soooooooo is that what mario would look like with realistic graphics? man he looks like the devil lol

he looks like a weak tired old man who hasn't sleeped for 3 days... and also considering his wrinkles... how many wrinkles does a realistic mario have? The world may never know.!

But we'll be going too fast to appreciate it D:

See, that's the thing; it does impress me. I just don't find it extremely original in the greater scheme of things which was my whole point.

Donkey Kong Country had realistic graphics but not too realistic. If you really want realism in a game the best way is to play outside. Don't get too hung up on graphics cos it's the gameplay that matters most.

Mummelmann said: Personally, I hope they don't change Zelda a whole lot, if only for the simple reason that I found to apparent flaws in Twilight Princess. The differences between N64, GC and Wii era are minuscule at best though (which, again, works just fine) so I don't fully understand how Miyamoto sees everything he does as original. The differences from SNES to N64 are heavily influenced by the simple fact that 3D graphics rolled in at full speed and everyone changed the way they made games (Nintendo jumped on this bandwagon as well by the way, like everyone else, leaving the only original choice to using cartridges which was arguably not a grand idea at the time). But if you look at Mario Kart for instance, the differences between SNES and N64 (and subsequently GC and Wii) aren't that big except a lot more advanced visuals, the gameplay and controls are very similar still. On the flipside, I find it cool and intriguing that Nintendo took a step back into sidescroller land with NSMB Wii, that game is simply sensational imo and I actually liked it a lot better than Galaxy!

Mario Kart played very different with every single game, core concept is still kart racing which is a no shit, the game play mechanics are quiet different between each one though, I'd know since I've played every single Mario Kart on consoles.

hmmm, Nintendo has pretty much made games for almost all genres, though if you are talking about visual variety, the fact is that they all do look very different, and if you pay attention, a lot of their games are simply genius when it comes to the design. I guess the only realistic type looking game so far is really just TP for the most part, and the game looks really nice as well.

Prime series has always been, 3D first person Zelda that's not cel-shaded.....

dahuman said: Mummelmann said: Personally, I hope they don't change Zelda a whole lot, if only for the simple reason that I found to apparent flaws in Twilight Princess. The differences between N64, GC and Wii era are minuscule at best though (which, again, works just fine) so I don't fully understand how Miyamoto sees everything he does as original. The differences from SNES to N64 are heavily influenced by the simple fact that 3D graphics rolled in at full speed and everyone changed the way they made games (Nintendo jumped on this bandwagon as well by the way, like everyone else, leaving the only original choice to using cartridges which was arguably not a grand idea at the time). But if you look at Mario Kart for instance, the differences between SNES and N64 (and subsequently GC and Wii) aren't that big except a lot more advanced visuals, the gameplay and controls are very similar still. On the flipside, I find it cool and intriguing that Nintendo took a step back into sidescroller land with NSMB Wii, that game is simply sensational imo and I actually liked it a lot better than Galaxy! Mario Kart played very different with every single game, core concept is still kart racing which is a no shit, the game play mechanics are quiet different between each one though, I'd know since I've played every single Mario Kart on consoles.

Yes, well, so have I. Mario Kart 64 is still the best one imo. And I still feel that they play almost the exaxt same. What are some of these "very different" features you mentioned?

Mummelmann said: dahuman said: Mummelmann said: Personally, I hope they don't change Zelda a whole lot, if only for the simple reason that I found to apparent flaws in Twilight Princess. The differences between N64, GC and Wii era are minuscule at best though (which, again, works just fine) so I don't fully understand how Miyamoto sees everything he does as original. The differences from SNES to N64 are heavily influenced by the simple fact that 3D graphics rolled in at full speed and everyone changed the way they made games (Nintendo jumped on this bandwagon as well by the way, like everyone else, leaving the only original choice to using cartridges which was arguably not a grand idea at the time). But if you look at Mario Kart for instance, the differences between SNES and N64 (and subsequently GC and Wii) aren't that big except a lot more advanced visuals, the gameplay and controls are very similar still. On the flipside, I find it cool and intriguing that Nintendo took a step back into sidescroller land with NSMB Wii, that game is simply sensational imo and I actually liked it a lot better than Galaxy! Mario Kart played very different with every single game, core concept is still kart racing which is a no shit, the game play mechanics are quiet different between each one though, I'd know since I've played every single Mario Kart on consoles. Yes, well, so have I. Mario Kart 64 is still the best one imo. And I still feel that they play almost the exaxt same. What are some of these "very different" features you mentioned?

the turn and drift is different in each game, the feel of the speed, and the way you need to use the power ups in each iteration to destroy the people that you play with. while the 64 version was fun and required actual drifting skills(so did double dash,) it had the handicap BS that I didn't dig so much, at all.