sundin13 said: I do think (for me of course) that when it comes to graphics it is largely a matter of style over technical achievement. A photorealistic game will wow me for five minutes, a creative art style will wow me for hours. Wind Waker (both the original and the remake) or Okami still take my breath away and Valkyria Chronicles or Ni no Kuni have charm out the wazoo and A Link to the Past or Super Metroid are jaw dropping-ly gorgeous. |
Have you even read the OP?
I put several times that it isn't discussing style or aestethic (that can be subjectively evaluated) but the graphical achievement. So why are you derrailing this thread?
And I didn't said that they are the two sides of the same coin... some Nintendo fans try to equate Nintendo to creativity (and more valuable at that) and Sony/MS as technical (and less important because they are just horsepower).
And this isn't an Anti-Nintendo/Nintendo fan hate speech. This is an anti-Nintendo apologist thread. If you think Nintendo games are visually pleasing them this thread isn't to you, but if you think that Mk8 is the best game graphically speaking of 8th gen, or SMG2 is the best of 7th gen, then yes this aplly to you, because you confound subjects. And my posts to you in the other thread make things even more clear, as you probably don't even like or care about cinematic games.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."