So, Zelda. Often accompanied with “ZOMFG!” style comments up and down gaming forums over the internet. As many people appreciate – I’m very critical of Nintendo. In fact, my level of critque towards nearly any of their actions can be scientifically measured. That is to say that my level of criticism of Nintendo matches the same level of unthinking adulation they receive in by other parties. I am the yin to the fanboy yang.
So, leaving the latest Revolution gossip (ok, vacuous hyperbole) to one side for the moment, let us focus on Nintendo’s Gamecube swansong: another Zelda game. I’m not going to criticise the game on what I’ve played of it because that’d be dumb. I’ve not played any of it. Oh sure, I’ve played the other Zeldas and am confident that Nintendo won’t change too much in terms of gameplay mechanics (check those videos – I’ve already spotted good ‘ol block-pushing puzzles – meh).
Instead, allow me to tackle the most notable feature that everyone first went on about when the game was announced: the graphics. Or, to put it in gamer terms “ZOMFG! Hav U seen teh gfx on teh new Zleda game???”.
For the moment, we’ll forget about how Nintendo are going to juxtapose the Revolution stance of ‘fixing a lacklustre industry’ by tackling new directions in gameplay whilst simultaneously making another Zelda game with familiar gameplay but with a graphical upgrade. As we know, it’s never about the graphics when it comes to Nintendo, right? Right.
So perhaps that’s why I say “Yes, those graphics in The Twilight Princess are great – for a Zelda game”
I can hear Retroid having spasms as he reads that. But before you go wild and get ready to hit that ADD COMMENT button why not stop and think about what I’m saying? Firstly, there’s no denying that this next Zelda game looks heaps better than the previous installments. But let’s not add a +10 to our mental scoring just because it’s Nintendo and let’s not add another +10 because it’s Zelda. Let’s keep our feet on the ground and remain objective.
A shiny game is a shiny game – just because it’s Nintendo or Zelda doesn’t make it any shinier.
Now, do me a favour, re-read that last sentence and if you find yourself having difficulty coming to terms with that then kindly fuck off. You’re not the sort of person I’m interested in talking to.
Back to Zelda then. Let’s take this title on it’s superficial merits – how pretty it looks. Does it look prettier than all those other games that came before it? Hmmm.. I bet many are inclined to say that it is. I, of course, approached that question from the opposite point of view, did ten minutes worth of savvy Googling and found some game comparisons. The only modifications made to each picture was to resize each image to 400 pixels wide. The rest speaks for itself:
And there you have it. The most telling thing here is that, these comparisons to Zelda are being made on hardware that is universally regarded as inferior to Gamecube and, of the three different alternative games shown, two of them are over three years old. Note also that the alternative games feature gameplay elements very likely to be featured in *any* new Zelda game – dungeon crawling, third person combat, horse riding, interior and exterior environments.
In all cases, Zelda included, the people behind the games are regarded to be the leaders in their field – visionaries. These alternative games are already with us and running on weaker hardware and have been around for a ages. So, rather than holding out for Nintendo to show everyone the way it appears, to me, that we expected to wait until Nintendo can catch up with older games on inferior hardware.
I question Nintendo’s hype and actions a great deal – but I do so from a position where I want to see FACTUAL responses or refer to HISTORICAL events. Increasingly, I find myself remaining unconvinced by the answers the facts present to me. I am not interested in hearing promises made by Nintendo’s VP of Marketing. I am not interested in hearing from some kid who’ll gleefully quote “A rushed game is bad, a delayed game will eventually become good” because Miyamoto said it. Miyamoto may have said it but I bet he wasn’t thinking about Starfox Adventures when he did so.
If you feel like responding to this post please do so. But please ensure that you remove the romance, ignore the hype, forget the speculation and just look objectively at the known facts of the situation.
I have a facty! That FFX picture… I believe that it isn’t the in game graphic engine being used there, Square used some sort emotion hyped up beefy thing for cutsenes to make the characters look more realistic which is what you see in that pic and why Tidus looks so God damn gorgeous. Its not FMV but its not in game either. However, I also believe that, to my knowledege, all those Zelda clips are real time so that comparison may be a titsy bit unfare. Colossus does look awesome though!
Sorry to burst your bubble Dr. Kong – that’s in-game footage from the PS2 version of FFX. Square used nothing other the the machine+talent to get that result. For an example of what Tidus looks in genuine CG cutscenes have a look at this.
As for the ‘it’s not in-game but it’s not pre-rendered’ comment – that’s nonsesne. Those graphics are being produced in real-time by Square and the PS2. Frankly, you want to see the game do some of it’s more fanciful stuff like watching animation for in-battle Summons.
As such my argument is not unfair in the slightest. I’m comparing real-time, in-game footage with real-time in-game footage. That’s the whole point!
