I saw we put up a petition or something because this is just [stupid]. Nintendo is screwing the fans over like crazy!
Offensive term removed - mod.
WHO wants ZELDA IN HD??
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Who wants people to stop caring about graphics?
treedoor
NOBODY!
Honestly, I wouldn't want Zelda to look that realistic. It would kind of take away from the "fantasy" of the game.DragonfireXZ95
No it wouldnt :lol: It would be epic!
Graphics aren't the most important thing, but they do enchance the experience. So in a way it does lend some importance. Also Zelda would look amazing in HD, the art design and colors would blow off the screen. It would be a huge leap for it.Who wants people to stop caring about graphics?
treedoor
[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Honestly, I wouldn't want Zelda to look that realistic. It would kind of take away from the "fantasy" of the game.whitetiger3521
No it wouldnt :lol: It would be epic!
That movie looks really corny. I wouldn't trust it.[QUOTE="treedoor"]Graphics aren't the most important thing, but they do enchance the experience.Who wants people to stop caring about graphics?
BlackSubmarine
How so?
I remember LTTP being epic, and I remember OoT being epic even though both of them are so different in graphics.
Oh, and I beat LTTP AFTER playing OoT.
Graphics are a stupid thing to care that much about.
Graphics aren't the most important thing, but they do enchance the experience.[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="treedoor"]
Who wants people to stop caring about graphics?
treedoor
How so?
I remember LTTP being epic, and I remember OoT being epic even though both of them are so different in graphics.
Oh, and I beat LTTP AFTER playing OoT.
Graphics are a stupid thing to care that much about.
Yes they were, but what if it had enchanced visuals, psychs, and colors that popped out the screen. More enemies, shinnier armor, amazing character animations, and a world where you could see tons of trees instead of feeling a bit empty. I am not saying LTTP wasn't epic, but let's be honest would you really discard the idea of everything I just stated could have been even better in the game with an HD or Better Specs?[QUOTE="treedoor"][QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]Graphics aren't the most important thing, but they do enchance the experience. BlackSubmarine
How so?
I remember LTTP being epic, and I remember OoT being epic even though both of them are so different in graphics.
Oh, and I beat LTTP AFTER playing OoT.
Graphics are a stupid thing to care that much about.
Yes they were, but what if it had enchanced visuals, psychs, and colors that popped out the screen. More enemies, shinnier armor, amazing character animations, and a world where you could see tons of trees instead of feeling a bit empty. I am not saying LTTP wasn't epic, but let's be honest would you really discard the idea of everything I just stated could have been even better in the game with an HD or Better Specs?I actually like to use my imagination in games, so yah I would discard those ideas.
Realism is not what I want in my fantasy universes.
Yes they were, but what if it had enchanced visuals, psychs, and colors that popped out the screen. More enemies, shinnier armor, amazing character animations, and a world where you could see tons of trees instead of feeling a bit empty. I am not saying LTTP wasn't epic, but let's be honest would you really discard the idea of everything I just stated could have been even better in the game with an HD or Better Specs?[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="treedoor"]
How so?
I remember LTTP being epic, and I remember OoT being epic even though both of them are so different in graphics.
Oh, and I beat LTTP AFTER playing OoT.
Graphics are a stupid thing to care that much about.
treedoor
I actually like to use my imagination in games, so yah I would discard those ideas.
Realism is not what I want in my fantasy universes.
I got a question before I continue. Do you own a ps3 or 360?[QUOTE="treedoor"][QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]Yes they were, but what if it had enchanced visuals, psychs, and colors that popped out the screen. More enemies, shinnier armor, amazing character animations, and a world where you could see tons of trees instead of feeling a bit empty. I am not saying LTTP wasn't epic, but let's be honest would you really discard the idea of everything I just stated could have been even better in the game with an HD or Better Specs?BlackSubmarine
I actually like to use my imagination in games, so yah I would discard those ideas.
Realism is not what I want in my fantasy universes.
I got a question before I continue. Do you own a ps3 or 360?Gaming PC/DS right here.
I got a question before I continue. Do you own a ps3 or 360?[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="treedoor"]
I actually like to use my imagination in games, so yah I would discard those ideas.
Realism is not what I want in my fantasy universes.
treedoor
Gaming PC/DS right here.
