...
But I like LA over LADX, and would probably take SMB over the All-Stars version...
Why? They are inferior.
If given the choice between the two, I'd always take the one that looks better. I would never deliberately choose the one that looks worse. There is no logical reason to do so. The gameplay is the same, so there's no reason to willingly choose the graphically inferior version. It's not like the gameplay is automatically better because the graphics are worse, though there are many people who believe that, for some reason.
I mean, hell, would you pick a VHS version of a movie over a DVD version? Would you ever pick a cassette tape album over the CD version?
I know I sure as hell wouldn't. They're the same movie, same album, but one version looks/sounds markedly superior. There's no reason why you shouldn't get that version, unless you're cheap and the three dollars difference is a big thing to you.
Here's a visual example:
![[Image: ryan.jpg]](http://www.tcforums.com/images/temp/ryan.jpg)
![[Image: ryanlowres.jpg]](http://www.tcforums.com/images/temp/ryanlowres.jpg)
These two pictures are the same picture. But one of them is one I would give to family, or my girlfriend. One of them I would never give to anyone, even though they are the same photograph. Even though they are, one of them definitely looks better. One of them is a superior photograph. The one on the left is a better photo than the one on the right.
Why? Because the left photo is a higher-res photo with more colors than the one on the right.
Same photo, yet one is better. Ingrain that concept in your mind while you stare gawkingly at my devilishly sexy physique, and learn the lessons I teach you, grasshopper.
Okay, I REALLY can't get any simpler than THAT. But I have this sinking feeling I'm going to have to try...
I understand where Falcon is coming from... he's saying that sometimes nostalgia plays a role in which game he prefers to play (the original or the remake). He's saying that when a game gets updated graphics/sound, it takes away the nostalgia factor, because that lower quality gave the original game its character and charm. I can agree with him to a point... it suppose it depends on the game and your preference.
Close, Jellybean. Nostalgia definitely is a big part... the other big part I can see is the 'I like how the older game worked' thing -- they change the series, and while the changes might be objectively better you like how it used to be and thus react hostiley to them, while a newbie to the series would love the newer games...
Some very good examples of that would probably be Jedi Knight/Mysteries of the Sith vs. Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy, or Civilization vs Civilization II vs Civilization III, or Extreme-G 2 vs Extreme-G 3. I don't like the way they changed those serieses in their "improved" newer games, darnit!
Nostalgia definitely plays a role... for SMB especially. I just don't feel the same about the SNES one, while the NES version definitely bring back memories. Thus I think the NES version is definitely better. Link's Awakening too -- I just think the color looks ... wrong ... in the game, somehow... I will admit that in that longer list I posted nostalgia and being used to how a older game works and not liking the changes they make (better or worse) both definitely play roles and have little to do with the overall quality, just the quality level I give it... but to me that matters. Everyone does this...
My point is that better graphics are a factor, but probably the least important one when you're comparing games like this. That is, except for 2d vs 3d. That graphical change has massive gameplay implications... but within one of the two subcategories? No, stuff like "gameplay" matters a whole lot more.
Oh yeah, another comment. You are basing your logic on flawed arguements, Weltall and OB1! I mean... HOW OFTEN DOES A REMAKE NOT CHANGE THE GAME AS WELL AS THE GRAPHICS? Yeah, just about never. And often you LIKED how it worked in the original version and see the added stuff in the remake as just messing up a great game... or in a sequel with better graphics they greatly change the gameplay system (or make a whole lot of smaller adjustments that have the effect of changing gameplay a lot, like each Civ game) and you like the old one better, etc...
It is pretty rare that they just boost the graphics. Like Mario Allstars. And as I said even there there are very legitimate reasons to like the originals...
ABF, take a 3D computer game. Turn all the grapics settings down to nothing. Play the game. Turn the settings to the maximum [provided your comp is good enough]. Play the game. Which would you prefer?
It's the same basic concept with 2D graphics.
Your response there tells me one thing: You are not reading my posts. I present a somewhat complex and balanced opinion and it's like you just read the first sentence... :(
We're not trying to debate how better graphics make one game better than a completely different game. What we are arguing is how better graphics can make game THAT ARE THE SAME better. Not hugely better, but some.
