You are comparing semirealistic(as realistic a nintendo game gets) with cartoony. Not the best comparison.
OoT was not intended to be cartoony. Wind Waker was. Twilight Princess was meant to emulate the art style of Ocarina of Time, since morons hated Wind Waker because of the different art style.
It's not that good either, and Vita's hardware will utterly destroy anything 3DS could ever possibly do. The graphics on 3DS should easily be better than Gamecube generation, by far. My freaking iPod Touch 3G has better graphics than my 3DS. That is utterly pathetic.
The "gloomy" feel of Ocarina of Time was caused by the overt fog used to hide bad textures, as well as the fact that the N64 couldn't produce the coloration that was actually desired. WHy not look at the actual concept art for the game and then look at OoT3D.
Also, I think OoT3D looks BETTER than Twilight Princess, hands down.
From a technical standpoint, I cannot disagree with you. However, I feel that OoT3D looks better. It feels more alive than Twilight Princess, which seems to have taken on the philosophy of: "Let's make this game look realistic...add BROWN!"
They both look good in different ways. They both have some disappointing technical drawbacks but they both have nice art styles that work well for what they were trying to do.
Also, OoT 3D had, from what I can tell, the rather cute goal of trying to look like we remember Ocarina of time looking, so they increased the polygon models enough to not look as jaggy and gross as they did on the N64, without adding so much detail that it differs too strongly from our memories. Now I don't totally believe that they could have hit Twilight Princess polygon resolutions on the 3DS, but I do believe that they could have given the characters separate fingers if they wanted to.
OoT was not intended to be cartoony. Wind Waker was. Twilight Princess was meant to emulate the art style of Ocarina of Time, since morons hated Wind Waker because of the different art style.
Uhh, no. I can't accept that. Oot wasn't meant to be as cartoony and exaggerated as Wind Waker, but it definitely wasn't aiming for a Twilight Princess style. It was definitely more of a cartoony style. Somewhere in between, certainly. I seriously doubt they had an image of TP's style in mind when designing it. Somewhere in between maybe.
Also, you're kind of cheating posting that image of Twilight Princess. It's clearly from an emulator outputting the graphics in HD which is not how the game looks on a TV. The Wii doesn't support HD. You can't compare a superior EMULATED image of one game to another in its native resolution and call the former superior. That's unfair. Twilight Princess does not look that nice.
Uhh, no. I can't accept that. Oot wasn't meant to be as cartoony and exaggerated as Wind Waker, but it definitely wasn't aiming for a Twilight Princess style. It was definitely more of a cartoony style. Somewhere in between, certainly. I seriously doubt they had an image of TP's style in mind when designing it. Somewhere in between maybe.
I quite clearly remember Twilight Princess being lauded for returning to a "more realistic" art style, due to peoples' unnatural obsession with OoT and irrational hatred of Wind Waker.
Also, you're kind of cheating posting that image of Twilight Princess. It's clearly from an emulator outputting the graphics in HD which is not how the game looks on a TV. The Wii doesn't support HD. You can't compare a superior EMULATED image of one game to another in its native resolution and call the former superior. That's unfair. Twilight Princess does not look that nice.
I quite clearly remember Twilight Princess being lauded for returning to a "more realistic" art style, due to peoples' unnatural obsession with OoT and irrational hatred of Wind Waker.
Because nintendo at one point showed a highly realistic video from an early shot of what became wind waker, thus people wanted that instead.
EDIT:Ok not ultra realistic, but was aiming more of realistic than OoT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEF9Utdu-L0&feature=player_embedded
The previous Zelda pictures they made to demo the Gamecube were more cartoony than Twilight Princess. People complained about Wind Waker because it was incredibly extremely exaggerated. That doesn't mean that OOT was incredibly realistic. Yes it was limited in graphics, but I still hold to that it was cartoony. They could have done more to go for the realistic look but they kept it rather cartoonish. OOT was as much a cartoon as LTTP. Look at the OOT promotional and manual art. You can't tell me that's not more cartoonish than TP.
We don't have to speculate about the art direction they were going for with Ocarina of Time. It's a known quantity:
It's not cartoony. It's not photo-realistic. It's just lightly stylized. Keep in mind this was the 1990s, when getting a computer animated character to look even a little like a person was an accomplishment. They went with an art style that they thought could convey their fantasy world in that medium.
I have to say I think personally Twilight Princess looks the worst out of all the Zelda games.. It looks dark and mucky to me... I do not hate it but I do not love it either.
