|
| ||
| ||
 |
 |
|
|
Zelda Gate 2001 The showing of the new look of Zelda at SpaceWorld 2001 this year shocked and angered some, while it filled others with hope for something new, and something original. I fall in the second category. To any naysayers out there who are beyond angry with Nintendo, I have one question, and one question simple for you. What was the last bad Zelda game you've played on a Nintendo system? Notice I said "a Nintendo system." I'm not counting the crappy ones that can be found on the CD-I. Why Nintendo licensed Zelda to Phillips is beyond me. But perhaps I've strayed from the topic. But is the point of buying a Zelda game because of its graphics? Hell no! That's why people buy a GameBoy, because it offers dozens of unique game playing experiences, NOT because it looks realistic. That's why all of the Zelda games on the GameBoy Color have sold millions of copies. We buy a Zelda game because of Zelda game play, not for the graphics. What do I mean by Zelda game play? I mean the dungeon exploring. I mean the hundreds, even thousands of puzzles in each game; I mean the immersiveness of a title. Last time I checked, graphics had nothing to do with that. It's true, graphics do add to the immersiveness, but there are different kinds of immersiveness. You don't have the same experience playing Rainbow Six as you do while playing Perfect Dark. One is realistic, the other is not. If you are going to spaz out over the less realistic graphics, without even knowing what the game play would be like, than you have a very shallow mind. I've said it many times before. Graphics don't make fun, game play does. By going into this aspect, we'll have to seriously wonder what an unchanged Zelda would play like. From the video shown off at SpaceWorld 2000 and E3 2001, it looked almost the same as Ocarina of Time. Though some people enjoy playing the same thing with better graphics, most do not. When I put in a cartridge, or CD, or whatever, I'm expecting something new, something exciting. NOT something that has been used over and over again. Which brings us back to the new, cel-shaded Zelda. If the game designers can pull it off, there will be a completely new gaming experience. There could be more game play, and even some other things which we may never even imagine will be included. So all I'm trying to say is give it a chance. If I pulled a hissy fit every time a game went over a major change, I wouldn't own Conker's Bad Fur Day, Jet Force Gemini, or Perfect Dark right now. Feel free to send all of your comments to Snoop@quakecity.net.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 2000, 2001 OneBigVillage.com.
No content may be copied from our site without permission from the current
owner/Editor-In-Chief. NintendoVillage.com is in no way affiliated with
Nintendo or any of it's second or third parties. All content is ©
their respective owners.
|
A
lot of people are arguing that the new cel-shaded look does not show off the
GameCube's true power. I fully disagree. The fact is, cel-shading is a very
difficult process hardware wise. A lot of people who are arguing that it's going
to suck obviously haven't seen the SpaceWorld video. It's amazing, to say the
least. The animation is better than any other game I've ever seen; the lighting
effects are simply astonishing. It looked more like a cartoon than a video game.
What I mean by that is that the graphics were so convincing that you truly couldn't
tell the difference between if it was a cartoon or a game using cel-shading.
This brings me to the Jet Force Gemini factor. A few months before
the game was released, Rare drastically changed the character models. Before
the change Juno and Vila both looked like children. But this brings us to the
most important question: would the game play have been any less fun if they
didn't go over the change? Would one of the best N64 games have turned out to
be suck? Probably not, because it had a cult following well before it was released,
even without the more mature player models.