I do agree that in some cases, a rare few I might add, I would rather have the original graphics, such as with Super Mario Bros. 1 and mostly only with NES games.
Quote:HOW OFTEN DOES A REMAKE NOT CHANGE THE GAME AS WELL AS THE GRAPHICS?
That has nothing to do with this debate.
Quote:but probably the least important one when you're comparing games like this.
No one said otherwise, what we are saying is that we would rather have updated graphics instead of sticking with the "good enough" SNES graphics.
Quote:Your response there tells me one thing: You are not reading my posts. I present a somewhat complex and balanced opinion and it's like you just read the first sentence...
Several of your points strayed from the point of the debate...
Heh, half an hour after posting the message I actually finish it, after essentially rewriting the whole post when I noticed that the original version wasn't very good... :)
Quote:That has nothing to do with this debate.
It has everything to do with it because the situation you are describing almost never happens! I'm talking about the real world here! Where remakes aren't just graphical improvements!
Quote:No one said otherwise, what we are saying is that we would rather have updated graphics instead of sticking with the "good enough" SNES graphics.
You didn't? Sure didn't seem that way to me!
Oh, and for 2d resolution is very, very important. Until we can get TVs at higher resolutions there's only so far you can go...
Quote:Several of your points strayed from the point of the debate...
Okay, yes, if the debate was just about 'games that play identical and look different' I did, but I (obviously) didn't take it that way, and was talking about remakes and re-imaginings and sequels, not just graphical updates... I think it fits in fine, myself.
Okay, so this started when I said that SNES graphics are "good enough", and several people objected and said that 2d should be made as good as possible, and that when it's better the games are better. On further thought, that statement of mine just is not right. Any graphics are "good enough" in a way... so I take that back. :) If the game is a NES game and looks good as a NES game, who am I to say that that isn't "good enough"... Instead I should have said (in addition) that updating games is a tricky business and when you do it you need to be very careful, because a lot of remakes and sequels are messed up, or just aren't as good as the originals.
See, I like nicer graphics as much as anyone, but here is a fact of life. When a company makes a game with better graphics, remake, sequel, re-imagining, whatever, 99.9% of the time they change the game in various ways. It is NOT the same game that you played before. Yes, Nintendo did do a near-perfect remake of the SMB series on the SNES. However... I just thought of something.
Even Super Mario All Stars was not a "perfect" remake. You can save. I bet that some people were annoyed by that fact... it changed the game, after all! And as I said about nostalgia, that is a huge factor here... as everyone here must admit if they are sane. But I think everyone here by now must know how nostalgia shapes our view on games, right? And same for gameplay changes. I made a lengthy list of games where improved graphics didn't change the gameplay and many where the gameplay was not as fun so the older looking game is better...
Given these facts (nostalgia and making major changes in gameplay), can you seriously deny that I am right (that you have to be very careful about just saying "improve the graphics because that will make the games better")?
Oh, and remember to factor in how often remakes, re-imaginings, and sequels are worse than the games they were inspired by. Because that's a lot of the time, as you're all well aware...
My point originally wasn't that I hated the idea of new graphics for the SNES/GB Zeld games, but that I just don't see a point (for me; for the mass market there is obviously a point). I like them as they are, and am used to them that way... and I don't mind "old" graphics at all... it'd look prettier for sure and might attract more people, but I don't see a point. As I said originally it wouldn't make the game any better. If you make it a perfect port it'd be just a nice looking version of a old Zelda game... pretty and fun to go through again and look at the pretty stuff, but *BETTER*? Graphics is on the bottom of the list for what I think of when I think about better.
It'd be fun, but to me seems like a waste of resources when you could be making something new. Unless you're changing the games in some big way of course...
And finally, StarTropics and StarTropics 2 (also on NES) are great games and definitely would be great games to be remade. It'd be awesome to see a new StarTropics... and Kid Icarus too, but I think StarTropics would be better. :)
Oh, though of some good remakes... the Sierra remakes of games which required command-prompt command entries that they remade in the graphical Sierra adenture system. Like Quest for Glory. :) They improved the graphics -- and I liked it, I love QFG's beautiful (256-color, 640x480 VGA? Yeah sure, so? It's beautiful. (and remember the original is 16-color CGA, I think... or EGA maybe...)) artwork, but the real reason that the remake is great and was worth doing is the addition of a graphical interface for actions and conversations. If the 16-color version had had that the remake wouldn't have had nearly as much point.
