good, heh) trying to deliver the best experience in that playthrough possible, like watching a movie. Most movies you only watch once, but the good ones you can watch over and over, like Star Wars or something awesome.
So the only way you can really compare Halo to Zelda directly is by comparing Halo's campaign mode. And uh...alright Halo's really good and even though the campaign isn't the full focus of the game it's pretty good, but Ocarina of Time? Yeah, no. Halo is a very good multiplayer game though, and I don't have a problem with anyone who says they prefer the multiplayer of Halo over the single player of Zelda. It's apples and oranges, and people are just going to have different opinions, even though you can't directly compare them. And that goes for comparing all single player and multiplayer games to each other. The only other way to directly compare them is to say which game overral just had more effort put into it, or something. Like maybe I could program some crappy multiplayer game and say "well you can't say Zelda is better cause they're different." Obviously that's where you would compare the games differently, because Zelda is obviously overall way way way better.