I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world?Zelda: Twilight Princess is still good enough for Nintendo. I doubt that there will ever be another Zelda until TP stops selling like hotcakes otherwise they're going to just waste their dollars on developing new games just to cater to their fans. Philhellene
Zelda: Twilight Princess is still good enough for Nintendo. I doubt that there will ever be another Zelda until TP stops selling like hotcakes otherwise they're going to just waste their dollars on developing new games just to cater to their fans. PhilhelleneThey should cater to their fans. They should start caring more about Zelda, Metroid, Starfox, donkey kong, kirby etc. and less about Grandmas.
[QUOTE="treedoor"]
Who wants people to stop caring about graphics?
goblaa
Me.
Me too!
I don't. I care about graphics quite a bit.Who wants people to stop caring about graphics?
treedoor
[QUOTE="treedoor"][QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]I got a question before I continue. Do you own a ps3 or 360?BlackSubmarine
Gaming PC/DS right here.
I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world?Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
whoa! the zelda in the poster looks like a man.
not cool.
[QUOTE="treedoor"][QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]I got a question before I continue. Do you own a ps3 or 360?BlackSubmarine
Gaming PC/DS right here.
I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world?Did you not see "Gaming PC" in his post???
They're screwing fans over by not making it HD? What kind of crap is that?.unknown37I agree, Zelda fans (like myself) want a new epic adventure with big bad bosses and awesome dungeons. Shiny graphics comes dead last on my list. Sure it is nice, but not all that important for me.
I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world?[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="treedoor"]
Gaming PC/DS right here.
treedoor
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
You are a voice of reason in a sea of rabid fanboy graphics-whores
I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world?[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="treedoor"]
Gaming PC/DS right here.
treedoor
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
Don't change this into another conversation. Don't put the bullcrap of a game being better than the other despite of it having less visuals. That is not what I am saying. And don't care if Mario Galaxy is better than KZ2 or Crysis. You do realise that the best games last gen were graphicly enchancing games? Example. GTA. It has revolutionised gaming, do you think if the ps2's abiltity to produce those type of visuals weren't possible that it would have been as exciting? If the the ps2 weren't there, we would have had GTA China wars according to your theory. But guess what? China wars is nowhere near is amazing as GTAIII. Neither was GTA1 or 2. If graphics din't upgrade, do you think your Zelda, and your Galaxies would have excited? No because Mario 64's 3-d revolution changed gaming. It gave new light to a simple 2-d sidescroller. Or if OOT wouldn't have had those vast lands. Shadow of the colossus is hailed as one of the most Groundbraking, and viseral experiences ever like it or not, but guess what? Would have the n64 handled those visuals it was only possible on the ps2, and guess what? It couldn't fully handle them. But with the ps3's hardware there can actually be color in the game, and no frame rate issues once again enhancing the game. Resident evil 4 was a huge step into the series, because the gamecube hardware alowed that. Also if you are a pc gamer. Take for example Rome Total War, do you think that the beauty of the landscape, the scope of the game, the ammount enemies in the screen could have ever been achieved with the engine of Shogun? No it made the game feel more real, and enchanced the experience. I love my 2-d, and ps2 games. Hell I love 1990's pc games to death. But you cannot tell me that graphics aren't important, cause without visuals there is no evolution.[QUOTE="treedoor"]
[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world? svetzenlether
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
You are a voice of reason in a sea of rabid fanboy graphics-whores
Graphics-whores? Last game I am addicted to is papi jump in the itouch. Instead of defending, please listen to what my posts are trying to say. You guys are quick to generlize everyone with the word fanboy as well.Edit: I just looked at your profile, and I see why you call me a graphics whore. But I understand I used to be the same way when I only owned a wii, and a gaming machine.
[QUOTE="svetzenlether"][QUOTE="treedoor"]
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
BlackSubmarine
You are a voice of reason in a sea of rabid fanboy graphics-whores
Graphics-whores? Last game I am addicted to is papi jump in the itouch. Instead of defending, please listen to what my posts are trying to say.Maybe you should've listen to the other guy's post when he mentioned owning a GAMING PC, which made your entire post afterward redundant.
Oh, and trying to say that somebody's off-topic when the point they're making is directly tied into the topic at hand really isn't a good debating strategy...