Meh.
The only way I would ever favor an original over a more polished remake is if there were some deficiency in the newer game. Like REmake's crappy controls, that is bad enough to override the prettier graphics for me. It's a prettier game but an inferior game because it doesn't play as well, and I think that's the angle you're trying. I agree that some remakes need to be done better (though in all fairness to Resi, it's the controller design that's at fault, not the game designers).
But All-Stars? No. Those games are absolutely identical gameplay-wise. I noticed no alterations whatsoever, good or bad (except how in Mario 3, you didn't get the 28 P-Wings after winning). The only differences between All-Stars are the graphics and the sound, which are quite superior to that of the originals. That, and the ability to save, which only made it better. Thus, the remakes are superior games. It's a purely personal bias to add that the SNES was a better controller than the NES was. It was nostalgia coupled with the excitement of seeing the prettier sights and hearing the prettier sounds... it was like seeing an old girlfriend with a face lift and a boob job.
But anyway, the original point WAS whether SNES were adequate eight years after the machine was replaced. I still say, no.
Quote:But anyway, the original point WAS whether SNES were adequate eight years after the machine was replaced. I still say, no.
Yeah, but I kind of got away from that... :)
And as I said if you were to make a game today I'd like to see it as nice as possible, but if it's on an old system I don't mind playing it... even if it has Atari 2600 graphics. :) But that should be obvious given how many roms from old systems I have. Now I admit, I don't play the really old stuff (Atari 2600, IntelliVision, etc...) much at all, but NES and up I play at least sometimes... and yes games with better graphics are nicer. But if the gameplay in an old one is fun I don't have any problem with playing something with badly out of date graphics. I think that if you do you're somewhat shallow...
Quote:The only way I would ever favor an original over a more polished remake is if there were some deficiency in the newer game. Like REmake's crappy controls, that is bad enough to override the prettier graphics for me. It's a prettier game but an inferior game because it doesn't play as well, and I think that's the angle you're trying. I agree that some remakes need to be done better (though in all fairness to Resi, it's the controller design that's at fault, not the game designers).
Almost all remakes/sequels change things, as I proved with that list if you've played many of the pairs. Which one (old way or new) is debatable, but they do change things. And that means that you can't judge them just on graphics quality.
Quote:But All-Stars? No. Those games are absolutely identical gameplay-wise. I noticed no alterations whatsoever, good or bad (except how in Mario 3, you didn't get the 28 P-Wings after winning). The only differences between All-Stars are the graphics and the sound, which are quite superior to that of the originals. That, and the ability to save, which only made it better. Thus, the remakes are superior games. It's a purely personal bias to add that the SNES was a better controller than the NES was. It was nostalgia coupled with the excitement of seeing the prettier sights and hearing the prettier sounds... it was like seeing an old girlfriend with a face lift and a boob job.
And as I said, remakes that are identical in all ways are extremely, extremely, rare. They almost always change things. Like the SM Advance games, where they made Mario and Luigi different and added the red coins and in SMB3 added the E-Reader for new levels and getting free items to make the game easier...
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BETTER GRAPHICS MAKING A GAME WITH IDENTICAL GAMEPLAY BETTER!!!
GEEZ you are one thick-headed customer! And when I use the word customer like that I mean business! Customer!
OB1. Please. Go read my posts. A stupid short response like that just screams "I am not actually paying attention to what you are saying"... I could repeat myself but I don't know if it would help if you didn't listen before...
But if caps are what you want caps are what you'll get. I GAVE TWO VERY GOOD REASONS WHY THE SAME GAME WITH BETTER GRAPHICS IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER BY A NON-OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT (AS IN ANY LIVING THING ON THIS PLANET)!!!
And a third reason that says why I got into my other discussion, and why it's more relevant than the question you are putting up there.