You think I’d be cheap enough to compare realtime against CG? Or, why not be less biased and tell me where those Zelda screens represent IN GAME graphics? Certainly the Castle, Face and Exterior are extremely unlikey to be taken from genuine gameplay as opposed to engine-based cutscenes. There’s no interface, health, map or anything on them. The most you can do is *speculate* that those Zelda screens might be from gameplay shots – but you simply can’t insist they are as you simply don’t know. Which is beside the point – (as I was simply comparing like-for-like graphics) but it does rather demonstrate the angle you’re approaching this at when you make excuses for a new Zelda game against games that are already out and many have had the chance to play to completion.
You took (arguably) the best PS2 games and compared them to Zelda, (arguably) what is going to be the best Gamecube game.
All I’m left to say is “and?”. Your argument isn’t an argument – at all. We could play “this part looks better then Gamecube/PS2” all day. It wouldn’t prove anything.
I like the general art direction Zelda has gone for, I would say it matches those games you’ve posted. Am I wrong for saying that?
You’re basically saying the PS2 has done everything before and it’s better then Nintendo. Don’t you see that as an act of fanboyish war? Especially when your points aren’t facts – they’re opinions. Educated as they may be they are still opinions.
And to be honest I think the Wind Waker was a better looking game anyway – and I can’t ever see cell shaded games improving much more then that.
“Youre basically saying the PS2 has done everything before and its better then Nintendo.”
On the contrary, you’re standing in front of your beloved Nintendo attempting to deflect criticism away – and you do so by suggesting I’m writing a pro-PS2 article when I’ve taken deliberate steps to keep every word focused on Nintendo. The fact that, to present any counter points you choose to misinterpret my tone to be the exact opposite of what is actually written just goes to show how impossible you find it to view the situation from any other angle than your own.
What I was doing was not to showcase how great the PS2 must be but to criticise Nintendo’s blind fans who are already crowing about how Zelda TTP will be unmatched graphically. You’d have thought they’d have learned their lesson after what happened with Resident Evil 4.
As for WindWaker representing the best in cel-shading – Retroid, please, you’re becoming an embarassment. Have a glance at Rogue Galaxy to see what can be done.
I have yet to see you ever remove bias from a Nintendo debate – you simply don’t have the ability to talk about a topic with anything resembling objectivity. Your pre-counter to my post in my previous topic (arguing with it before it was even written!) shows this pretty clearly.
Your argument was definitely not clear. And in fact you said a lot of things that supported my last post. Leaving it open-ended like you did making no defining points means you can argue about any aspect you like.
When posting those screenshots you neglected the fact that 2 of those games have a static camera and aren’t really filled up with enemies. And Shadows of the Colossus throws all its pixels rather cleverly into big objects
And I wasn’t saying that it was a pro-ps2 post, but you did use it as a major example in why Zelda won’t be the best looking game of this generation.
How am I supposed to know that youre arguing with a made up opinion? I haven’t decided if the new Zelda is the best looking game or not. If I did say it was then you couldn’t argue with me – because I wouldn’t be wrong. If it’s not a question of originality or game performance on different systems – is it of personal taste? Is that what you’re arguing with, peoples artistic taste?
As for Rogue Galaxy – it looks like an average cell-shaded Jap RPG – nothing inspiring as what you see and feel in the Wind Waker.
And I do not understand what you said about RE4.
“I havent decided if the new Zelda is the best looking game or not. If I did say it was then you couldnt argue with me – because I wouldnt be wrong.”
And what I was referring it that it is my opinion (which it isn’t) – just to be clear.
“So, rather than holding out for Nintendo to show everyone the way it appears, to me, that we’re expected to wait until Nintendo can catch up with older games on inferior hardware.”
“Your argument was definitely not clear.”
I feel my argument was perfectly clear – so far, you’re the only one who doesn’t get it.
“When posting those screenshots you neglected the fact that 2 of those games have a static camera and arent really filled up with enemies.”
I’ve completed all the alternatives I presented. They *all* have dynamic cameras. Every game I’ve presented mirrors the type of gameplay Zelda tends to exhibit. In which Zelda screen is the screen ‘filled up with enemies’? THERE ISN’T ONE. Yet you seem to insist that it is unfair to show like-for-like graphical examples when you imagine Zelda to be superior. You prefer to disregard what is presented in front of you for what is in your head. Serioulsy – LOOK at the content of those pictures – could I have found *any* pictures whose scenes are *more* alike? Yet you seem to criticise the alternative pics for “not being filled with enemies” when the Zelda ones are also not filled with enemies.
Can you possibly display any more bias? I doubt it.