[QUOTE="treedoor"][QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world? BlackSubmarine
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
Don't change this into another conversation. Don't put the bullcrap of a game being better than the other despite of it having less visuals. That is not what I am saying. And don't care if Mario Galaxy is better than KZ2 or Crysis. You do realise that the best games last gen were graphicly enchancing games? Example. GTA. It has revolutionised gaming, do you think if the ps2's abiltity to produce those type of visuals weren't possible that it would have been as exciting? If the the ps2 weren't there, we would have had GTA China wars according to your theory. But guess what? China wars is nowhere near is amazing as GTAIII. Neither was GTA1 or 2. If graphics din't upgrade, do you think your Zelda, and your Galaxies would have excited? No because Mario 64's 3-d revolution changed gaming. It gave new light to a simple 2-d sidescroller. Or if OOT wouldn't have had those vast lands. Shadow of the colossus is hailed as one of the most Groundbraking, and viseral experiences ever like it or not, but guess what? Would have the n64 handled those visuals it was only possible on the ps2, and guess what? It couldn't fully handle them. But with the ps3's hardware there can actually be color in the game, and no frame rate issues once again enhancing the game. Resident evil 4 was a huge step into the series, because the gamecube hardware alowed that. Also if you are a pc gamer. Take for example Rome Total War, do you think that the beauty of the landscape, the scope of the game, the ammount enemies in the screen could have ever been achieved with the engine of Shogun? No it made the game feel more real, and enchanced the experience. I love my 2-d, and ps2 games. Hell I love 1990's pc games to death. But you cannot tell me that graphics aren't important, cause without visuals there is no evolution.Changing the way people play a game isn't evolution??
Graphics-whores? Last game I am addicted to is papi jump in the itouch. Instead of defending, please listen to what my posts are trying to say.[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="svetzenlether"]
You are a voice of reason in a sea of rabid fanboy graphics-whores
svetzenlether
Maybe you should've listen to the other guy's post when he mentioned owning a GAMING PC, which made your entire post afterward redundant.
Oh, and trying to say that somebody's off-topic when the point they're making is directly tied into the topic at hand really isn't a good debating strategy...
Point? what point? Where did I say that a game that has lesser visuals isn't better than a game with better? Mario Galaxy is a better game than Killzone 2 and Cryisis. But but if graphics din't matter could you make the same gameplay experience with an SNES?[QUOTE="treedoor"][QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world? BlackSubmarine
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
Don't change this into another conversation. Don't put the bullcrap of a game being better than the other despite of it having less visuals. That is not what I am saying. And don't care if Mario Galaxy is better than KZ2 or Crysis. You do realise that the best games last gen were graphicly enchancing games? Example. GTA. It has revolutionised gaming, do you think if the ps2's abiltity to produce those type of visuals weren't possible that it would have been as exciting? If the the ps2 weren't there, we would have had GTA China wars according to your theory. But guess what? China wars is nowhere near is amazing as GTAIII. Neither was GTA1 or 2. If graphics din't upgrade, do you think your Zelda, and your Galaxies would have excited? No because Mario 64's 3-d revolution changed gaming. It gave new light to a simple 2-d sidescroller. Or if OOT wouldn't have had those vast lands. Shadow of the colossus is hailed as one of the most Groundbraking, and viseral experiences ever like it or not, but guess what? Would have the n64 handled those visuals it was only possible on the ps2, and guess what? It couldn't fully handle them. But with the ps3's hardware there can actually be color in the game, and no frame rate issues once again enhancing the game. Resident evil 4 was a huge step into the series, because the gamecube hardware alowed that. Also if you are a pc gamer. Take for example Rome Total War, do you think that the beauty of the landscape, the scope of the game, the ammount enemies in the screen could have ever been achieved with the engine of Shogun? No it made the game feel more real, and enchanced the experience. I love my 2-d, and ps2 games. Hell I love 1990's pc games to death. But you cannot tell me