By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Lonely_Dolphin on 03 March 2018
Edit Thread
Mar1217 said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

First time in the series because this the first mainline Kirby game to not be 60fps (obviously helps that most games are 2D, but still). And while not necessarily for Kirby games specifically, 60fps in general is very much boasted about, I certainly do it. A big reason I like Nintendo is they prioritize the gameplay experience over shiny graphics, even though shiny graphics are easier to advertise (can't see 60fps in a screenshot or TV ad). Again, wont ruin the game for me, but it's definitely a flaw I can't ignore.

Kirby 64 wasn't in 60 fps (only during the cutscenes) ... And I mean, I'm glad that you can be so enthusiastic about the performance of your games, but my point was solely about Kirby.

Though, I understand the way people may feel about this, it's rare but they did it with this one because they seemingly wanted to prioritized the graphics instead. Not something that should be ignored either.

Woops forgot about that game, but naturally a 20 year old game has little relevance on expectations compared to the most recent games. Your point is solely about Kirby, okay but what I said still applies. If you care about 60fps in your games, then you care about 60fps in Kirby, as Kirby is a game. Basically, I don't believe the people you're complaining about, the ones who only now care about 60fps in Kirby, even exist. I doubt anyone bringing up the framerate never appreciated the 60fps of past games, that's most likely why they're bringing it up to begin with.

I'm not ignoring it, I just addressed that even. If it wasn't clear enough, I don't agree with that philosophy. We play games mainly to play games, so gameplay experience should always be top priority imo.