because 3d makes the experience far more intense and inmersive
You've failed to give any reason why detailed sprites are considered visually superior to monotoned polygons

Pick the most threatening looking.

What was that about 3D being more intense? Completely separate matters. Final Fantasy 7's gameplay is LESS intense than Final Fantasy 6, thanks to the use of long, drawn out battle moves and summons. It does not mix well with the ATB engine that both games use.

I've already blown your fallacy about immersiveness out of the water. No consistency between player and environment = less immersion.

jajaja.......seriously, keep dreaming

in our reality there are 3 dimensions, 2d is totally unnatural and feels flat and unreal
u should post 2 videos instead of two pics out of context

You know what also feels unreal? Trying to decipher 3D images from a 2D world (in this case, the screen). The result is the weakening of challenging levels in order to compensate for the fact that you're working in a hindered environment (no depth perception, 3rd person behind angles have the character blocking the view). Why do you think they made Mario more acrobatic in Mario 64? Why do you think Ocarina of Time relies so much on Z-targeting? That's the compensation being used.

You talk about "unreal". Can I Z target a drink from the fridge?

Animated or not, that monotoned polygon dragon looks like a puppydog.

We were talking about visual appeal and u just switched to gameplay
i like old school rpgs more than modern ones because i love to read a good story (thats why i love the DS)
but saying 1998 3d graphics were less appealing than SNES level ones is beyond my comprehension

have i nice day

Wrong! I was talking about the overall experience. Check my original post.

You're parading around here claiming one game is better than another as "fact", and the only reason that you can come up for this is "Because it's 3D". I'm sorry but you're going to need a lot more than just that. 3D games have their share of hinderances (some have been overcome in later generations, but we were referring specifically to the 16bit ers vs the 1st generation 3D here), and do have to tradeoff a little gameplay experience in order to be used. And that there IS a fact. Until games surpass the 2D boundaries of the TV screen, there's always going to be issues with 3D. They're still having problems with a 100% accurate camera angle in this gen!

Given the tone of your rhetoric in just this thread, I'd say MANY more things are beyond your comprehension, too.

nobody is talking fact here

you just did!

They do when its coming in the wake of two great games and falls so far short of them. And I played it until just passed Lightfoot village, after Cape Claw. 

Starwing being an arcade shooter isn't a bad thing; it's great at what it does and it's graphics were both amazing for their time and stylishly retro today. Being a Zelda clone is only a good thing if the game in question retans the intelligence and quality of Zelda; Adventures doesn't, its puzzles aren't clever, they're just a chore, and its worlds are nowhere near as compelling. Having more to do isn't much help when none of it is much fun.

And I'm with fordy in so far as that 2D can be just as good (and in some cases better) than 3D. Some of the best games of all time are 2D. Hell, some of the best LOOKING games out there are 2D also; Kirby's Epic Yarn, Rayman Origins, Muramasa...

@fordy

There are good things about 2D and 3D. Yes, it is easier to produce better artwork using 2D images rather than 3D, but 2D is very limiting to gameplay aspects. 3D can provide gameplay 2D can not and in reality 3D graphics are 2D graphics rendered with depth and through perspective movement. You show the two dragons but that fails to display the movement of the 3D graphic which provides a far greater level of effect than 2D can. For instance, a 3D dragon can do a far better job actually going up to your character, grabbing on to them, and biting their face. This can be viewed at different angles, allowing for a sweeping camera view. In 2D this action would be done by having the sprites come in contact from a static camera angle and the result in comparison would be lacking. 3D has come a long way and is surpassing/surpassed 2D art quality, we are now starting to develop 3D graphics that look as good as someone could paint a picture.

Early 3D graphics don't compare to the art and detail of 2D graphics from static angles because they were developed at a time where hardware limited its abilities. 3D graphics are akin to developing 2D graphics as rotational from every fraction of every angled degree in unison from object to environment. Gaming techniques have vastly improved and hardware capabilities have allowed the 3D graphic median to start producing very detailed work. From photo-realistic to stylized art. 2D has also seen vast improvements but the limitations of its structure view will always be there, because if it wasn't to have them it would become 3D graphics. 3D graphics are just more advanced 2D graphics and the early games sacrificed the quality of art to provide the superior world 3D graphics create. Note that doesn't mean all 3D graphic games are better than 2D, far from it. People make bad games for both and really great games from both. Early 3D had a lot of problems because they didn't quite understand the new limitations it created or the means to provide good experiences from them. But by a large, people chose 3 dimensional worlds over astetic graphical quality. (wierd right?)

I know why people can be upset about the 3D game movement, it kind of stole the spotlight and became the major concentration, but 2D gaming is still around and looking better than ever. I like both, and I like 2D on 3D graphics games a lot as well.