When Weltall and myself gave good, simple examples of how prettier versions of the same thing are better, you responded with "Look at Jedi Knight and Jedi Outcast! Outcast looks better but it's not a better game!". With examples like the NES Mario Bros. and the SNES versions where the only difference is cosmetic, the SNES version is of course better unless the sole reason you play games is for nostalgia.
Hmm, looks like you might have started to pay attention... oh, read Weltall's latest post, he seems to finally understand what my line of arguement is. :)
And OB1, as I said, nostalgia and liking games as they are play a HUGE role in which games you like! I'd say that it's one of the top factors, easily.
Maybe for a few minutes, but if the gameplay is no good then it doesn't matter. I have great memories of playing LA while on vacation in the most beautiful parts of the Adriatic Sea, but I won't enjoy the game more if I play it on an old Gameboy than if I play the DX version on my SP. Yeah they did change a few things, but if there was a remake with no gameplay changes--just great graphics--it would make the experience much better. Gameplay is more important than graphics, duh. We all know that. But same game with better graphics is always better, as long as it's not say, Mario Bros. turned into a photorealistic version of the game with life-like characters.
I've played LA probably five times through... and yes I don't own LADX and have only played it some, but my initial response at least was that the colors were weird. :)
Quote:Gameplay is more important than graphics, duh. We all know that.
Then why is it that when I said that you responded with a "you're nuts"?
Quote:But same game with better graphics is always better, as long as it's not say, Mario Bros. turned into a photorealistic version of the game with life-like characters.
You contradicted your own "always"... and as I've said many times in this thread. How often does this happen? How many 'graphical only with no significant gameplay changes' remakes are there? Oh, there are lots of remakes/sequels out there, but almost always they change stuff even in a remake. I can't think of any other than SM All-Stars that actually didn't change the gameplay at all... even most GBC/A remakes changed something, like F-Zero being a new game on the same engine, LADX adding stuff and having color, other remakes mixing things... and most of the rest are straight ports, not remakes. So this category you are describing is just so small that it's impossible to just talk about it by itsself!
Quote:I've played LA probably five times through... and yes I don't own LADX and have only played it some, but my initial response at least was that the colors were weird.
Quote:Then why is it that when I said that you responded with a "you're nuts"?
GAH
*lowers head, covers face with hand*
We were talking about same games with better graphics! What part of that do you not understand??
And you wonder why I call you stupid so often...
idiot.
Quote:You contradicted your own "always"... and as I've said many times in this thread. How often does this happen? How many 'graphical only with no significant gameplay changes' remakes are there? Oh, there are lots of remakes/sequels out there, but almost always they change stuff even in a remake. I can't think of any other than SM All-Stars that actually didn't change the gameplay at all... even most GBC/A remakes changed something, like F-Zero being a new game on the same engine, LADX adding stuff and having color, other remakes mixing things... and most of the rest are straight ports, not remakes. So this category you are describing is just so small that it's impossible to just talk about it by itsself!
This debate was never about how many All-Star-like games there are. That's what you turned it into because you lost the debate as soon as it started. I said that I'd like to see all of the Zelda games get graphical facelifts, and you responded with "why? better graphics aren't better". Fast forward a dozen retarded responses from you and here we are.
Quote:GAH
*lowers head, covers face with hand*
We were talking about same games with better graphics! What part of that do you not understand??
And you wonder why I call you stupid so often...
idiot.
Because after the first couple posts I wasn't just talking about the same games with better graphics. I guess you weren't reading my posts, because it was pretty obvious.
Quote:
What? It does! So bright... everything is funny colored...
Quote:This debate was never about how many All-Star-like games there are. That's what you turned it into because you lost the debate as soon as it started. I said that I'd like to see all of the Zelda games get graphical facelifts, and you responded with "why? better graphics aren't better". Fast forward a dozen retarded responses from you and here we are.
Look, you didn't understand my arguement and kept repeating yourself while I was saying other things as well. If there's someone here that is made to look stupid by that it sure isn't me...
And I stand by that comment "Why?". I just don't see a point. As I said it'd look nicer but that really isn't very important and Nintendo has a million ways to use their resources more wisely.