“And Shadows of the Colossus throws all its pixels rather cleverly into big objects”
I fail to grasp your point – other than to demonstrate how succesful SotC presents a sense of scale. The objects in that game are no bigger than in Zelda – they’re being displayed on the same size television and the game even supports progressive scan for higher resolution. The objects are only ‘big’ because the vision of the game presents them as giants. I really think you’ve been hoodwinked by the skill of the SotC guys 🙂
“How am I supposed to know that youre arguing with a made up opinion? ”
Well, firstly the opinion isn’t ‘made up’ as it’s clearly voiced by hordes of gamers across the internet. I don’t make this shit up. And, as always, my arguments and points are presented with facts and examples. I’m criticising the graphical quality of the Zelda game and I provide examples to back up what I say. Pretty clear examples too – unless you’re too blinkered to see what’s right in front of you and have to make excuses for your favoured company.
“Is that what youre arguing with, peoples artistic taste?
As for Rogue Galaxy – it looks like an average cell-shaded Jap RPG – nothing inspiring as what you see and feel in the Wind Waker.”
You first sentence makes a point.
Your second sentence totally destroys the credibility of it.
“And I do not understand what you said about RE4.”
Oh please. Do you so readily forget the crowing of your home team when they got their game for Gamecube. “Hah! The PS2 could never do this!!”. Then the upset as they sulked when Capcom insisted they share their toy with the other children “It’s not fair! This should stay a GC exclusive. Still, we all know it’ll look nothing like as good as the GC version!”. And then the PS2 version comes out – and the crowing stops as you all desperately look for a blurred texture here or a drop in framerate there.
It’s going to be funnier. Gamecube fans bitch about getting weak ports of ‘lesser’ machine’s games and not exploiting the extra power of the Gamecube’s hardware. Acting so upset that they don’t get the graphics they feel they should be getting..
..and yet, when the next generation is fully upon us and when Revolution doesn’t have the pixel-pushing power to spit out polygons like a PS3 or X360 (irrespective of whether this is important or not) they’ll do a complete U-turn and claim that, as Nintendo fans, they never ever cared about graphics anyway.
Retroid – that’s a prediction from your objective friend Koffdrop – you know it’ll come true as much as any other person who can think vaguely clearly. After all, if there’s one thing a fanboy can be guaranteed to do it’s to change their entire argument so that their favoured console appears better than others.
“Retroid – thats a prediction from your objective friend Koffdrop – you know itll come true as much as any other person who can think vaguely clearly. After all, if theres one thing a fanboy can be guaranteed to do its to change their entire argument so that their favoured console appears better than others. ”
I agree with that, I really do. In reality, most cases probably value gameplay just as much as graphics. I admit that I sometimes have bought games just because they look nice (Condemned for example). But in some games I couldn’t really care if they were N64 rendered – it’s just a nice extra if they look good.
So many different factors can make up a good game and when people argue for their console they can choose any of these factors to argue with. It’s something that is a fact of life really. Heck the government do it more then fanboys.
Bleugh! Koffy, you were right and I apologise 🙁
Retroid, honestly, why do you care?
All I hear these days is how fanboys are so blind about how they judge games and how gameplay is more important than graphics. While I can’t remember when I last heard or read any fanboy comments. It’s become a cliché, like “real beauty is on the inside”, the kind of simple truths that American teenagers spout around like it’s the deepest possible philosophical thought.
I agree about the graphical nature of the game Koffdrop; it is not that good, and I do not believe it is the best looking game of this generation. However, you must concede, as you almost have, that it looks mighty fine.
I am very much looking forward to Zelda: TTP, simply because I am a big fan of the Zelda games, and while it does not look like it will do anything particulary new in the genre, I am pretty much guaranteed to like it, although I will obvious wait for reviews of it.
It’s hardly a fair comparison to compare ONE game, to the best of THREE different games. Final Fantasy X and Ico especially. Final Fantasy X is doing very little other than showing you pretty graphics, whereas Ico, as I recall, uses a prerendering technique similar to that of Resident Evil.
The closest comparison is likely Shadow of the Colossus, which I have not played yet, though I will grant that it does indeed look immense. Other than this, a very well thought out article, and you’re entitled to your opinion as much as the next man.
(also, there were some VERY hectic fights in Wind Waker but the art style means it’s probably not valid for comparision here.)
“Its hardly a fair comparison to compare ONE game, to the best of THREE different games. Final Fantasy X and Ico especially. Final Fantasy X is doing very little other than showing you pretty graphics, whereas Ico, as I recall, uses a prerendering technique similar to that of Resident Evil”
If you feel that way then please take only one pair of comparative shots and use that. I personally feel that a game that, at best, is on par with multiple old games on inferior hardware is actually more damning that if there was only one to compare it to. The fact there are a number of old games that can compete with Nintendo’s graphical gamecube swansong actually multiplies how the lack of graphical prowess.
I don’t know about you, but when I played Final Fantasy X to completion I played a lot more than ‘just pretty graphics’. There’s an awful lot of game in there. I think you’ll find a lot of Final Fantasy X players who feel that it offers greater depth of gameplay than a Zelda game.
And Ico had dynamic cameras – there’s absolutely no CG or pre-rendered graphics in that game whatsoever. Heck, you can even move and zoom the cameras during all the cutscenes!