It's not that good either, and Vita's hardware will utterly destroy anything 3DS could ever possibly do. The graphics on 3DS should easily be better than Gamecube generation, by far. My freaking iPod Touch 3G has better graphics than my 3DS. That is utterly pathetic.
So? I play games to be enjoyed not look at pretty polygons. With my PS3 I keep it at 480p (since I'm using an HDMI cable) simply because I don't care how the game looks. Just if it's fun to play.
you're making the same argument my friend makes about why a game is terrible,"because X game beats it in graphics". I find games that tend to spend less time focusing on better graphics tend to be more fun. So, I prefer that route. Games like FF13 which focused so hard on being pretty tend to be some of the worst games made.
So? I play games to be enjoyed not look at pretty polygons. With my PS3 I keep it at 480p (since I'm using an HDMI cable) simply because I don't care how the game looks. Just if it's fun to play.
you're making the same argument my friend makes about why a game is terrible,"because X game beats it in graphics". I find games that tend to spend less time focusing on better graphics tend to be more fun. So, I prefer that route. Games like FF13 which focused so hard on being pretty tend to be some of the worst games made.
It's odd that on the TT forums of all places would people bring up the Graphics = better argument.
You have completely missed the point of my argument. OoT 3D is a pointless re-release if you ignore the graphics, and the graphics are horribly subpar, and the 3DS is a hideously underpowered system, solely because of the garbage 3D effect that adds nothing to a game while simultaneously gimping the performance. This is more about "Why does 3D have to ruin the visual potential of my system?" than "OMG THESE GRAPHICS SUCK". It's like if you bought a new PC and it came with software that was impossible to remove, and you had no interest in ever using, but it still urinated all over your video performance.
You have completely missed the point of my argument. OoT 3D is a pointless re-release if you ignore the graphics, and the graphics are horribly subpar, and the 3DS is a hideously underpowered system, solely because of the garbage 3D effect that adds nothing to a game while simultaneously gimping the performance. This is more about "Why does 3D have to ruin the visual potential of my system?" than "OMG THESE GRAPHICS SUCK". It's like if you bought a new PC and it came with software that was impossible to remove, and you had no interest in ever using, but it still urinated all over your video performance.
*facepalm*
People know in advance what they're buying. It's not as if people buy high powered pc's only to find them crippled by something. The foremost feature of the 3DS, written right into the name, is the 3D. If not for that they could have just kept selling the DS, which has been more than a fine seller to date.
Just because Nintendo calls something the Nintendo Punches You In The GroinDS doesn't mean that diverting power and researching resources into creating a feature which punches you in the groin repeatedly when they could have focused on actually making something that improves games cannot be questioned. Oh sure, it can have titles that you want, but then again it also punches you in the groin, which is entirely senseless.
How doe sit do that? I've been enjoying quite a few games and haven't had my experienced hampered at all by the 3D, except for DoA which is why I turn it off in DoA.
Listen, guys, we go over this every generation. Gameplay, not graphics, makes the console.
No no. Gameplay, not graphics, makes the game. A console's job is to be technically advanced enough to allow developers to make the good games that they want to make.
It's like if you bought a new PC and it came with software that was impossible to remove, and you had no interest in ever using, but it still urinated all over your video performance.
No no. Gameplay, not graphics, makes the game. A console's job is to be technically advanced enough to allow developers to make the good games that they want to make.
Even if it only makes the game, the games still make or break the system. Simple as that.
Even if it only makes the game, the games still make or break the system. Simple as that.
Precisely. Which is one of the reasons the 3DS had such a rough start. The only game worth getting close to launch time was Dead or Alive. Ocarina of Time and Star Fox 64 have given the system a much needed boost, as did the price cut.
Precisely. Which is one of the reasons the 3DS had such a rough start. The only game worth getting close to launch time was Dead or Alive. Ocarina of Time and Star Fox 64 have given the system a much needed boost, as did the price cut.
I don't consider a mediocre fighting game that focuses on anatomy more than anything else to be a system seller, nor do I consider barely updated N64 ports to be system sellers. The only reason I bought 3DS is the $170 price point combined with 20 free VC games, and the only game so far I have even a slight interest in is Heroes of Ruin.
Apparently the stick attatchment (from what I've heard from peopel translating the leaked famitsu mag) is that it's to come with every copy of MH:Tri G.
