Zelda Vs. Final Fantasy Vs. Dragon Quest

[SammyGiireal]

Dulfite said:

SammyGiireal said:

Strong statements indeed considering both are false. The N64 was the better machine in terms of pure rendering power. It's only hindrance was the cartridge format. But Zelda couldn't be done on PS1, not Mario 64 for that matter. In terms of 3-D rendering capabilities, it wasn't until the Dreamcast that the N64 was surpassed. At least console wise. The GameCube was also a bit more powerful than the PS2. RE4 took a noticeable downgrade in graphical quality when it was ported over to the PS2. Metroid Prime would have been impossible to run on PS2 hardware at that type of quality and frame rate.

Yeah I wrote that years ago and don't know what I was thinking with that statement, but it didn't really impact my review. I gave the game 9/10 in graphics so I still thought it looked spectacular for the time.

I understand. However when you made the statement you were referencing the Original title which in 1998...there wasn't a 3-D playstion game that could match Ocarina and OoT was universally praised for its visuals. It was one of the first games to feature real light sources on Consoles, the open areas featured long draw distances and the character models looked spectacular.  The game is probably the most well rated game of all time because every aspect of it was spectacular. Again I think you will FF more enjoyable story wise because VI-X did a great job on that regard (VIII being a possible exception) but Zelda has always been excellent at what it does, a Link to the Past was truly a great game. I will agree that Skyward while not my personal favorite did a very good job regarding its narrative.

Last edited by SammyGiireal - on 24 April 2019