I don’t agree with the FF10 comparison. All you do on that game is walk about. Which means you can build the graphics round that. Zelda has monsters every where which move around and react to what you do e.t.c
However you have raised a good point, one that comes under the subject of fanboyism.
Anyway I have read the whole article and it has changed my perspective on Zelda. I can compare this situation to Gran Turismo 4. That clealy kept getting delayed so it could catch up to the likes of Burnout, Toca and Forza in terms of gameplay,graphics sound, depth and, well especially online play (which was scrapped because the developers wern’t good enough to do it) its beaten by all of these in a lot of areas.
It to missed the christmas period to improve the game and finally released it in march and was widely excepted as a great game but definately not perfect and beaten in a lot of areas by other games.
But I am sure this Zelda game is going to be the greatest game of this gen, yes better than gta,better than halo. Again this comes under the subject of fanboyism. 😉
U suck so bad all those games have no where near as good graphics and are all shit. Zelda OOT is the best game ever made and if they can keep up those standards, then u are totally wrong and shud give urself a blowjob
grafix smafix! its Zelda! thats all that matters!
The only real point i saw in that was that the graphics aren’t revolutionary, or THAT great, and like one of those comments said (didnt read them all but there was one)
….and??? I am a Nintendo fan, but im not biased like so many people seem to be, I am disapointed with Nintendo for their lack of great games on the Gamecube, becase frankly PS2 and XBOX have ALOT of games to choose from
back to the point, for a real Zelda fan, graphics really DONT matter, i found the WW graphics stupid when i furst picked it up, but after giving it a chance it makes sense, and its a good game (not GREAT but good) If the graphics for a game are crappy, then it sure as hell is gonna hurt the experience
but its the gameplay and the presentation and so much else that matters!!! The only point you made was the graphics! and YOU doubt they’ll change up the game much! I dont really want them to! They stay with the same basic formula with some cool additions or thankgod omissions(PLEASE no tingle)
the real reason that all zelda fans were like OMG THE GRAPHICS when the game was first announced was because alot of peolple shunned or disliked WW just because of the cel shading… or the rushed ending, so many people were overjoyed that the semi realistic graphics (which look GREAT, not THE BEST, but i really dont give a damn, still great)
Zelda’s popularity says it all basically, few series are as iconic, and has been able to keep the same basic formula still fresh and amazing for so long, the graphics??? come up with sumthing else
id prolly blather on more, but my time is up!
I actually thought the Zelda screenshots were crisper and more vivid. The edges in some of the these screenshots may be more recognizable, but they don’t sacrifice color and clarity like the comparison screenshots do. That’s just my opinion.
These screenshots are pretty good too:
Bob and qbert – I’m pretty sure my article asked people like you to fuck off. Did you have trouble understanding me? Thank you for your IPs – I look forward to your next visit.
“The only point you made was the graphics! and YOU doubt theyll change up the game much!”
I’ve not played the game so can’t comment on it other than the graphics – which is currently THE talking point over TTP other than speculation and rumour. I try not to base my arguments on speculation and rumour.
“Zeldas popularity says it all basically, few series are as iconic, and has been able to keep the same basic formula still fresh and amazing for so long, the graphics??? come up with sumthing else”
Popularity shouldn’t automatically assume quality. Schwarzenegger was a hugely popular actor, but few people would say he was a GOOD actor. I’m not saying the Zelda games aren’t good and I’m certainly not going to say Nintendo aren’t sticking with their formula (God knows, if anyone sticks to a formula, it’s EA and Nintendo). But the adoration the series recieves eclipses it’s genuine merits and diguises it’s shortcomings. The problem I see with any Nintendo product but particularly the Zelda ones is that people instantly assume its going to be a new benchmark in gaming and dismiss any criticism as heresy. In fact, the range of excuses made up to defend games like Zelda from any criticism are pretty hilarious.
What bothers me is this culture’s blinkered and increasingly unthinking attitude towards hype and spin provided by companies – Nintendo in particular. The instant acceptance of press releases and statements made by their MARKETING and PR people over any bearing on logic or facts. It’s of great concern to me and I believe it’s not healthy for this industry or culture. It’s this that motivates me to pick apart Nintendo produts and statements more than any other company because I see this as being the root cause of the increasing degree of ignorance in the culture
Now, I never said the graphics were bad – I just said the graphics certainly aren’t as amazing as many people have wanted to suggest. Some respond by saying “you’re using ancient screenshots, that’s not fair” – I ask you, when did you EVER see Nintendo release game screenshots that weren’t indicative of the final product. Hell, even the earliest Metroid Prime screens were the same as the final release stuff save for a few GUI changes. Really, claiming that these Nintendo pictures aren’t fair because they’re old is pretty weak when you appreciate Nintendo’s stance on releasing media of their games – particularly a Zelda game.