Well, unless you're talking about the original LOZ. That one they could update (with a remake, not just a graphical facelift) because it definitely doesn't stand next to the rest of the series in style and gameplay. It's not worse, it's just different and simpler...
As I said in my first reply, I just don't see much relevance in improving the graphics... the only reason I can think of is if you prefer graphics to gameplay, and I don't think you're like that...
Quote:Because after the first couple posts I wasn't just talking about the same games with better graphics. I guess you weren't reading my posts, because it was pretty obvious.
I read your posts, we all did. And that's precisely why you look so stupid. You didn't even respond directly to the things we were talking about! We'd say one thing and you'd respond to something completely different.
Quote:What? It does! So bright... everything is funny colored...
You're so weird.
Quote:Look, you didn't understand my arguement and kept repeating yourself while I was saying other things as well. If there's someone here that is made to look stupid by that it sure isn't me...
And I stand by that comment "Why?". I just don't see a point. As I said it'd look nicer but that really isn't very important and Nintendo has a million ways to use their resources more wisely.
Well, unless you're talking about the original LOZ. That one they could update (with a remake, not just a graphical facelift) because it definitely doesn't stand next to the rest of the series in style and gameplay. It's not worse, it's just different and simpler...
As I said in my first reply, I just don't see much relevance in improving the graphics...
I understand your argument! I've repeated myself a half dozen times already! You changed the debate because of how incredibly inane your stance is! This is not about how many graphical updates there are, this is about graphics making the same game better.
That's it! A Zelda compilation with updated graphics would be great in the same way that Mario All-Stars was great.
Good grief, you can make a huge argument out of
anything. And you always look a complete fool.
Quote:You're so weird.
As I said before.
Quote:Nostalgia definitely plays a role... for SMB especially. I just don't feel the same about the SNES one, while the NES version definitely bring back memories. Thus I think the NES version is definitely better. Link's Awakening too -- I just think the color looks ... wrong ... in the game, somehow... I will admit that in that longer list I posted nostalgia and being used to how a older game works and not liking the changes they make (better or worse) both definitely play roles and have little to do with the overall quality, just the quality level I give it... but to me that matters. Everyone does this...
Quote:I read your posts, we all did. And that's precisely why you look so stupid. You didn't even respond directly to the things we were talking about! We'd say one thing and you'd respond to something completely different.
First, yes, I did get off track a bit... but that's because staying in your arguement is pointless. As I said, it's essentially just academic because it's so rare! Why is it so odd to want to talk about what happens in the real world? I don't think it even remotely is!
Oh, and given how you reacted, no, it sure didn't look like it. If you did you didn't understand what I meant at all. And now you do you won't back down because you never will, ever. But I still just don't get why you're being so dumb about this. I mean, could you explain how better graphics in LttP would actually make it a better game? I don't see how it would to a substantive degree (ie more than just visual pleasure).
And once again I need to remind you that when they do this kind of thing 99% of the time you get a remake changed in various ways. Sometimes more so than others (see Sword of Mana - Final Fantasy Adventure for the 'more so' part, and Mario Allstars foer the 'barely at all' part on the other end...), but changed... you cannot deny this. So as I've said ten times, why debate about something that just does not happen more than a couple of times?
Oh man...
You still don't get it...
so dumb, so dumb...
*sigh*
Look at this thread title. Go ahead, it won't hurt you. See what it says? "Your Nintendo dream list". Huh, I bet you're wondering what that means. Take a look at the first post. Hmm. It says that the thread is about posting a list of games that you'd like to see made,a kind of dream list. Fancy that! So basically what that means is that you're supposed to list games that you would like to see made, no matter how unlikely it is that it'll come true.
Wow, that certainly changes things, doesn't it? Really makes you look like the biggest jackass in the world for your past few pages of posts, eh? Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm thinking right about now.
Whew!
Ah, I'd like to break the fun by saying that if you do a remake and you DON'T improve the graphics, you're lazy and cheap.
Once again though, even nostalgia doesn't usually tie me down. I would never willingly choose NES Marios over the All-Stars except for purposes of comparison. I never play OOT on the N64 since I got it on GC. Why bother? When MGS Twin Snakes comes out, even though the changes are more radical, I'll probably never touch MGS on the Playstation again except for comparison or if I'm bored enough. If the original Silent Hill were revamped, I'd probably never play the original as often.