I don't consider a mediocre fighting game that focuses on anatomy more than anything else to be a system seller, nor do I consider barely updated N64 ports to be system sellers. The only reason I bought 3DS is the $170 price point combined with 20 free VC games, and the only game so far I have even a slight interest in is Heroes of Ruin.
Barely updated? Ocarina of Time has completely upgraded graphics, runs at a faster frame-rate, has the Master Quest, not to mention the fact that it probably has the only good use of the 3D that I've seen so far. I can't speak to Star Fox 64 yet since I don't have it, but what I've seen shows that it's upgraded visually and, unlike Ocarina of Time, audibly too.
And what is this Heroes of Ruin?
And I agree with DrRocketGenius. No interest in any of the games he mentioned?
Nothing else? Not Mario 3D Land? Luigi's Mansion 2? Mario Kart? Professor Layton? Layton vs Wright? Resident Evil? Rollercoaster Tycoon?
Nothing?
I know I wasn't asked, but I'll but in anyway.
Mario 3D Land looks pretty awful, actually, with an odd camera angle for 3D platforming, which itself as a whole rarely works. Luigi's Mansion 2 is a sequel to a game which, itself, I never enjoyed. Mario Kart is something that is just a simple party game, I've owned it a few times over, and the balance of it started going WAY out of whack with later iterations, where they decided to slingshot 16th-place racers to first constantly, giving it a feeling of pure random chance. Professor Layton, as a franchise, is cute and all, but it's a puzzle book. You can buy a puzzle book and get the same experience. It's literally pulled directly from puzzle books for children. Layton VS Wright is...what? Is it a Wright game or a Layton game? Are these two franchises that work well together? How? Why? And what about the Resident Evil or Rollercoaster Tycoon games look SO amazing that make them better than others in their franchise? What do they add that is new?
Also, all of these are sequels. Every single one. Their only exciting feature is their connection to a brand. It smacks of sheer commercialism. Rather than caring about games, gameplay, or real innovation, the 3DS library is axed on long-running franchises, and shitting out the same game again with a slightly different title, sometimes simply by adding "3D" to the end.
Also, all of these are sequels. Every single one. .
Funny that's what I say about all games now. Every game is a damn sequel now because it's too risky to make a new IP. If you're going to try to shit on the 3DS for that, then shit on the industry as a whole. Don't be selective where you choose to shit in the toilet.
Funny that's what I say about all games now. Every game is a damn sequel now because it's too risky to make a new IP. If you're going to try to shit on the 3DS for that, then shit on the industry as a whole. Don't be selective where you choose to shit in the toilet.
Except there is NO major game on the 3DS that isn't a sequel or a spiritual successor of some sort, while almost all of the games that I'm excited for on, for example, the Playstation Vita are original titles(such as Escape Plan, Ruin, Sound Shapes, Sumioni, and Little Deviants) or feature some extensive new gameplay elements, like multitouch for the level editors in ModNation Racers and LittleBigPlanet or the tilt and touch features added that significantly impact the gameplay of Super Stardust Delta(which itself is a series well suited to a dual stick portable). This is quite distinct from Mario Kart, which will likely feature nothing radically different in terms of the overall experience, or Ocarina of Time, which even when you're trying to make it sound impressive adds slightly prettier graphics(held back by processing power being used by the 3D, which, if you laud it, is just "graphics" and not a separate bullet point) and a new mode, while the overall core experience is quite literally the same game from the N64.
This doesn't bother me whatsoever. I mean, Ghost Trick, which came out in January for the DS, was completely original and I'd love to see more stuff like that. But more Mario? I'm never against that.
I also just threw Rollercoaster Tycoon in there because I love Rollercoaster Tycoon. Not sure how excited people are about that one.
Also, I'm not sure how I forgot Paper Mario but ohmygod Paper Mario. (Even more Mario! Still not a problem!)
WAIT WAIT WAIT! You shit on the DS constantly for it's touch features and are now praising the vita for it? Plus Nintendo's been doing tilt since the damn Game Boy pocket. And while we're at this you hate on the (3)DS' touch screen because "You have to block the screen with a stylus to play." Really? With the vita you have to use your finger on the only screen for the game.
Also here's a list of original titles for the 3DS that you seem to want to ignore. cubic ninja, dream trigger,Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion,Doctor Lautrec and the Forgotten Knights,Heroes of Ruin, The Hidden, Time Travlers,Rodea the Sky Soldier, Steel Diver,UnchainBlades ReXX,Virus Shooter XX.