“I dont agree with the FF10 comparison. All you do on that game is walk about. Which means you can build the graphics round that. Zelda has monsters every where which move around and react to what you do e.t.c”
In that case, feel free to compare the game to Ico which features a young boy, a sword/stick, some astounding lighting, interactive environments and monsters everywhere which move around and react to what you do etc.
And is four years old.
Richard Tan said:
“actually thought the Zelda screenshots were crisper and more vivid. The edges in some of the these screenshots may be more recognizable, but they dont sacrifice color and clarity like the comparison screenshots do.”
I’ll assume you’re referring to Ico and SotC with regards to your sacrificing colour and clarity statement. I think you’ll find that’s a very deliberate and conscious decision in art direction. I’d very much say the game(s) benefit from that look rather than suffer for it.
I didn’t play Final Fantasy X to completion. I did, however, finish Wind Waker. Make of that what you will. Infact, I’ve only finished one Final Fantasy game in my life (6, fact fans) and even that was with cheating, much to my chagrin. I find the battle system and levelling up tedious and irrelevant. I’m a much bigger fan of Western RPG’s like Baldurs Gate and Planescape Torment.
Anyways, my point is you have to take the BEST qualities of THREE different games to better Zelda. You’re suggesting that some kind of hypothetical Ico-Colossus-Final Fantasy X hybrid would be better than the latest, unreleased Zelda game. It might well be, but I don’t think the PS2 is capable of running it! Infact, I doubt any this gen console is.
Also, as I mentioned, at least two of the comparisons are somewhat unfair. Final Fantasy puts pretty much all of the console at the disposal of the graphics. While it’s largely true 3D, whenever any “action” happens (I use the term loosely), it either switches to FMV or a much smaller battle arena. It was, nonetheless, undoubtedly gorgeous.
Ico, as mentioned, uses pre-rendered backdrops. Fantastically evocative and very pretty pre-rendered backgrounds, but I’m not sure how that’s going to compare to Twilight Princess – which is to say, I assume that Twilight is mostly using real time 3D graphics, which requires a lot more power.
Shadow, I can’t give a comparison on, for reasons previously mentioned. I do think you do the PS2 a great injustice though in terms of it’s power. The Xbox hit it’s performance limit fairly quickly, but we’re only beginning to see the limits of the PS2 and Gamecube now.
Oh, to clarify: You can move the camera, but only a little, and it’s possible to allow for a certain amount of camera movement, even with prerendered graphics. However, if you can point me to a source that proves me wrong, I’ll concede defeat on this point too, and be significantly more impressed at Ico.
I think people are missing Koffdrop’s point. It is clear to me that he is not slagging off Zelda at all. He obviously is not its biggest fan, but he barely even insinuates this in his article at all.
What he is getting at is that people have got hyped up about Zelda’s graphics, and said how immensely good they are, and that they are better than other graphics of this generation. Koffdrop has merely pointed out that this is untrue; the people who have been saying; “OMG great graphics” are talking in relation to Zelda, not in relation to gaming as a whole. They are looking through the spectacles of expectation and hype, and not taking an abject viewpoint on the subject. Zelda’s graphics are as good as the games Koffdrop highlighted, but not much better, but the main point is; Koffdrop was not slagging off Zelda at all, more that he was slagging off the people who have not looked at the subject with abjection, they have looked at it via bias, just because it is Zelda they are in referance to.
Hi Koffdrop the retard.
Zelda TTP isn’t even out. Why don’t you tell me where you get those “screen shots” from?
Oh wait, u didn’t.. u just found some COMPRESSED RESIZED images.
Have you seen how bad GC resi 4 pissed all over PS2 version? and all other games’ graphics for that matter? No? thought so.
What a dumb fuck…
So some whinger doesn’t like Nintendo, talks at great length about how he doesn’t like Nintendo but that’s okay because there are fanboys Confused Confused
Posts some disingenuous screenshots (why not compare Ico’s faces? Or FFX’s environments? Pretty easy to poke holes when you can pick and choose from 3 different games), based on a specious premise – I don’t think anyone’s buying Zelda just for the graphics mate. Why is somebody’s opinion ZOMG so much more important when it’s on a blog than a messageboard?
And yes, you losers delete posts. Thought so.
C’MON TELL US WHERE YOU GET THOSE SCREENS FROM. C’MON.
Comparisons between some hi-res pictures and compressed resized images from some un-know source is FUCKEN PATHETIC.
I agree wholeheartedly with Fraiser. The article was merely pointing out to the ‘fanboi’ drones that the graphics in Zelda are not infact the ‘B£ST EvA!1!!’.
I am of the opinion that The Twilight Princess is indeed graphically impressive, yet, thanks to Koffdrop’s article it opens the mind to accept that there is always better out there.
However, my last point does raise the question of the rellavence of this article. One game is never going to be the best astheticallay pleasing game on the shelves as there is always better, due to technical reasons or perhapse just opinion.
