Meta-Knight said:
Oh, Galaxy is better than sunshine, I see. How many hours did you play Galaxy, exactly?
Heh. A fair enough thing to say, but these screens (along with all the older ones) do show evidence that some of the things that kept SMS from being as amazing as SM64 are present: many unique environments, and more unique capabilities.
dark10x said:
I've never said a shitty game with great graphics is good either. I do believe that a great game with terrible visuals suffers greatly as a result, however. It may still be worth playing, but much of the experience is sacrified. "Raw Danger" is a great example of this. The concept is great and the game itself has many quality elements, but the visuals and performance are SO POOR that it completely detracts from the experience.
It all depends on how we define graphics. Certainly a game with a shitty frame rate, draw-in and popup, or even distractingly poor effects (I'm looking at you, Skies of Arcadia's bilinear filtering) can harm a game, definitely. But with its visual design, Super Mario Galaxy could be made on a GameCube 0.5 instead of GameCube 1.5, and still look very cool.
Looking for some shots of Raw Danger... that's just sloppy.
Panajev2001a said:
See, this is why I now buy all Nintendo consoles at launch (since the GCN, I missed doing so with the N64, but I did import it before it launched in my city)... they do not drop in price for like... years...
Well, I'm not sure where in the world you are, but I know in the US N64 dropped after 6 months, GCN after 6 months, DS after 9 months. Of course, systems as crazy successful from the get-go as GBA and Wii take longer, regardless of manufacturer.