These are confirmed retail games, so don't say there aren't original titles for the 3DS.
And if you want to dispute by saying these aren't major games, well, few new individual titles are ever major. Major titles are usually only sequels, spin offs, or spiritual sucessors.
Also you might want to look at the current confirmed list of PSV games. Like the 3DS most of them are ports, sequels, spin offs, or spiritual sucessors.
So once again. Don't choose where to shit in the toilet.
With all this said and done there's 3 games I want on the Vita. 2 of which are ports 1 of which is an original game that actually hasn't won me over. I simply want it because I know there's nothing else for the Vita. I was atleast able to count upto 10 games I wanted for the 3DS before I purchased it. Andyes I've looked extensively into the Vita. It'll more then likely be like the PSP for me. Every damn game I want for the console is JP exclusive.
WAIT WAIT WAIT! You shit on the DS constantly for it's touch features and are now praising the vita for it? Plus Nintendo's been doing tilt since the damn Game Boy pocket. And while we're at this you hate on the (3)DS' touch screen because "You have to block the screen with a stylus to play." Really? With the vita you have to use your finger on the only screen for the game.
Vita has a multi-touch pad on the front and on the back. The back touch pad will in no way block the screen.
Also here's a list of original titles for the 3DS that you seem to want to ignore. crap, crap, crap, crap,Heroes of Ruin, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap, crap
These are confirmed retail games, so don't say there aren't original titles for the 3DS.
Only one of those is even appealing to me in the slightest, and half of them are trash, especially the Cartoon Network one, that would never sell a single copy if they weren't the only games on the damn platform.
Also you might want to look at the current confirmed list of PSV games. Like the 3DS most of them are ports, sequels, spin offs, or spiritual sucessors.
There is a slight difference. Most of the games that are getting sequels on Vita haven't already been done to death on 3-7 platforms multiple times per platform in some cases. In fact, if you look at Sony's history, it's pretty rare that they actually get into exploitation territory, which is pretty much all Nintendo thrives by. Resistance, Killzone, God of War, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, inFAMOUS, Sly Cooper, Jak, Uncharted, all these big colossal titles Sony has made famous, they haven't made more than 5 games in any one of those series (even counting ridiculous racing spin-offs and other stupid crap like that), so they're still fairly fresh. Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Donkey Kong, and Kirby, however, are sitting on 10-50 games (probably even more than that, I don't care to count how many Mario games there are) a piece.
(Note: Sony no longer owns Crash Bandicoot or Spyro, they only had the rights for the first 3 games of each series iirc)
With all this said and done there's 3 games I want on the Vita. 2 of which are ports 1 of which is an original game that actually hasn't won me over. I simply want it because I know there's nothing else for the Vita. I was atleast able to count upto 10 games I wanted for the 3DS before I purchased it. Andyes I've looked extensively into the Vita. It'll more then likely be like the PSP for me. Every damn game I want for the console is JP exclusive.
Vita doesn't even have a release date yet, so it's not surprising that there isn't a launch library of titles announced yet. As we get closer to release, we will see how many titles Vita has at launch compared to the 3DS and its utterly abysmal launch selection of half-assed ports.
To knitpick. God of War has had 6 games total. Resistance is also at 5. Ratchet and Clank (another sony IP) has been whored out pretty quickly with 8 games for it's main series. Jak and Dexter are at 6. Then there's Syphon Filter, Socom Series, Ape Escape(it's basically their Mario Party now), and Singstar (though I'm willing to say that one doesn't count).
There's also Motor Storm with 4 games in one generation. Sony's guilty of whoring out IPs too.
Also, this was more so towards dashing since he constantly gets on me for liking me DS for all the reasons I just listed.
and on the part where you called every game crap, some of them haven't even shown much, but it was once again towards Dashing's remark of "the 3DS having no original games".
And personally I don't see the back touch pad being too good since it's a damn laptop trackpad and will more then likely be annoying when implemented.
also my end bit was more so directed towards Sony products in general. Most PS2/1/3/P games I want seem to stay JP exclusive. I'm tempted to import the PS3 games but I don't know Japanese.
Also I'm willing tot ake back what I said. It's at 5 games I want since Stranger's Wrath and Munch's Oddesy are being ported to the PSV.