Boogy_boy, I don’t normally approve flaming comments to my posts – but yours are such a fantastic example of the worst type of gamer mentality that I thought I’d let them go through.
(You see, comments people submit don’t get instantly published. My site requires me to approve each one from sources it doesn’t recognise – such as yours. However, your finger-pointing mentality just assumes I deleted them. Perhaps you should think before your talk?)
If you READ the words of the article, not only would you see that it was not intended for people with such a narrow view as you, you would also have an idea of where I found the pictures from and realise that they were ALL resized (using identical settings) to 400 pixels wide. I did this soley for the purposes of site design.
Of course, you feel I’ve ‘tampered’ with the GC pictures and ‘enhanced’ the PS2 ones by doing so. How odd it should be that people of your mentality simply view the same action as good or evil depending on whether it’s applied to your favoured box of circuits or not.
Boogy_Boy – you are the worst example of this culture and demonstrate nearly all the negative aspects of gamers in just a few words. You probably don’t realise it, but people like you do Nintendo’s image more harm than good.
In all fairness, Its just another Zelda game, No doubt its going to be exactly the same with a few extra bits and oh a graphics upgrade. WoW! Er I think not. Somehow, unless Nintendo pull their thumbs out of their arses and stop living in this phantasy world, then we will no longer have Ninty around and that would be a terrible Shame.
Yes, childlike games are good for a day or so but i for one am sick to death of seeing my loverly Gamecube sitting there collecting dust. I mean, my GC is two years old and i wouldnt be lieing if i said my GC hasn’t been used more than 30 times yet my PS2 & Xbox are used on a daily basis.
It’s just damm annoying to watch Nintendo kill them selves slowly. They have ruined any chances of competing with Sony & Microsoft.
Also another thought i had, Nintendo’s little Gamecube has more power than the PS2 and where is the logic in that?!!!
And i again ask myself why in the blue hell isnt Nintendo using the gamecube to its full advantage! Who knows.
“Its just damn annoying to watch Nintendo kill themselves slowly. They have ruined any chances of competing with Sony & Microsoft. “. I wonder why…?
Possibly due to the so-called Revolution having…
Yet another Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Mario Golf, Mario Paint, PilotWings, Wave Race, Yoshi etc etc. Ninty have stuck to the “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” philosophy. Their problem was they used super glue and find it difficult to free themselves. If they have ruined their chances of competing in the gaming industry, it’s THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT.
Revolution? Lenin and Trotsky must be turning in their graves at the sheer insulting nature of Nintendo’s use of that great word.
Ninty – heard of Katamari Damacy? Innovation inspires! Break loose of your artistic block and please prove me wrong! Unless it’s PASSION the likes of Miyamoto are missing. Kids may think Zelda after Zelda is fun, but the older generation of gamers may find the predictablity more than a little stale. Savvy?
Of course, it doesn’t help that the sheer choice of artistic innovation and originality that seems to be commonplace in Japan doesn’t seem to make it to Europe – due to people here also being stuck to the “If it ain’t broken” thing.
BTW – How are ya Koff me old chum? Got back from Svalbard a few weeks back – finished my work project there ahead of schedule and am now enjoying at least a three month break. Take care mate. Say hi to Muse for me.
For people who are too dumb to see what I said there…if every company had that attitude, they’d be out of business rather quickly.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t gaming indeed a business? Get it, fanboys?
Hello HC. Pretty strong words there – Svalbard has given you a killer instinct! (was that a Nintendo pun 🙂 )
I think I may have said hello to you in your “I’m Back” thread at The Society. I don’t do forums any more (one or two posts here and there, nothing regular) as this site is my soap box. Glad to see you found it.
Always good to hear from you. Enjoy your time off!
How can you say that Zelda is dry? Each sequel goes in a completely different direction then the ones before. Sure the core gameplay may stay roughly the same but they wouldn’t really be sequels if they didn’t. No other sequels offer such a variety. You compare it to Katamari? Look at the sequel to it, exactly the same! Another couple of sequels and you wouldn’t even want to play a game like it again.
This one delves into a nice black and white style world which is very stylish, not to mention Link is a wolf which looks like it will be interesting. Zelda is Nintendo’s GTA, it gets more refined each sequel and they would be stupid to get rid of it.
Don’t blame Nintendo’s lack of innovative new titles on the Zelda series – because that’s something they can do right.
I still think the FFX screen is an unfair comparison. You just said on TGN2-
‘Incidentally, I’m not sure how you play a FIXED ANIMATION TREASURE OPENING CUTSCENE. Do you have to lever open the lid yourself? Do you rotate a stick to simulate turning a key? Or is it, SHOCK HORROR, a pre-animated sequence??
