"Graphics"

[EponaOwns]

I hear all these people say they don't like the ghraphics on mm and oot. I don't really care for the graphics just the game story and stuff. It gets annoying when I hear people say I wont play this game cause graphics are terrible.


I bet in 10 years you will say the same thing about tp or ph or ww

[Inflexus]

I bet in 10 years you will say the same thing about tp or ph or ww

I'm allready saying that about those games.

Here's MGS 4, for PS3:


Notice the detail. Compare it to Twilight Princess, the most graphically detailed Nintendo game so far:



Obviously, Twilight Princess is severly lacking in comparison.


Visuals make for a lot of the game, they are "video games" after all. But I agree with you, a game is not good or bad simply because of the quality of the graphics or cinimatics.

[El Bagu]

For me the graphics is neither that important and as I have mentioned in another thread, my favorite game is OoT, this because of the sometime tricky puzzles and the story of the game. One thing though that is a much more important improvement (because it is really an improvement) is the game control in the later games (ww and tp). That I like a lot

[Chrono]

Noobs play Zelda for the graphics.

[Dabombster]

If I played video games for the graphics, I wouldn't play a lot of the games I do. I play more older games than newer ones. Graphics don't make a good game, the story and gameplay does. I like Zelda because I like puzzles. Zelda gives me that with a little extra.

And yes, like Avenged said, "Noobs play Zelda for the graphics".

[EponaOwns]

I dont care for the graphics either I'm just saying that to many people I know say those graphics stink. I dont like old games because of their graphics

[Twili123prince]

i love the graphics in oot for some strange reason

[Y2K3]

When I get into a game, I don't care about the graphics.
Amazing graphics (depending on the game) can be a huge plus, but it's not a huge deal if they're more simplistic.

[EponaOwns]

When it comes to Zelda there doesn't need to be good graphics. Just a good puzzle and story

[Inflexus]

When I get into a game, I don't care about the graphics.
Amazing graphics (depending on the game) can be a huge plus, but it's not a huge deal if they're more simplistic.

And that's how most of the non-gaming or light-gaming population feels. Good graphics are typically only pointed out by people with better systems or who see more video games, and play more.

[linkman8]

And that's how most of the non-gaming or light-gaming population feels. Good graphics are typically only pointed out by people with better systems or who see more video games, and play more.

Which seems to me to be a bit more of an elitist attitude among hardcore gamers.

In perspective, gaming is not about who's got the betters system, or who's got better graphics. It's about the gameplay, plain and simple. And when has anyone played a game purely and simply for the graphics engine? Never. We all play games we enjoy. If that's not true, then I'd love to see you play an 8 year old's game on a top of the line system.

[MrMosley]

And that's how most of the non-gaming or light-gaming population feels. Good graphics are typically only pointed out by people with better systems or who see more video games, and play more.

Thats completely backwards. For one, the PS3, cause thats what you are considering a "better system", has the least sells of any system out right now. Its got good graphics, yes, and its got quite a bit of memory, yes, but does that make it "better", not at all. Don't get me wrong, I like a couple PS3 games, and I own a 360 and like a lot it has to offer, but that dosen't make them any more superior to any other system, whatsoever.

The Wii, which is what you seem to believe has these so called bad graphics, is what everyone wants now. Gamers of all ages, and even a lot of gamers that have been gaming forever. I, for one, have been gaming since I was about 3 years old, and im 19, and right now, and I've seen my fair share of games to know that great graphics really don't mean much. Maybe they help, but they aren't needed. If you want realism, watch a movie. There are still many series out there that people would rather play the games released 10 years ago or more, than the crap we are getting these days. For example, Sonic, Mortal Kombat, and most of what we have seen from the Mario series. Heck I still consider the best wrestling game to be WWF No Mercy for the 64, and it came out a while back.

Now I'm not necessarily saying that a game with horrible graphics is always gonna be better than one with very realistic ones, but a combination of both is fine. The Gamecube had graphics that, if I had to live with the rest of my life, I would be completely content with. I will repeat, they are Video Games, not Movies.

[Inflexus]

The PS3 is also the most expensive of the 3 systems, and I'm not trying to imply that graphics alone make a good game. It's an important part of the quality of the game to be sure.

We still go back and play 8 bit games for a reason, we go back to them and get bored with Halo 3 or Gears of War because they're classics. And it doesn't just end there. We may stop what we're doing to go play crappy flash games.

It's all about the player and their preference. I apologize if that point wasn't made clear on my part earlier.

[Onilink89]

personally, i still think the grapics are good for the N64 compared to other N64 titles.
and then to think that they were remade on the GC. well not much difference but the motion is quicker and the grapics a little sharper.

good grapics or bad grapics, OOT and MM are worthy zelda titles to play.

[Josh]

I myself have never really been a fan of counting it. If you look at some of my posts on other forums, they say in basically every review that they graphics were great. Because they were. Doesn't matter what system, doesn't matter when it was made, as long as I'm looking at something other than a blank screen I can perfectly say I'm happy.