But, I don't get why Dashing, and the lot, have to come in here and try to be a damper. We get it you hate Nintendo and the 3DS. Now shut up about it. We want to enjoy and talk about the 3DS and games we're playing/looking forward to. Just because you hate the 3DS doesn't mean you have to try tou damndest to convert everyone into hating the damn console. You don't see me going into any strwars discussions and talking crap about StarWars (note I hate the series. Think it's a terribly boring movie. All of them). So, I'll read some StarWars posts and if I can comment to a tidbit of the subject at hand that wont be flaming, then I do it. Which is why it's rare to see me comment on SW posts.
Now I am not counting Shodan there. He's just expressing dissapointment with his system. While it could be done, I guess, nicer. He's still just saying he's currently upset with his 3DS purchase. He's not coming out of the blue telling everyone to just buy a damn 64 or PSV.
There is a slight difference. Most of the games that are getting sequels on Vita haven't already been done to death on 3-7 platforms multiple times per platform in some cases. In fact, if you look at Sony's history, it's pretty rare that they actually get into exploitation territory, which is pretty much all Nintendo thrives by. Resistance, Killzone, God of War, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, inFAMOUS, Sly Cooper, Jak, Uncharted, all these big colossal titles Sony has made famous, they haven't made more than 5 games in any one of those series (even counting ridiculous racing spin-offs and other stupid crap like that), so they're still fairly fresh. Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Donkey Kong, and Kirby, however, are sitting on 10-50 games (probably even more than that, I don't care to count how many Mario games there are) a piece.
Just because Mario is in all of those games doesn't mean all those games are the same, while in fact, every single God Of War game is literally one and the same game, just with a different story. The same attacks, the same kinds of magic (although they're called differently), the same core gameplay and the same enemies. And I have played all God Of War games, so I would know.
You can't really blame Nintendo for having awesome franchises that can last several decades long, because that's actually an accomplishment. Every new Mario game I play feels fresh, because the idea of Mario is so open to expansion that you can do virtually anything with it.
I respect all and enjoy most of those franchises you named above, especially God Of War, but seriously, pointing at a game series like Zelda and Mario and calling them exploitation just shows your ignorance.
Sure, there are a lot of spinoffs with Mario in them which aren't the best games ever, but here's the solution: they're not part of the main series, and you're not forced to buy them if you don't like them.
The main Mario platforming series has: 11 games if I count correctly, with SM3DLand coming out and making it 12 later this year. Mario lasted 26 years. God Of War is 6 years old and has 5 games. One game a year, that's identical to the previous ones? *toilet shitting quote*
To knitpick. God of War has had 6 games total. Resistance is also at 5. Ratchet and Clank (another sony IP) has been whored out pretty quickly with 8 games for it's main series.
Resistance has a fifth announced, but God of War most certainly does not have 6 games, unless we're going to count half-assed cell phone games as games now. Ratchet & Clank is the only one I feel like they've severely exploited. They've almost hit Activision levels of exploitation with that one.
And personally I don't see the back touch pad being too good since it's a damn laptop trackpad and will more then likely be annoying when implemented.
It's not a laptop trackpad. It's a multi-touch capacitive touchpad. If you watch videos of it in use, you can see that it works exactly the same as a touch screen, except that it's behind the screen rather than in front of it.
You can't really blame Nintendo for having awesome franchises that can last several decades long, because that's actually an accomplishment. Every new Mario game I play feels fresh, because the idea of Mario is so open to expansion that you can do virtually anything with it.
I respect all and enjoy most of those franchises you named above, especially God Of War, but seriously, pointing at a game series like Zelda and Mario and calling them exploitation just shows your ignorance.
I own almost every main Mario game and every non-CD-i Zelda game, so I feel I'm qualified to call them what they are. Formulaic. Zelda is essentially unchanged from the first game in the series all the way up to Twilight Princess, beyond obvious cosmetic differences and functional differences introduced with the move to 3D, and the same goes for Mario. Sure, each game has its own little quirks that make it slightly different, but you can't possibly think that each game is a groundbreaking new advancement. Turning Link into a wolf for no reason every once in a while doesn't make the game somehow original and not formulaic, nor does replacing a horse with a boat, or a train, or whatever random thing they tweak next.
The main Mario platforming series has: 14 games if I count correctly, with SM3DLand coming out and making it 15 later this year. Mario lasted 26 years. God Of War is 6 years old and has 5 games. One game a year, that's identical to the previous ones? *toilet shitting quote*
The only reason there are "only" 15 games in the main Mario series is because of how violently they exploit Mario in 6 other sports games/mini-games/whatever a year. I can guarantee if Sony had made Golf of War and Kratos: Badminton Champ and God of Curling and 5 other random pointless games, there would be a couple less main series games.