(Please play God of War to see how a game can actually make the action of opening a treasure chest a user-controlled and interactive experience – oddly enough, not played from that wonderful under-the-chin mode that Nintendrones seem to favour)
The answer is: you don’t know, the game isn’t out yet so you can’t damn well comment.
I look forward to seeing you play a game from that close-up-and-under-the-chin perspective. I’m sure it’ll be wonderfully playable.’
Wow, you’re really not listening to what i was saying. I clearly said it was an EXAMPLE of in game graphics. Not a playable scene, but an EXAMPLE of the level of graphics that would be used. In every other zelda, heck every other game i can think of with a chest-opening sequence, the graphics used are on a par with the actual in game play. You never see a chest opening sequence and think ‘wow, now thems are some good graphics used right there’
I don’t understand why you continue to think that i’m referring to some kind of game where you play it in an ‘under the chin’ mode. Let me capatalise it for you-
IT IS NOT A PLAYABLE SCENE BUT AN EXAMPLE OF GRAPHICS USED IN NORMAL GAMEPLAY.
Clear? I hope so.
Also, you seem to have conveniently missed out my other example whereby i posted a screen which clearly WAS an example of in game graphics, and easily matched the graphics used in the chest opening scene.
Now you’ve already addmitted on TGN that the FFX screen wasn’t from an in-game shot and was from a cutscene. The example you’ve used in your article was unfair.
“IT IS NOT A PLAYABLE SCENE BUT AN EXAMPLE OF GRAPHICS USED IN NORMAL GAMEPLAY.
Clear? I hope so.”
You’ve played the unreleased and unfinished Zelda game? I sure hope so. You’d be a fool to be telling me what’s gameplay and what’s not unless you’ve actually played it.
I’m going to remind you of the last paragraph of this article. It totally seems to have passed you by:
If you feel like responding to this post please do so. But please ensure that you remove the romance, ignore the hype, forget the speculation and just look objectively at the known facts of the situation.
Clear? I hope so.
Tricky, the point you miss is that this article (like most of my anti-Nintendo articles) wasn’t about the graphics of games.
The article is about people’s perception and romanticising of something to such a degree that they will not accept facts or history if it threatens to burst their bubble. They will not accept that they don’t know specific details. They will not take consideration into both sides of an arguement. They will not use logic and they will not think before they speak. They will not pay attention to things they don’t like the sound of – such as this article.
They will, on the other hand, come out with some truly preposterous comments and ideas to support their ideal in the face of any evidence that threatens it. They will tirelessly find some angle, ANY angle upon which they feel they can score a point and, having done so, will hammer that one small detail into the argument repeatedly – whether it is relevent to the original point or not.
Tricky – you are doing all of these things and proving the observations in my article as correct by doing so. Perhaps if you had considered the article a little more carefully rather than “Oh, Koffdrop is dissing Nintendo again” you’d not make such a blunder.
I suppose I should thank you. 🙂
You’re making a mountain out of my molehill.
I wasn’t trying to bring down your article, i was pointing out that you’ve made an unfair comparison between two games. Despite all the evidence- ie
– you admitting the ffx shot was from a heightened graphics cut scene, and your argument being that zelda was aswell
– it being revealed that that zelda shot was indeed from a cut scene, but a chest opening sequence
-the fact that in every game (including all past 3D zeldas) the graphics in a chest opening sequence are the same as normal gameplay
-a screen which you still havent commented on, which is clearly from an in game perspective, matching the graphics from the chest opening sequence.
you STILL havent admitted you are wrong. Instead you twist the argument and try to wriggle yourself away from the issue. Rather than proving my argument wrong, you accuse me of sulking, blaming other people (for what and how i do so you never made clear), coming out with some ‘truly preposterous comments’, not being objective, being concerned with romantics, hype and speculation, and not using logic, among other things. I have shown you that in game graphcs are as good as that screen, and that chest opening sequences match in game graphics.
I never raised the issue of what the article is about as a whole, i’m trying to show to you that you are wrong in that particular comparison. Please either make a different comparison or take that comparison down. You’re simply being unfair.
Tricky, I suggest you end this. I have absolutely no interest in what you regard as fair or not. When I go to http://www._Tricky_.com I’ll be sure to dictate to you what content you should have on your site and what opinions you should express – all based on my idea of fairness.
Are we clear yet?
Wrong guess Retoid – I’m not Ren. I’m the guy who’s been away for a while above the Arctic Circle soul searching (and finding what I was seeking) – and Katamari was a gift from a friend on my coming back a few weeks ago, so I wasn’t exactly aware of a sequel. So thanks for the pointer, and I agree with the point you made. But…
Ninty always seem to bring out the same stuff with little change. FOR YEARS. In honesty, I for one am gutted as I adored Nintendo’s class in earlier times, like Mario Kart, etc etc. It’s just that in my opinion they have decided to rest on their laurels of the past which gave them such greatness and haven’t dared to move forward, which is a travesty for me considering the absolute brilliance that Miyamoto is surely capable of.