that graphics aren't important, cause without visuals there is no evolution.thats one impressive wall of hard to read text you got there.Don't change this into another conversation. Don't put the bullcrap of a game being better than the other despite of it having less visuals. That is not what I am saying. And don't care if Mario Galaxy is better than KZ2 or Crysis. You do realise that the best games last gen were graphicly enchancing games? Example. GTA. It has revolutionised gaming, do you think if the ps2's abiltity to produce those type of visuals weren't possible that it would have been as exciting? If the the ps2 weren't there, we would have had GTA China wars according to your theory. But guess what? China wars is nowhere near is amazing as GTAIII. Neither was GTA1 or 2. If graphics din't upgrade, do you think your Zelda, and your Galaxies would have excited? No because Mario 64's 3-d revolution changed gaming. It gave new light to a simple 2-d sidescroller. Or if OOT wouldn't have had those vast lands. Shadow of the colossus is hailed as one of the most Groundbraking, and viseral experiences ever like it or not, but guess what? Would have the n64 handled those visuals it was only possible on the ps2, and guess what? It couldn't fully handle them. But with the ps3's hardware there can actually be color in the game, and no frame rate issues once again enhancing the game. Resident evil 4 was a huge step into the series, because the gamecube hardware alowed that. Also if you are a pc gamer. Take for example Rome Total War, do you think that the beauty of the landscape, the scope of the game, the ammount enemies in the screen could have ever been achieved with the engine of Shogun? No it made the game feel more real, and enchanced the experience. I love my 2-d, and ps2 games. Hell I love 1990's pc games to death. But you cannot tell me that graphics aren't important, cause without visuals there is no evolution.[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="treedoor"]
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
svetzenlether
Changing the way people play a game isn't evolution??
I am not going to continue to post here in gamespot, but why the hell I am in system wars. But for my last post. I have never said that the wii it was not innovative or non revolutionary. So why do you say that?[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="treedoor"]Don't change this into another conversation. Don't put the bullcrap of a game being better than the other despite of it having less visuals. That is not what I am saying. And don't care if Mario Galaxy is better than KZ2 or Crysis. You do realise that the best games last gen were graphicly enchancing games? Example. GTA. It has revolutionised gaming, do you think if the ps2's abiltity to produce those type of visuals weren't possible that it would have been as exciting? If the the ps2 weren't there, we would have had GTA China wars according to your theory. But guess what? China wars is nowhere near is amazing as GTAIII. Neither was GTA1 or 2. If graphics din't upgrade, do you think your Zelda, and your Galaxies would have excited? No because Mario 64's 3-d revolution changed gaming. It gave new light to a simple 2-d sidescroller. Or if OOT wouldn't have had those vast lands. Shadow of the colossus is hailed as one of the most Groundbraking, and viseral experiences ever like it or not, but guess what? Would have the n64 handled those visuals it was only possible on the ps2, and guess what? It couldn't fully handle them. But with the ps3's hardware there can actually be color in the game, and no frame rate issues once again enhancing the game. Resident evil 4 was a huge step into the series, because the gamecube hardware alowed that. Also if you are a pc gamer. Take for example Rome Total War, do you think that the beauty of the landscape, the scope of the game, the ammount enemies in the screen could have ever been achieved with the engine of Shogun? No it made the game feel more real, and enchanced the experience. I love my 2-d, and ps2 games. Hell I love 1990's pc games to death. But you cannot tell me that graphics aren't important, cause without visuals there is no evolution.thats one impressive wall of hard to read text you got there.Hehe yeah, but I am not going to bother. Haven't slept, and I need to go to my workshop in 2 hours so what the hell. Good night everyone.Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
unknown37
How are Nintendo 'screwing fans over like crazy'? The Zelda games have never been in HD and they have all been amazing games. Zelda doesn't need HD to be a good game. It's a pity that some people don't realise that a game doesn't need to look good to be a good game.