We could probably count Yoshi's Island DS, Wario Land, Super Princess Peach, and several others as "main series" too, since they are very, very similar.
Comments
OoT was not intended to be cartoony. Wind Waker was. Twilight Princess was meant to emulate the art style of Ocarina of Time, since morons hated Wind Waker because of the different art style.
It's not that good either, and Vita's hardware will utterly destroy anything 3DS could ever possibly do. The graphics on 3DS should easily be better than Gamecube generation, by far. My freaking iPod Touch 3G has better graphics than my 3DS. That is utterly pathetic.
Also, I think OoT3D looks BETTER than Twilight Princess, hands down.
Low poly models, low screen resolution, and low res textures disagree with you.
Also, OoT 3D had, from what I can tell, the rather cute goal of trying to look like we remember Ocarina of time looking, so they increased the polygon models enough to not look as jaggy and gross as they did on the N64, without adding so much detail that it differs too strongly from our memories. Now I don't totally believe that they could have hit Twilight Princess polygon resolutions on the 3DS, but I do believe that they could have given the characters separate fingers if they wanted to.
Uhh, no. I can't accept that. Oot wasn't meant to be as cartoony and exaggerated as Wind Waker, but it definitely wasn't aiming for a Twilight Princess style. It was definitely more of a cartoony style. Somewhere in between, certainly. I seriously doubt they had an image of TP's style in mind when designing it. Somewhere in between maybe.
Also, you're kind of cheating posting that image of Twilight Princess. It's clearly from an emulator outputting the graphics in HD which is not how the game looks on a TV. The Wii doesn't support HD. You can't compare a superior EMULATED image of one game to another in its native resolution and call the former superior. That's unfair. Twilight Princess does not look that nice.
I quite clearly remember Twilight Princess being lauded for returning to a "more realistic" art style, due to peoples' unnatural obsession with OoT and irrational hatred of Wind Waker.
Uhh, I took the image from this article: http://www.zeldainformer.com/2010/01/versus-series-twilight-princess-wii-vs-twilight-princess-gcn.html
Because nintendo at one point showed a highly realistic video from an early shot of what became wind waker, thus people wanted that instead.
EDIT:Ok not ultra realistic, but was aiming more of realistic than OoT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEF9Utdu-L0&feature=player_embedded
Be that as it may, it's still not how the game looks like on your Wii. And never will.
It's not cartoony. It's not photo-realistic. It's just lightly stylized. Keep in mind this was the 1990s, when getting a computer animated character to look even a little like a person was an accomplishment. They went with an art style that they thought could convey their fantasy world in that medium.
So? I play games to be enjoyed not look at pretty polygons. With my PS3 I keep it at 480p (since I'm using an HDMI cable) simply because I don't care how the game looks. Just if it's fun to play.
you're making the same argument my friend makes about why a game is terrible,"because X game beats it in graphics". I find games that tend to spend less time focusing on better graphics tend to be more fun. So, I prefer that route. Games like FF13 which focused so hard on being pretty tend to be some of the worst games made.
It's odd that on the TT forums of all places would people bring up the Graphics = better argument.
You have completely missed the point of my argument. OoT 3D is a pointless re-release if you ignore the graphics, and the graphics are horribly subpar, and the 3DS is a hideously underpowered system, solely because of the garbage 3D effect that adds nothing to a game while simultaneously gimping the performance. This is more about "Why does 3D have to ruin the visual potential of my system?" than "OMG THESE GRAPHICS SUCK". It's like if you bought a new PC and it came with software that was impossible to remove, and you had no interest in ever using, but it still urinated all over your video performance.
*facepalm*
People know in advance what they're buying. It's not as if people buy high powered pc's only to find them crippled by something. The foremost feature of the 3DS, written right into the name, is the 3D. If not for that they could have just kept selling the DS, which has been more than a fine seller to date.
No no. Gameplay, not graphics, makes the game. A console's job is to be technically advanced enough to allow developers to make the good games that they want to make.
It's called DirectX.
Even if it only makes the game, the games still make or break the system. Simple as that.
Precisely. Which is one of the reasons the 3DS had such a rough start. The only game worth getting close to launch time was Dead or Alive. Ocarina of Time and Star Fox 64 have given the system a much needed boost, as did the price cut.