Don’t get me wrong, graphics mean shit to me in terms of games. I don’t know if it’s me or not, having played games probably before you were even born Metroid, but things seem to be getting stale. After a little catching up, I must agree the new Zelda does indeed look very good. But, like the GTA games on the PS2, it’s little more than a re-hash of the previous games of recent times. What’s to stop them taking a different artistic and creative direction in the series?
Simple: People wanting the same thing with a few new knobs added on to it. Plus the face, like I said earlier, they’re stuck in their “If it ain’t broke” philosophy (look above and READ what I said). If I recall, people soon went for Core when Tomb Raider got more than predictable. Flogging the dead horse, was it? Boxer from Animal Farm had more hope at the time when the knacker’s van came!
What a shame. PS3 – XBOX360 – Nintendo Revolution – I’ll give you dead cert odds that it’ll be more of the same with prettier edges. That’s OK. You pay your money, you make your choice. That’s opinion, and you have every right to yours. It’s just that gaming has gotten fucking boring for me due to the lack of creative talent. Bedroom programmers in the days of the Spectrum and the C64 had more vision, and less oomph to deliver. But somehow, they managed to do it. I just think software houses these days (with the multiple team members and major budget that it takes to make one game) have gotten lazier. * Please correct me if I’m wrong Koff – I haven’t worked in the gaming industry so do correct me if needed as I damn well know YOU have!*
“Oh! We can’t possibly do that, and WE WON’T EVEN ATTEMPT TO IMPROVISE!!! We’ll wait for the next console to come out!”. Lazy gutless fucks.
I have a FAR better game to play these days…and a whole REAL world to play in. Enjoy your Zelda – I’ll be enjoying Berlin, Prague, Bucharest, Salzburg, Vienna, my ancestor’s hometown of Cachtice (complete with the castle my ancestor’s on my Mother’s side owned there) then I’m off back to Norway where I’m considering immigrating.
Har en hyggelig samey liv!
Koffdrop, I definitely have to agree that many other games on the PS2 have incredible graphics that are comparable to those of Twilight Princess (I’ll add MGS3 and God of War to that list of PS2 games). I’m guessing that many people are assuming that you took an antipodal stance on the subject, declaring that Zelda graphics are inferior to those of other PS2 games. It was probably spurred by comments such as:
So perhaps thats why I say Yes, those graphics in The Twilight Princess are great – for a Zelda game??? (probably implying that the graphics in the series have always been subpar in the standards of their time)
Miyamoto may have said it but I bet he wasnt thinking about Starfox Adventures when he did so. (although there’s an implication that Starfox Adventures was bad, it was actually a better than average game, plus the quote pretty much embarasses Miyamoto)
Zelda – too little, too late? (with a strong implication that Twilight cannot delivered as a quality title)
Personally, I have to say that comments like these automatically make people against you even if you’re trying to write an objective article. Even if you mention a positive comment like, “Firstly, theres no denying that this next Zelda game looks heaps better than the previous installments,” you’re gonna get flamed anyway.
So anyway, I’ll have to agree that some of the PS2 game graphics are on the same level as TP’s graphics, and as a result, it’s still subjective whether the graphics are superior to the other in each case. For example, the screenshot taken from SotC is taken at such a distance in game that the details cannot be viewed as carefully as the TP screenshot. As for the next two comparisons, the graphics are on a similar level with different directions taken. As for the last comparison, many people believe that the Zelda screenshot is superior.
I don’t mean any offense and I agree on your article that Zelda has graphics similar to those of games made years ago (heck, even Rogue Squadron II, which was a Gamecube launch game, is still damn nice-looking game). I’m just saying that your purpose of demonstrating that the graphics were similar was probably misconstrued as an attempt to declare that TP’s graphics were by far inferior to PS2 games.
I like the graphics of all four games that you mentioned, BTW, and I can’t really say if any one of the games is truly superior to the others in terms of graphics. I can tell you my personal preference, but it’s mainly due to subjectivity with artistical direction.
‘Tricky, I suggest you end this. I have absolutely no interest in what you regard as fair or not. When I go to http://www._Tricky_.com Ill be sure to dictate to you what content you should have on your site and what opinions you should express – all based on my idea of fairness.
Are we clear yet?’
Ha. Why bother having the option to leave comments if you just ignore them if they prove you wrong in an aspect of your argument?
I’m sorry, YOU invited tgn members here to discuss YOUR article. You said you’d prefer to discuss it on your own site. Now when i come here you tell me i shouldn’t try to bring up issues with your article on YOUR site? What the hell kind of mentality is that?
Koff, this just confirms that you will NEVER admit yourself to be wrong.
Maybe I’m just harvesting IP numbers 🙂
Trikcy, don’t make this personal. If you start getting into flaming territory then you’ll find those sorts of comments won’t get published.
Delightful read there. Very insightful.
Yes, that is all.