[QUOTE="treedoor"][QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]I see. I used to be the same way when I was a wii owner. I thought that graphics/hd/enchanced din't matter. I use to say how stupid people were for because they said graphics were important. I use to say that it's the gameplay that matter and only it. Until I got a ps3 and 360. I realised how much HD and advance hardware enchanced the experience. I mean if you do say graphics aren't important, than do you really think that by the n64 taking a step forward into the gaming hardware that a SNES version of OOT was possible? Sure 2-d and what not, but a huge open world? BlackSubmarine
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
Don't change this into another conversation. Don't put the bullcrap of a game being better than the other despite of it having less visuals. That is not what I am saying. And don't care if Mario Galaxy is better than KZ2 or Crysis. You do realise that the best games last gen were graphicly enchancing games? Example. GTA. It has revolutionised gaming, do you think if the ps2's abiltity to produce those type of visuals weren't possible that it would have been as exciting? If the the ps2 weren't there, we would have had GTA China wars according to your theory. But guess what? China wars is nowhere near is amazing as GTAIII. If graphics din't upgrade, do you think your Zelda, and your Galaxies would have excited? No because Mario 64's 3-d revolution changed gaming. It gave new light to a simple 2-d sidescroller.Or if OOT wouldn't have had those vast lands. Shadow of the colossus is hailed as one of the most Groundbraking, and viseral experiences ever like it or not, but guess what? Would have the n64 handled those visuals it was only possible on the ps2, and guess what? It couldn't fully handle them. But with the ps3's hardware there can actually be color in the game, and no frame rate issues once again enhancing the game. Resident evil 4 was a huge step into the series, because the gamecube hardware alowed that. Also if you are a pc gamer. Take for example Rome Total War, do you think that the beauty of the landscape, the scope of the game, the ammount enemies in the screen could have ever been achieved with the engine of Shogun? No it made the game feel more real, and enchanced the experience. I love my 2-d, and ps2 games. Hell I love 1990's pc games to death. But you cannot tell me that graphics aren't important, cause without visuals there is no evolution.You don't get what I'm saying though.
The updated graphics make new games/genres possible, but the graphics alone are not what is changing the experience of a game. The innovation, and the imagination put into a game is what makes them great. You bring up a good point about Shadow of the Collosus, but you describe it the same way that Zelda: OoT is described. You're right that Shadow of the Collosus could not be done on the N64, but by no means are the graphics the sole reason that game is epic.
Your GTA argument is somewhat flawed though. If you read reviews of the game you'll find that reviewers actually state the the game is a step forward for the series, and the game came out AFTER GTA IV. Did the graphics enhance the game or something? Why do the reviewers want aspects of the DS game in future GTA games on consoles?
RE4 was a huge step in the series because of a change in how the game is played, not because the graphics of the game.
My point is not that graphics aren't required, but that they are NOT the driving force behind enhancing the gameplay. That's absurd. I fully believe new games can be created based on graphical upgrades though. The games I talk about are proof as such.
lol at evry sheep saying NO i bet its cuz they know Wii will never be HD so why even dreaming roflSyferonik
What about those of us who also own gaming PCs, and know that graphics aren't all that important? :P
I mean, if everyone here really cared that much about graphics they'd all be addicted to Crysis and wouldn't bother with the consoles at all.
[QUOTE="Syferonik"]lol at evry sheep saying NO i bet its cuz they know Wii will never be HD so why even dreaming roflPlaneforger
What about those of us who also own gaming PCs, and know that graphics aren't all that important? :P
I mean, if everyone here really cared that much about graphics they'd all be addicted to Crysis and wouldn't bother with the consoles at all.
Except Crysis doesn't have the best graphics, Killzone 2 would be. Then this means that graphics really do matter.
[QUOTE="Philhellene"]Zelda: Twilight Princess is still good enough for Nintendo. I doubt that there will ever be another Zelda until TP stops selling like hotcakes otherwise they're going to just waste their dollars on developing new games just to cater to their fans. BlackSubmarine
Zelda: Twilight Princess is still good enough for Nintendo. I doubt that there will ever be another Zelda until TP stops selling like hotcakes otherwise they're going to just waste their dollars on developing new games just to cater to their fans. PhilhelleneThey should cater to their fans. They should start caring more about Zelda, Metroid, Starfox, donkey kong, kirby etc. and less about Grandmas. The problem is that they DO care about the grandmas because most of the time they have huge pensions and a lot of $$$ to spend on Nintendo junk. Nintendo could care less about its hardcore fans as evidenced by years of bare minimum game development by Nintendo.
Why do people seem to think that having Zelda in HD is somehow going to make the game look like it was done with Real Life Actors?
I want a Zelda in HD so badly!
[QUOTE="svetzenlether"][QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"]Graphics-whores? Last game I am addicted to is papi jump in the itouch. Instead of defending, please listen to what my posts are trying to say. BlackSubmarine
Maybe you should've listen to the other guy's post when he mentioned owning a GAMING PC, which made your entire post afterward redundant.
Oh, and trying to say that somebody's off-topic when the point they're making is directly tied into the topic at hand really isn't a good debating strategy...