I don't consider a mediocre fighting game that focuses on anatomy more than anything else to be a system seller, nor do I consider barely updated N64 ports to be system sellers. The only reason I bought 3DS is the $170 price point combined with 20 free VC games, and the only game so far I have even a slight interest in is Heroes of Ruin.
Anything short of giving me money to use it and free hugs from Yoshi the dinosaur in the flesh will not be good enough.
Nothing else? Not Mario 3D Land? Luigi's Mansion 2? Mario Kart? Professor Layton? Layton vs Wright? Resident Evil? Rollercoaster Tycoon?
Nothing?
Barely updated? Ocarina of Time has completely upgraded graphics, runs at a faster frame-rate, has the Master Quest, not to mention the fact that it probably has the only good use of the 3D that I've seen so far. I can't speak to Star Fox 64 yet since I don't have it, but what I've seen shows that it's upgraded visually and, unlike Ocarina of Time, audibly too.
And what is this Heroes of Ruin?
And I agree with DrRocketGenius. No interest in any of the games he mentioned?
Mario 3D Land looks pretty awful, actually, with an odd camera angle for 3D platforming, which itself as a whole rarely works. Luigi's Mansion 2 is a sequel to a game which, itself, I never enjoyed. Mario Kart is something that is just a simple party game, I've owned it a few times over, and the balance of it started going WAY out of whack with later iterations, where they decided to slingshot 16th-place racers to first constantly, giving it a feeling of pure random chance. Professor Layton, as a franchise, is cute and all, but it's a puzzle book. You can buy a puzzle book and get the same experience. It's literally pulled directly from puzzle books for children. Layton VS Wright is...what? Is it a Wright game or a Layton game? Are these two franchises that work well together? How? Why? And what about the Resident Evil or Rollercoaster Tycoon games look SO amazing that make them better than others in their franchise? What do they add that is new?
Also, all of these are sequels. Every single one. Their only exciting feature is their connection to a brand. It smacks of sheer commercialism. Rather than caring about games, gameplay, or real innovation, the 3DS library is axed on long-running franchises, and shitting out the same game again with a slightly different title, sometimes simply by adding "3D" to the end.
This doesn't bother me whatsoever. I mean, Ghost Trick, which came out in January for the DS, was completely original and I'd love to see more stuff like that. But more Mario? I'm never against that.
I also just threw Rollercoaster Tycoon in there because I love Rollercoaster Tycoon. Not sure how excited people are about that one.
Also, I'm not sure how I forgot Paper Mario but ohmygod Paper Mario. (Even more Mario! Still not a problem!)
Also here's a list of original titles for the 3DS that you seem to want to ignore. cubic ninja, dream trigger,Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion,Doctor Lautrec and the Forgotten Knights,Heroes of Ruin, The Hidden, Time Travlers,Rodea the Sky Soldier, Steel Diver,UnchainBlades ReXX,Virus Shooter XX.
These are confirmed retail games, so don't say there aren't original titles for the 3DS.
And if you want to dispute by saying these aren't major games, well, few new individual titles are ever major. Major titles are usually only sequels, spin offs, or spiritual sucessors.
Also you might want to look at the current confirmed list of PSV games. Like the 3DS most of them are ports, sequels, spin offs, or spiritual sucessors.
So once again. Don't choose where to shit in the toilet.
With all this said and done there's 3 games I want on the Vita. 2 of which are ports 1 of which is an original game that actually hasn't won me over. I simply want it because I know there's nothing else for the Vita. I was atleast able to count upto 10 games I wanted for the 3DS before I purchased it. Andyes I've looked extensively into the Vita. It'll more then likely be like the PSP for me. Every damn game I want for the console is JP exclusive.
Vita has a multi-touch pad on the front and on the back. The back touch pad will in no way block the screen.
Only one of those is even appealing to me in the slightest, and half of them are trash, especially the Cartoon Network one, that would never sell a single copy if they weren't the only games on the damn platform.
There is a slight difference. Most of the games that are getting sequels on Vita haven't already been done to death on 3-7 platforms multiple times per platform in some cases. In fact, if you look at Sony's history, it's pretty rare that they actually get into exploitation territory, which is pretty much all Nintendo thrives by. Resistance, Killzone, God of War, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, inFAMOUS, Sly Cooper, Jak, Uncharted, all these big colossal titles Sony has made famous, they haven't made more than 5 games in any one of those series (even counting ridiculous racing spin-offs and other stupid crap like that), so they're still fairly fresh. Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Donkey Kong, and Kirby, however, are sitting on 10-50 games (probably even more than that, I don't care to count how many Mario games there are) a piece.
(Note: Sony no longer owns Crash Bandicoot or Spyro, they only had the rights for the first 3 games of each series iirc)
Vita doesn't even have a release date yet, so it's not surprising that there isn't a launch library of titles announced yet. As we get closer to release, we will see how many titles Vita has at launch compared to the 3DS and its utterly abysmal launch selection of half-assed ports.
There's also Motor Storm with 4 games in one generation. Sony's guilty of whoring out IPs too.
Also, this was more so towards dashing since he constantly gets on me for liking me DS for all the reasons I just listed.
and on the part where you called every game crap, some of them haven't even shown much, but it was once again towards Dashing's remark of "the 3DS having no original games".
And personally I don't see the back touch pad being too good since it's a damn laptop trackpad and will more then likely be annoying when implemented.
also my end bit was more so directed towards Sony products in general. Most PS2/1/3/P games I want seem to stay JP exclusive. I'm tempted to import the PS3 games but I don't know Japanese.
Also I'm willing tot ake back what I said. It's at 5 games I want since Stranger's Wrath and Munch's Oddesy are being ported to the PSV.
But, I don't get why Dashing, and the lot, have to come in here and try to be a damper. We get it you hate Nintendo and the 3DS. Now shut up about it. We want to enjoy and talk about the 3DS and games we're playing/looking forward to. Just because you hate the 3DS doesn't mean you have to try tou damndest to convert everyone into hating the damn console. You don't see me going into any strwars discussions and talking crap about StarWars (note I hate the series. Think it's a terribly boring movie. All of them). So, I'll read some StarWars posts and if I can comment to a tidbit of the subject at hand that wont be flaming, then I do it. Which is why it's rare to see me comment on SW posts.
Now I am not counting Shodan there. He's just expressing dissapointment with his system. While it could be done, I guess, nicer. He's still just saying he's currently upset with his 3DS purchase. He's not coming out of the blue telling everyone to just buy a damn 64 or PSV.
Just because Mario is in all of those games doesn't mean all those games are the same, while in fact, every single God Of War game is literally one and the same game, just with a different story. The same attacks, the same kinds of magic (although they're called differently), the same core gameplay and the same enemies. And I have played all God Of War games, so I would know.
You can't really blame Nintendo for having awesome franchises that can last several decades long, because that's actually an accomplishment. Every new Mario game I play feels fresh, because the idea of Mario is so open to expansion that you can do virtually anything with it.
I respect all and enjoy most of those franchises you named above, especially God Of War, but seriously, pointing at a game series like Zelda and Mario and calling them exploitation just shows your ignorance.
Sure, there are a lot of spinoffs with Mario in them which aren't the best games ever, but here's the solution: they're not part of the main series, and you're not forced to buy them if you don't like them.
The main Mario platforming series has: 11 games if I count correctly, with SM3DLand coming out and making it 12 later this year. Mario lasted 26 years. God Of War is 6 years old and has 5 games. One game a year, that's identical to the previous ones? *toilet shitting quote*
Resistance has a fifth announced, but God of War most certainly does not have 6 games, unless we're going to count half-assed cell phone games as games now. Ratchet & Clank is the only one I feel like they've severely exploited. They've almost hit Activision levels of exploitation with that one.
It's not a laptop trackpad. It's a multi-touch capacitive touchpad. If you watch videos of it in use, you can see that it works exactly the same as a touch screen, except that it's behind the screen rather than in front of it.
I own almost every main Mario game and every non-CD-i Zelda game, so I feel I'm qualified to call them what they are. Formulaic. Zelda is essentially unchanged from the first game in the series all the way up to Twilight Princess, beyond obvious cosmetic differences and functional differences introduced with the move to 3D, and the same goes for Mario. Sure, each game has its own little quirks that make it slightly different, but you can't possibly think that each game is a groundbreaking new advancement. Turning Link into a wolf for no reason every once in a while doesn't make the game somehow original and not formulaic, nor does replacing a horse with a boat, or a train, or whatever random thing they tweak next.
The only reason there are "only" 15 games in the main Mario series is because of how violently they exploit Mario in 6 other sports games/mini-games/whatever a year. I can guarantee if Sony had made Golf of War and Kratos: Badminton Champ and God of Curling and 5 other random pointless games, there would be a couple less main series games.
We could probably count Yoshi's Island DS, Wario Land, Super Princess Peach, and several others as "main series" too, since they are very, very similar.