What I don't get about your manner of thinking is why you would willingly choose an inferior version, even if the improvement doesn't add anything else.
Quote:Oh man...
You still don't get it...
so dumb, so dumb...
*sigh*
Look at this thread title. Go ahead, it won't hurt you. See what it says? "Your Nintendo dream list". Huh, I bet you're wondering what that means. Take a look at the first post. Hmm. It says that the thread is about posting a list of games that you'd like to see made,a kind of dream list. Fancy that! So basically what that means is that you're supposed to list games that you would like to see made, no matter how unlikely it is that it'll come true.
Wow, that certainly changes things, doesn't it? Really makes you look like the biggest jackass in the world for your past few pages of posts, eh? Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm thinking right about now.
Nope. I wouldn't want Nintendo wasting their resources (even in dreamland) on identical copies of old games when new ones or remade ones that are improved are a much, much better idea.
Quote:Once again though, even nostalgia doesn't usually tie me down. I would never willingly choose NES Marios over the All-Stars except for purposes of comparison.
You have no sense of nostalgia... do you like to play old games regardless of their graphics, or not?
Quote: I never play OOT on the N64 since I got it on GC. Why bother?
Because they are completely identical in every way... except the N64 one uses the N64 controller, which is better than the Cube one. I don't see your point here... is there actually a difference between the two? I didn't think so. And either way, as I said, the N64 controller gives a big plus for the N64 one. :)
Quote:What I don't get about your manner of thinking is why you would willingly choose an inferior version, even if the improvement doesn't add anything else.
Well they always add something else. Good or bad? Depends on the game. We'd need to get specific. But they add SOMETHING in virtually every case (unless it's a straight port in which case they well may not but that's quite different).
And I explained why in great depth! In summary, Nostalgia, liking the way it is... and liking the gameplay system as it is, when you dislike the changes they make to a game when they make a sequel or remake it...
Quote:What I don't get about your manner of thinking is why you would willingly choose an inferior version, even if the improvement doesn't add anything else.
My case isn't that the older one is always better... I didn't say that! I said I take it in a case-by-case basis... and, it seems more often than not, the original is the better one... not every case though, which is why you have to do it case-by-case. But broad generalizations like yours... I absolutely disagree.
Quote:Nope. I wouldn't want Nintendo wasting their resources (even in dreamland) on identical copies of old games when new ones or remade ones that are improved are a much, much better idea.
I don't give a damn whether or not you think they should do remakes. This is my dream list, not yours.
So you'd rather that they made graphical updates ("remake" involves more than just graphics) of old Zelda games for the N5 than make a NEW 2d Zelda? Because I don't see the latter on your list...
That's because a 2D Zelda game is already in development. I didn't need to add it.
And doing remakes and graphical updates is the kind of thing new or smaller Nintendo developers would handle. Miyamoto said that that's the perfect kind of training for start-ups. So suck on that. :shakeit:
Oh so now you mention remakes... after spending so much time saying I was an idiot for expanding the discussion to remakes...
I said remakes from the beginning. Mario All-Stars is a remake of the NES games. Just because the gameplay didn't change doesn't mean that they didn't have to remake the game.
And I said that a remake without changing gameplay is extremely rare. We're going in circles. :)
It's called a DREAM LIST, key word being DREAM!
Nintendo knows how to do remakes, so shut that trap of yours before I come over there and beat the hell out of you.
Man... you're lucky you live all the way out there in Maine...
If they were going to go back to the old Zeldas, they should remake (and not just graphically) the NES games. Who knows if they'd turn out better, but it could be really cool...
Don't make me come over there, thread-ruiner.
Hey, I did make a lengthy list on the subject of the thread you know...
Just saying that its not like I didn't contribute.
Yeah...you guys are dorks.
You contribute stupidity and assholeocity.
Quote:Like you aren't.
I AM aren...teh...swah...what?
I don't think I speak German.
I have I please of colts too.
Wait... wha--?
It was originally "I like ponies", then babelfish turned it into "I have taste of colts".