Point? what point? Where did I say that a game that has lesser visuals isn't better than a game with better? Mario Galaxy is a better game than Killzone 2 and Cryisis. But but if graphics din't matter could you make the same gameplay experience with an SNES? Hey, I think I finally understand what you're trying to say, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. See, this post of yours makes it clear that you are reffering to the system's internal tech and horsepower, and you do have a point, because what kind of gameplay a game can have is directly tied in to how powerful its native game console is. HOWEVE, I think you are wrongly confusing it with graphics. I mean, the Wii has more than enough juice to handle the gameplay and great visuals that Zelda needs- it's more powerful than the original Xbox, and that had tech intensive games like Ninja Gaiden- it's just that someone needs to actually take the time to utilise that tech. I don't think we need an HD Zelda, not just yet, though it would be cool if they did make one. FINALLY, I would again like to reiterate: use the word 'trech' instead of 'graphics' in your posts. You'll be able to put forth better arguements that way.[QUOTE="BlackSubmarine"][QUOTE="treedoor"]
Well, my gaming PC is more powerful than a 360/PS3. I still don't believe graphics enhance the experience. It doesn't require nice hardware to make the greatest game ever, and that's proven every gen of games. Why is it that this gen both Killzone 2 and Crysis aren't being regarded as the best games, but Super Mario Galaxy is? Why last gen were the best games not the ones with the best graphics? And the gen before that? Zelda: OoT was the best looking game in the N64/PS1 era? Before that was Super Metroid the best game ever due to it's graphics enhancing the overall game?
That's just how it is, and it's why people shouldn't put so much emphasis on graphics.
Don't change this into another conversation. Don't put the bullcrap of a game being better than the other despite of it having less visuals. That is not what I am saying. And don't care if Mario Galaxy is better than KZ2 or Crysis. You do realise that the best games last gen were graphicly enchancing games? Example. GTA. It has revolutionised gaming, do you think if the ps2's abiltity to produce those type of visuals weren't possible that it would have been as exciting? If the the ps2 weren't there, we would have had GTA China wars according to your theory. But guess what? China wars is nowhere near is amazing as GTAIII. If graphics din't upgrade, do you think your Zelda, and your Galaxies would have excited? No because Mario 64's 3-d revolution changed gaming. It gave new light to a simple 2-d sidescroller.Or if OOT wouldn't have had those vast lands. Shadow of the colossus is hailed as one of the most Groundbraking, and viseral experiences ever like it or not, but guess what? Would have the n64 handled those visuals it was only possible on the ps2, and guess what? It couldn't fully handle them. But with the ps3's hardware there can actually be color in the game, and no frame rate issues once again enhancing the game. Resident evil 4 was a huge step into the series, because the gamecube hardware alowed that. Also if you are a pc gamer. Take for example Rome Total War, do you think that the beauty of the landscape, the scope of the game, the ammount enemies in the screen could have ever been achieved with the engine of Shogun? No it made the game feel more real, and enchanced the experience. I love my 2-d, and ps2 games. Hell I love 1990's pc games to death. But you cannot tell me that graphics aren't important, cause without visuals there is no evolution.You don't get what I'm saying though.
The updated graphics make new games/genres possible, but the graphics alone are not what is changing the experience of a game. The innovation, and the imagination put into a game is what makes them great. You bring up a good point about Shadow of the Collosus, but you describe it the same way that Zelda: OoT is described. You're right that Shadow of the Collosus could not be done on the N64, but by no means are the graphics the sole reason that game is epic.
Your GTA argument is somewhat flawed though. If you read reviews of the game you'll find that reviewers actually state the the game is a step forward for the series, and the game came out AFTER GTA IV. Did the graphics enhance the game or something? Why do the reviewers want aspects of the DS game in future GTA games on consoles?
RE4 was a huge step in the series because of a change in how the game is played, not because the graphics of the game.
My point is not that graphics aren't required, but that they are NOT the driving force behind enhancing the gameplay. That's absurd. I fully believe new games can be created based on graphical upgrades though. The games I talk about are proof as such.
And you are right too. See, primarally, it must be rememvered that what seperates a video game, depsite the all important 'video' in its title, is INETRACTIVITY, i.e, gameplay. In this era of HD arms race, people tend to forget that.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment